X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:53:17 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-iy0-f180.google.com ([209.85.210.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.4) with ESMTPS id 5432030 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:36:06 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.210.180; envelope-from=gws37@plantationcable.net Received: by iage36 with SMTP id e36so9438290iag.25 for ; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 06:35:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.181.162 with SMTP id dx2mr1949229igc.42.1331130929255; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 06:35:29 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from d5100 ([12.237.32.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a9sm17843650igd.3.2012.03.07.06.35.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 07 Mar 2012 06:35:28 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Message-ID: <590D3EE3439A46628C8B4DAB522A288A@d5100> From: "George Shattuck" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: LNC2 - Harminization between pitch and roll X-Original-Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 09:35:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0068_01CCFC45.9F5E1D70" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl0qL8m6JnwNu71fG2pq9Yfg/HwqVYRJU0P0sljaz4rwi6jCgpxWAfow1C0HHHhJ84ZganI This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0068_01CCFC45.9F5E1D70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To echo Bucky Whittier, it is the nature of the beast. No big deal for = me. During construction I shortened the elevator control horn to lessen = that pitch sensitivity but the control harmony is still not matched = well. =20 George Shattuck LNC2, small tail, 1500 hrs. +/-, goes fast, love it, wouldn't change a = thing. =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Randy Hartman=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 4:41 PM Subject: LNC2 - Harminization between pitch and roll 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_0068_01CCFC45.9F5E1D70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To echo Bucky Whittier, it is the = nature of the=20 beast.  No big deal for me.  During construction I shortened = the=20 elevator control horn to lessen that pitch sensitivity but the control = harmony=20 is still not matched well.  
 
George Shattuck
LNC2, small tail, 1500 hrs. +/-, goes = fast, love=20 it, wouldn't change a thing.
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Randy=20 Hartman
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 4:41 PM
Subject: LNC2 - Harminization between pitch and = roll

To: All LNC2 drivers and anyone else that wants to = weigh in=20 on the subject,

 

Subject: Stick force harmony (or stick movement vs. = control=20 surface movement) between pitch and roll

 

My Lancair 360 (N360DE), which I have flown now for = 450=20 hours, has an characteristic that I would like some input on from all = you=20 well-informed and intelligent LML readers and = contributors.

 

The characteristic is: Very sensitive pitch axis = that is not=20 harmonized with the roll axis.

 

I have gotten used to the difference and frankly = don't plan=20 on changing anything about it unless someone out there has a good=20 suggestion.

I have some questions:

1.      =20 Is this typical of the LNC2?

2.      =20 What kinds of things should I be concerned about = in=20 considering any changes to the linkage of the system?

3.      =20 Has anyone made any changes and what were the=20 results?

4.      =20 Does anyone out there have any experience with = using=20 full pitch deflection - in any portion of flight?  I imagine it = might be=20 needed in landing, full flaps, lower speeds - but I have not seen=20 it.

 

It seems to me the way to make an increase in = aileron=20 sensitivity is to change the mechanical linkage geometry to effectively = make the=20 control surface move more degrees of rotation per degree of stick=20 movement.  This would (and could) be done but the resultant would = be the=20 stick not getting full deflection (as compared to now) in the cockpit = when the=20 aileron was at full deflection.  This might not be a bad thing = because=20 right now the stick has to be jammed up against one or the other of your = thighs=20 in order to get the aileron to full deflection.

 

Ideally I would like to have less sensitivity in = pitch,=20 resulting in more stick deflection for the same pitch results as now - = and less=20 total stick deflection in roll, which should result in more roll=20 sensitivity.

 

For clarification purposes - my horizontal stab and = elevator=20 are a one-off design of Chuck Brenner.  Chuck was involved with = part of the=20 construction of this project prior to my involvement with = it.

 

Randy Hartman

Cell (319) = 360-9775

------=_NextPart_000_0068_01CCFC45.9F5E1D70--