Return-Path: Received: from baron.nii.net ([209.113.172.16]) by ns1.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-64832U3500L350S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 09:00:52 -0400 Received: from nii.net (xcom15.nii.net [209.113.173.79]) by baron.nii.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17181; Mon, 1 May 2000 09:06:38 -0400 Message-ID: <390D80E1.E6DE1AB5@nii.net> Disposition-Notification-To: "Angier M. Ames" Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 09:04:34 -0400 From: "Angier M. Ames" Reply-To: alphadog@nii.net Organization: Alpha Delta Research To: "Lance A. Neibauer" CC: Lancair Subject: LNC2 control surfaces X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Good morning Lance, Since achieving and maintaining laminar flow is important (understatement) for our little speed demons, I'm hoping you might offer your 2 cents on the subject of where the leading edge of all control surfaces should be in relation to the trailing edge of the wing, vertical and horizontal stabs. I think we're all agreed that the LE should not be below and that flush with is OK. But are there any benefits to having the control surface leading edges HIGHER, say upwards of .125" above the trailing edges. Is better laminar flow all the way back to the trailing edges of the control surfaces achieved by doing this or is this unnecessary. Thanks for your thoughts. Angier Ames >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>