X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:46:41 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3899024@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <kneadedpleasures@sbcglobal.net>
Received: from web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.148] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16)
  with SMTP id 3898051 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:37:00 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.199.148; envelope-from=kneadedpleasures@sbcglobal.net
Received: (qmail 34731 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Oct 2009 17:36:24 -0000
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;
  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=5Vwss5FIr+8aYDRCV1wqri1U8vbwz22s1mosR5cPLDvEdMKDRPOCZHpFMh6igy0W9YtD1J3aYkM43eUHatxqFsRQ8BnmWZi1GAXvrwpDar5PiUMe/XygEq3gzcw9LcUsCYsfuBHhSc2rLFKeyH1Yud1CqGuSEHXfY9kd6ySYXh4=;
X-Original-Message-ID: <420994.33122.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG: U.h2hAMVM1mh3YMdvhM5MQ0t04AGj0MtLMi6qS2HbPyMdYZPTFE-
Received: from [71.145.156.213] by web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:36:23 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/7.0.14 YahooMailWebService/0.7.347.3
X-Original-Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: kneaded pleasures <kneadedpleasures@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Wingtip extensions for 320/360?
X-Original-To: Lancair List <lml@lancaironline.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-483199704-1256405783=:33122"

--0-483199704-1256405783=:33122
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



Dan:=A0 Having flown frequently in various 200 and 360 style of Lancairs,I =
find copious advantages to the long wing and just a few mild disadvantages.
=A0
The long wind advantages are:
=A0=A0=A0 -slower takeoffs=20
=A0=A0=A0 -slower landings
=A0=A0=A0 -less tire wear (takeoffs are shorter)
=A0=A0=A0 -less brake wear (landings are shorter)
=A0=A0=A0 -lower stall speed (57 mph in my 360 at gross)
=A0=A0=A0 -all of above permit more options to use short fields
=A0=A0=A0 -faster climb (more wing lift)
=A0=A0=A0 -longer glide (more wing area)
=A0=A0=A0 -faster speeds at all altitudes (lower angle of attack at all spe=
eds)
=A0=A0=A0 -slower lateral roll rate (makes chop and turns more comfortable =
for pilot and passenger)
=A0=A0=A0 -safer accident speeds (minimum landing speed is reduced)
=A0=A0=A0 -accidents are more survivable (no one=A0would get=A0hurt at 10 m=
ph)
=A0=A0=A0 -traffic pattern flying is safer (slower speeds possible because =
of lower stall speed)
=A0=A0=A0 -time to climb to altitude is reduced
=A0=A0=A0 -engine out glide is improved (more time to "think" and maneuver =
to alternatives)
=A0=A0=A0 -more fuel capacity=A0(I don't recommend this option; 1000 mile r=
ange=A0is plenty)
=A0
The several disadvantages are:
=A0=A0=A0 -reduced maneuvering speeds (potential to overstress our quite st=
rong wings)
=A0=A0=A0 -reduced wing loading causes (nearly) imperceptible reduced comfo=
rt in chop
=A0
The above lists are not exhaustive and surely others will add or subtract.
=A0
Remember that Lance endorsed the long-wing which suggests that=A0the longer=
 wings=A0don't challenge structural integrity=A0in our planes.=A0 Also reme=
mber that it was not by accident that=A0Nature designed=A0long-distance bir=
ds to have long, thin, narrow wings; they are simply more efficient and ene=
rgy efficient=A0at flying.=A0 OTOH, if you fly gut-wrenching, severe "G's",=
 then long wings will not answer.
=A0
Dan, I recommend that you not make those longer wingtips removable; you won=
't remove them after you fly them.=A0=A0 Greg Nelson =A0(LNC2)
--0-483199704-1256405783=:33122
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<table cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D"0" ><tr><td valign=3D"=
top" style=3D"font: inherit;"><DIV id=3Dyiv176600925>
<DIV id=3Dyiv1860013837>
<DIV>Dan:&nbsp; Having flown frequently in various 200 and 360 style of Lan=
cairs,I find copious advantages to the long wing and just a few mild disadv=
antages.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The long wind advantages are:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -slower takeoffs </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -slower landings</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -less tire wear (takeoffs are shorter)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -less brake wear (landings are shorter)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -lower stall speed (57 mph in my 360 at gross)</DIV=
>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -all of above permit more options to use short fiel=
ds</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -faster climb (more wing lift)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -longer glide (more wing area)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -faster speeds at all altitudes (lower angle of att=
ack at all speeds)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -slower lateral roll rate (makes chop and turns mor=
e comfortable for pilot and passenger)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -safer accident speeds (minimum landing speed is re=
duced)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -accidents are more survivable (no one&nbsp;would g=
et&nbsp;hurt at 10 mph)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -traffic pattern flying is safer (slower speeds pos=
sible because of lower stall speed)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -time to climb to altitude is reduced</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -engine out glide is improved (more time to "think"=
 and maneuver to alternatives)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -more fuel capacity&nbsp;(I don't recommend this op=
tion; 1000 mile range&nbsp;is plenty)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The several disadvantages are:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -reduced maneuvering speeds (potential to overstres=
s our quite strong wings)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -reduced wing loading causes (nearly) imperceptible=
 reduced comfort in chop</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The above lists are not exhaustive and surely others will add or subtr=
act.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Remember that Lance endorsed the long-wing which suggests that&nbsp;th=
e longer wings&nbsp;don't challenge structural integrity&nbsp;in our planes=
.&nbsp; Also remember that it was not by accident that&nbsp;Nature designed=
&nbsp;long-distance birds to have long, thin, narrow wings; they are simply=
 more efficient and energy efficient&nbsp;at flying.&nbsp; OTOH, if you fly=
 gut-wrenching, severe "G's", then long wings will not answer.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Dan, I recommend that you not make those longer wingtips removable; yo=
u won't remove them after you fly them.&nbsp;&nbsp; Greg Nelson &nbsp;(LNC2=
)</DIV></DIV></DIV></td></tr></table>
--0-483199704-1256405783=:33122--