X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:58:53 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-mb02.mx.aol.com ([64.12.207.163] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.4) with ESMTP id 5431118 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:13:44 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.207.163; envelope-from=n5276j@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.74]) by imr-mb02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q26LD1KX025451 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:13:01 -0500 Received: from core-mlb004c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mlb004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.186.146]) by mtaomg-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 05C27E00008B for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:13:01 -0500 (EST) References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LNC2 - Harmonization between pitch and roll In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: steve X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CEC9F50BD736E3_2050_7125_webmail-m162.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 35683-STANDARD Received: from 166.250.0.90 by webmail-m162.sysops.aol.com (64.12.183.158) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:13:00 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CEC9F50BC68D27-2050-1AF8@webmail-m162.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [166.250.0.90] X-Original-Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:13:00 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:502380704:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294a4f567ddd352f This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CEC9F50BD736E3_2050_7125_webmail-m162.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Grayhawk, I do have the black anodized aluminum brackets, also the kit was from 11/19= 89 #471. I did not buy the kit back then, picked it up years ago and finish= ed it. Measuring it on the airplane it looks like 3" defienty not 4". I don= 't understand the 2.5" or 3" addition? I have 7 tt and no problem with the= pitch not near as bad as a KR2 which I flew for many years and hours.=20 Rob got my attention when he talked about the different colors which made m= e think of steel and I thought my was aluminum. It does look like it was ch= ange to 3" . I built in a trim tab (9x3) with mac servo that works almost perfect. Can't= quite trim down at full speed flaps reflexed but just a bump on the flap s= witch fix's it. It does however trim up on approach. I could re-adjust for = cruise but would loose approach or build a bigger tab. I think I'll leave i= t alone. Was there any problems with the aluminum brackets? Steve Alderman 360 7TT -----Original Message----- From: Sky2high To: lml lml@lancaironline.net. Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 12:03 pm Subject: [LML] Re: LNC2 - Harmonization between pitch and roll Steve, =20 Well, it depends........ If you got a standard kit with the optional hardwa= re package circa 1989, you would have received black anodized aluminum brac= kets with a distance of 4 inches when bolted to the bottom of the elevator'= s [-shaped center forward spar to the push-rod mounting hole. =20 =20 However, the hinge point is at the top of that style elevator and that adds= 2.5 or 3 inches to the "arm". Thanks to Rob, the light bulb came on and I= have to retract the statement that the change represented 25% in force and= throw. If one measures from the hinge line, the arm went from about 7 in= ches to 6 inches when the bracket hole was moved 1" (or 6.5 to 5.5). Perha= ps I should drill another hole to shorten it further, as long as the push r= od doesn't engage a bulkhead or the elevator through the full range of the = elevator. Uh, I don't think I will since the pitch stick force is already p= retty heavy in a 2G pull and my pitch system, including trim, system is bal= anced quite nicely right now. =20 If you got the MKII center hinged elevator, the arm may be of a different l= ength and finish, but yielding similar results --- or maybe not. =20 The 200 and 300 series Lancairs have the most options and modifications of = any kits I have ever seen...... And you want an exact measurement without s= pecifying the details of the elevator system? =20 I know nothing about when Lancair changed the bracket or how it was changed= . In any event, the kit date is very important.=20 =20 Grayhawk AKA Scott N92EX 320 =20 In a message dated 3/6/2012 9:31:51 A.M. Central Standard Time, n5276j@aol.= com writes: Hi ALL =20 I think all us new flyers could use the exact measurement from the hinge po= int to the attach hole. Also what is this bracket made from? steel ? =20 steve alderman 360 7 TT and counting -----Original Message----- From: rwolf99 To: lml Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 5:39 am Subject: [LML] Re: LNC2 - Harminization between pitch and roll Bill is right. Handling qualities are all about stick FORCE. Stick displac= ement is not the issue, as long as you have enough room to push the stick a= s far as you need. =20 Moving a pivot point in the linkage closer to the axis of rotation will inc= rease stick force, and also reduce stick travel, for a given elevator displ= acement (i.e. for a given aircraft response). The Lancair 320 accomplished= this in the 1990's by changing the elevator weldment (the bracket bolted t= o the elevator that the aft pushrod attaches to). The new weldment moved th= e attach point 1 inch closer to the axis of rotation (just as Bill said). = But fear not, the earlier guys just drilled an extra hole in their weldment= and ignored the original hole. In principle you can do this anywhere in t= he system, but it seems to be easiest to implement out at the tail. =20 I have both weldments in my hangar. The old one is kinda gold, almost as t= hough it were cadmium plated like an AN bolt. The new one is silver, almos= t as though it were chrome plated. But the bottom line is the number of in= ches away from the pivot point. If I recall correctly the new one is 2 poi= nt something inches away and the old one is 3 point something inches. (Big= help, huh?) I would have to go to the hangar to check. =20 This mod is fairly benign. =20 =20 Keeping the CG forward helps, too, but is harder to accomplish. Moving a b= attery from behind the seat to the front of the passenger footwell might be= worth investigating if you don't have rudder pedals there. =20 - Rob Wolf ----------MB_8CEC9F50BD736E3_2050_7125_webmail-m162.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Grayhawk,
 
I do have the black anodized aluminum brackets, also the kit was from = 11/1989 #471. I did not buy the kit back then, picked it up years ago and f= inished it. Measuring it on the airplane it looks like 3" defienty not 4". = I don't understand the 2.5" or 3" addition?  I have 7 tt and no proble= m with the pitch not near as bad as a KR2 which I flew for many y= ears and hours. 
 
Rob got my attention when he talked about the different colors which m= ade me think of steel and I thought my was aluminum. It does look= like it was change to 3" .
I built in a trim tab (9x3) with mac servo that works almost= perfect. Can't quite trim down at full speed flaps reflexed but just a bum= p on the flap switch fix's it. It does however trim up on approach. I = could re-adjust for cruise but would loose approach or build a bigger tab. = I think I'll leave it alone.
 
Was there any problems with the aluminum brackets?
 
Steve Alderman  360 7TT


= -----Original Message-----
From: Sky2high <Sky2high@aol.com>
To: lml lml@lancaironline.net.=
Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 12:03 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: LNC2 - Harmonization between pitch and roll

Steve,
 
Well, it depends........ If you got a standard kit with the optio= nal hardware package circa 1989, you would have received black anodize= d aluminum brackets with a distance of 4 inches when bolted to the bot= tom of the elevator's [-shaped center forward spar to the push-ro= d mounting hole. 
 
However, the hinge point is at the top of that style elevator and that= adds 2.5 or 3 inches to the "arm".  Thanks to Rob, the ligh= t bulb came on and I have to retract the statement that the change rep= resented 25% in force and throw.   If one measures from the = hinge line, the arm went from about 7 inches to 6 inches when the bracket h= ole was moved 1" (or 6.5 to 5.5).  Perhaps I should drill another hole= to shorten it further, as long as the push rod doesn't engage a bulkh= ead or the elevator through the full range of the elevator. Uh, I don'= t think I will since the pitch stick force is already pretty heav= y in a 2G pull and my pitch system, including trim, system is balanced quit= e nicely right now.
 
If you got the MKII center hinged elevator, the arm may be of a differ= ent length and finish, but yielding similar results --- or maybe not.
 
The 200 and 300 series Lancairs have the most options and modific= ations of any kits I have ever seen...... And you want an exact measurement= without specifying the details of the elevator system?
 
I know nothing about when Lancair changed the bracket or how it was ch= anged.  In any event, the kit date is very important.
 
Grayhawk AKA Scott
N92EX 320
 
In a message dated 3/6/2012 9:31:51 A.M. Central Standard Time, n5276j@aol.com writes:
Hi ALL
 
I think all us new flyers could use the exact measurement from the hin= ge point to the attach hole. Also what is this bracket made from?  ste= el ?
 
steve alderman   360   7  TT  and counti= ng

= -----Original Message-----
From: rwolf99 <rwolf99@aol.com>= ;
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net<= /A>>
Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 5:39 am
Subject: [LML] Re: LNC2 - Harminization between pitch and roll

Bill is right.  Handling qualities are all about stick = FORCE. Stick displacement is not the issue, as long as you have enough room= to push the stick as far as you need.
 
Moving a pivot point in the linkage closer to the axis of rotation wil= l increase stick force, and also reduce stick travel, for a given elevator = displacement (i.e. for a given aircraft response).  The Lancair 320 ac= complished this in the 1990's by changing the elevator weldment (the bracke= t bolted to the elevator that the aft pushrod attaches to). The new weldmen= t moved the attach point 1 inch closer to the axis of rotation (just as Bil= l said).  But fear not, the earlier guys just drilled an extra hole in= their weldment and ignored the original hole.  In principle you can d= o this anywhere in the system, but it seems to be easiest to implement out = at the tail.
 
I have both weldments in my hangar.  The old one is kinda gold, a= lmost as though it were cadmium plated like an AN bolt.  The new one i= s silver, almost as though it were chrome plated.  But the bottom line= is the number of inches away from the pivot point.  If I recall corre= ctly the new one is 2 point something inches away and the old one is 3 poin= t something inches.  (Big help, huh?)  I would have to go to the = hangar to check.
 
This mod is fairly benign. 
 
Keeping the CG forward helps, too, but is harder to accomplish.&n= bsp; Moving a battery from behind the seat to the front of the passenger fo= otwell might be worth investigating if you don't have rudder pedals there.<= /div>
 
- Rob Wolf
 ----------MB_8CEC9F50BD736E3_2050_7125_webmail-m162.sysops.aol.com--