X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:25:52 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from oproxy3-pub.bluehost.com ([69.89.21.8] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.4) with SMTP id 5429700 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:05:57 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.89.21.8; envelope-from=danny@n107sd.com Received: (qmail 22902 invoked by uid 0); 5 Mar 2012 23:05:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO host295.hostmonster.com) (66.147.240.95) by oproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2012 23:05:19 -0000 Received: from pool-71-114-9-149.washdc.dsl-w.verizon.net ([71.114.9.149] helo=DannyLaptop) by host295.hostmonster.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1S4gxx-0002zX-Ma for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:05:19 -0700 From: "Danny" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] LNC2 - Harminization between pitch and roll X-Original-Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 18:05:14 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <009601ccfb24$6e0a3960$4a1eac20$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0097_01CCFAFA.85343160" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acz7GMwqMQQ87w07QEGf1sXtjOXtRwACxmEg Content-language: en-us X-Identified-User: {3234:host295.hostmonster.com:wunderwe:n107sd.com} {sentby:smtp auth 71.114.9.149 authed with danny@n107sd.com} This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01CCFAFA.85343160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Randy, Without going into all the engineering that goes into the design of = flight control systems, I=92ll just say that IF you go down this path, hire an Aerospace engineer who specializes in this. The simplest of changes on these controls can cause severely undesirable and deadly consequences. =20 Danny LNC2-360, 550 hours N 38=B0 43' 25.7" W 77=B0 30' 38.6" =20 From: Randy Hartman [mailto:randy@aoaircrafters.com]=20 Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 4:42 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] LNC2 - Harminization between pitch and roll =20 To: All LNC2 drivers and anyone else that wants to weigh in on the = subject, =20 Subject: Stick force harmony (or stick movement vs. control surface movement) between pitch and roll =20 My Lancair 360 (N360DE), which I have flown now for 450 hours, has an characteristic that I would like some input on from all you = well-informed and intelligent LML readers and contributors. =20 The characteristic is: Very sensitive pitch axis that is not harmonized = with the roll axis. =20 I have gotten used to the difference and frankly don't plan on changing anything about it unless someone out there has a good suggestion. I have some questions: 1. Is this typical of the LNC2? 2. What kinds of things should I be concerned about in considering = any changes to the linkage of the system? 3. Has anyone made any changes and what were the results? 4. Does anyone out there have any experience with using full pitch deflection - in any portion of flight? I imagine it might be needed in landing, full flaps, lower speeds - but I have not seen it. =20 It seems to me the way to make an increase in aileron sensitivity is to change the mechanical linkage geometry to effectively make the control surface move more degrees of rotation per degree of stick movement. = This would (and could) be done but the resultant would be the stick not = getting full deflection (as compared to now) in the cockpit when the aileron was = at full deflection. This might not be a bad thing because right now the = stick has to be jammed up against one or the other of your thighs in order to = get the aileron to full deflection. =20 Ideally I would like to have less sensitivity in pitch, resulting in = more stick deflection for the same pitch results as now - and less total = stick deflection in roll, which should result in more roll sensitivity. =20 For clarification purposes - my horizontal stab and elevator are a = one-off design of Chuck Brenner. Chuck was involved with part of the = construction of this project prior to my involvement with it. =20 Randy Hartman Cell (319) 360-9775 ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01CCFAFA.85343160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Randy,

Without going into all the engineering = that goes into the design of flight control systems, I’ll just say = that IF you go down this path, hire an = Aerospace engineer who specializes in this.=A0 The simplest of changes on these = controls can cause severely undesirable and deadly = consequences.

 

Danny

=

LNC2-360, 550 = hours

N 38=B0 43' = 25.7"

W 77=B0 30' = 38.6"

 

From: Randy Hartman = [mailto:randy@aoaircrafters.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 4:42 = PM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] LNC2 - = Harminization between pitch and = roll

 

To: All LNC2 drivers and anyone else that = wants to weigh in on the subject,

 

Subject: Stick force harmony (or stick = movement vs. control surface movement) between pitch and = roll

 

My Lancair 360 (N360DE), which I have flown = now for 450 hours, has an characteristic that I would like some input on = from all you well-informed and intelligent LML readers and = contributors.

 

The characteristic is: Very sensitive pitch = axis that is not harmonized with the roll = axis.

 

I have gotten used to the difference and = frankly don't plan on changing anything about it unless someone out = there has a good suggestion.

I have some = questions:

1.       = Is this typical of the = LNC2?

2.       = What kinds of things should = I be concerned about in considering any changes to the linkage of the = system?

3.       = Has anyone made any changes = and what were the results?

4.       = Does anyone out there have = any experience with using full pitch deflection - in any portion of = flight?  I imagine it might be needed in landing, full flaps, lower = speeds - but I have not seen it.

 

It seems to me the way to make an increase in = aileron sensitivity is to change the mechanical linkage geometry to = effectively make the control surface move more degrees of rotation per = degree of stick movement.  This would (and could) be done but the = resultant would be the stick not getting full deflection (as compared to = now) in the cockpit when the aileron was at full deflection.  This = might not be a bad thing because right now the stick has to be jammed up = against one or the other of your thighs in order to get the aileron to = full deflection.

 

Ideally I would like to have less sensitivity = in pitch, resulting in more stick deflection for the same pitch results = as now - and less total stick deflection in roll, which should result in = more roll sensitivity.

 

For clarification purposes - my horizontal = stab and elevator are a one-off design of Chuck Brenner.  Chuck was = involved with part of the construction of this project prior to my = involvement with it.

 

Randy Hartman

Cell (319) = 360-9775

------=_NextPart_000_0097_01CCFAFA.85343160--