X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:43:38 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.61] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.5) with ESMTP id 5557326 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 May 2012 07:27:07 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.61; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=b/JhmIywOsAIU5HJ/5tiP5Abr5Gc8lmrS/QjUF9Sp+lLaQ0yjafhwDK9w3/SpgGK; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [70.20.59.69] (helo=[192.168.1.24]) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1SXWBU-0005Ib-GG for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 May 2012 07:26:24 -0400 From: Colyn Case Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-56-921814526 Subject: Re: [LML] Winglet installation opinions? X-Original-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 07:26:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da94097d69fe335eb752d977446529bf1b793350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 70.20.59.69 --Apple-Mail-56-921814526 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi Dan, I would vote for removable. A couple related issues: 1) you might not want them at all. although the look cool they slow you = down when low and don't speed you up when high. 2) winglets are associated with higher aileron control forces 3) Matt Collier sells an alternate wingtip and leading edge cuff which = addresses (1) and (2) above and he says improve slow speed handling. 4) The carbon in the winglet is believed by some to adversely affect nav = antenna performance. I think Bob Pastusek is the only one I know that = got it to work. Colyn On May 23, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Dan & Kari Olsen wrote: Greetings LML Gang, =20 I=92m starting on the installation of the winglet on my first wing of = the IV-P. My desire is to bond the winglets on permanently as I don=92t = see a good reason to make them removable. The lights will be removable = through their lens covers.=20 =20 Interested in hearing from other IV-P owners as to whether you have = needed to remove your winglets or not. Would I be making a big mistake = by making them permanent? =20 Dan Olsen Fort Collins, CO N320DK, 320 MKII =96 635hrs IV-P =96 7% complete =20 =20 =20 --Apple-Mail-56-921814526 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Hi Dan,

I would vote for = removable.

A couple related issues:

1) you might not = want them at all. although the look cool they slow you down when low and = don't speed you up when high.

2) winglets are associated with = higher aileron control forces

3) Matt Collier sells an = alternate wingtip and leading edge cuff which addresses (1) and (2) = above and he says improve slow speed handling.

4) The carbon = in the winglet is believed by some to adversely affect nav antenna = performance. I think Bob Pastusek is the only one I know that got = it to = work.

Colyn

On= May 23, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Dan & Kari Olsen wrote:

Greetings LML = Gang,

I=92m starting on = the installation of the winglet on my first wing of the IV-P. My = desire is to bond the winglets on permanently as I don=92t see a good = reason to make them removable. The lights will be removable = through their lens covers.

Interested in hearing from other = IV-P owners as to whether you have needed to remove your winglets or = not. Would I be making a big mistake by making them = permanent?

Fort Collins, = CO

N320DK, 320 MKII =96 635hrs