X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:34:00 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-mb01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.207.164] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6028243 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:21:51 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.207.164; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.74]) by imr-mb01.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id A42581C000298 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:21:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mte004c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mte004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.236.77]) by mtaomg-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 58AC9E00008B for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:21:17 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com Full-name: Sky2high X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:21:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Max Gross 360 LNC2 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f706.c8629cd.3e330ddb_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 168 X-Originating-IP: [67.175.156.123] x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:482154688:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294a5101b3dd7ff1 --part1_f706.c8629cd.3e330ddb_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rob, Man, you are really stretching my memory. I think the original link used rivets to hold the rod end in the main gear over center link and severe side stress had caused a few failures. I had an '89 kit with the bad part that I replaced with the newer one before I finished building in 1996.. I think the new part used heli-coils and a threaded rod end for a more secure marriage.he new part. BTW, those side load failures occurred without loading up the airplane. If I'm wrong I am sure some young whippersnapper will correct me. Yes, the landing gear and its related parts were designed for the 1685 max lading weight and are still the same. Think about the way the nose gear is attached to the engine mount - not the beefiest set up. And, yep again - the 300 series Lancairs have had the most options, alterations and modifications you could ever think of. Engines from 320s to 360s to 390s. Some with turbo charging. Prop models galore. Electronic ignitions of several varieties. Fast or slow build kit. Trim tabs or inside trim. Wing extensions. Outback landing gear or regular. Parallel or front hinged canopy. Fuel tank additions and deletions of the header tank, selector valves or not. Big tail or small. Long engine mount or short standard. And, many more of modifications in every combination. Every Lancair 320/360 is a one off. Do what you want - you are building it. But, remember that it is an experimental aircraft and no matter who designed it, it is your name that goes on the make/model id plate. Good luck, Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk In a message dated 1/15/2013 12:22:40 P.M. Central Standard Time, rob@robmurawski.com writes: With all of this discussion on max gross weights for the Lancair 320/360, what is the engineering/design decisions that has gone into increasing the gross weight? The reason I ask is that, I assume, the factory has done some type of engineering analysis. The factory increase in gross weight document is: http://www.lancair.com/media/builderupdates/235-320-360/Non-PDF-Docs/WeightI ncrease320-360.pdf Here, it states that the new main gear overcenter link must be used (Standard in kits produced after 10/93), the stall speed will be increased, and the allowable G limits are reduced to +4.0/-2.0. (Those reduced G limits aren't normally a problem for me) The maximum landing weight has not been changed. In Mac McClellan's blog http://macsblog.com/2011/08/when-a-kit-aircraft-is-not-a-kit-aircraft/ he asserts that all changes to a kit make each one a one-off. He refers to Dick (Van's) VanGrunsven's article about the engineering that goes into setting the RV-10's gross weight: http://macsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/94-99_Handbook_v6.pdf While Van (nor I) dispute that there are airplanes flying around (successfully) with higher gross weights, I'm concerned that I do not have the engineering background to justify any gross weight other than to use what the factory provides. Vans asserts that the built-in engineering margin belongs to the designer and you can't have it. In particular, does the G loading become so low that I'd have to be concerned about turbulence breaking my wings off? I have no idea. Granted, the 360 has a lot of factory options. And I agree that no two are probably alike. But I feel a little better while building mine that I'm sticking to something that a real aeronautical engineer designed and approved. (That is meant that *I* do not have the aeronautical engineering skills to make that determination, I can't speak for anyone else) Thoughts? I have no idea what mine will weigh when finished. But I know the girlfriend likes to pack heavy. Might be time to look for a 4-place... -Rob (Lancair 360 MKII, 15% completed) -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --part1_f706.c8629cd.3e330ddb_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rob,
 
Man, you are really stretching my memory.  I think the original l= ink=20 used rivets to hold the rod end in the main gear over center link and= =20 severe side stress had caused a few failures.  I had an '89 kit w= ith=20 the bad part that I replaced with the newer one before I finished building = in=20 1996..  I think the new part used heli-coils and a threaded rod end fo= r a=20 more secure marriage.he new part.  BTW, those side load failures occur= red=20 without loading up the airplane.  If I'm wrong I am sure some young=20 whippersnapper will correct me.
 
Yes, the landing gear and its related parts were designed for the 1685= =20 max lading weight and are still the same.  Think about the way th= e=20 nose gear is attached to the engine mount - not the beefiest set up.
 
And, yep again - the 300 series Lancairs have had the most options,=20 alterations and modifications you could  ever think of.  Eng= ines=20 from 320s to 360s to 390s.  Some with turbo charging. Prop models= =20 galore. Electronic ignitions of several varieties.  Fast or slow build= =20 kit.  Trim tabs or inside trim. Wing extensions.  Outback landing= gear=20 or regular.  Parallel or front hinged canopy.  Fuel tank=20 additions and deletions of the header tank, selector valves or not.  B= ig=20 tail or small.  Long engine mount or short standard.  And, m= any=20 more of modifications in every combination.  Every Lancair= =20 320/360 is a one off. 
 
Do what you want - you are building it.  But, remember that it is= an=20 experimental aircraft and no matter who designed it, it is your name that g= oes=20 on the make/model id plate. 
 
Good luck,
 
Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk
 
In a message dated 1/15/2013 12:22:40 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 rob@robmurawski.com writes:
= With all=20 of this discussion on max gross weights for the Lancair 320/360,
what = is=20 the engineering/design decisions that has gone into increasing the
gro= ss=20 weight?  The reason I ask is that, I assume, the factory has done=20 some
type of engineering analysis.  The factory increase in gross= =20 weight=20 document
is:

http://www.lancair.com/media/builderupdates/235-32= 0-360/Non-PDF-Docs/WeightI
ncrease320-360.pdf

Here,=20 it states that the new main gear overcenter link must be used
(Standar= d in=20 kits produced after 10/93), the stall speed will be increased,
and the= =20 allowable G limits are reduced to +4.0/-2.0. (Those reduced G limits
a= ren't=20 normally a problem for me)  The maximum landing weight has not=20 been
changed.

In Mac McClellan's=20 blog
http://macsblog.com/2011/08/when-a-kit-aircraft-is-not-a-kit-airc= raft/=20 he
asserts that all changes to a kit make each one a one-off.  He= =20 refers to
Dick (Van's) VanGrunsven's article about the engineering tha= t=20 goes into
setting the RV-10's gross=20 weight:
http://macsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/94-99_Handbook_= v6.pdf

While=20 Van (nor I) dispute that there are airplanes flying around
(successful= ly)=20 with higher gross weights, I'm concerned that I do not have
the engine= ering=20 background to justify any gross weight other than to use
what the fact= ory=20 provides.  Vans asserts that the built-in engineering
margin belo= ngs=20 to the designer and you can't have it.

In particular, does the G= =20 loading become so low that I'd have to be
concerned about turbulence= =20 breaking my wings off?  I have no idea.

Granted, the 360 has = a lot=20 of factory options.  And I agree that no two are
probably alike.&= nbsp;=20 But I feel a little better while building mine that I'm
sticking to=20 something that a real aeronautical engineer designed and
approved.&nbs= p;=20 (That is meant that *I* do not have the aeronautical engineering
skill= s to=20 make that determination, I can't speak for anyone=20 else)

Thoughts?

I have no idea what mine will weigh when=20 finished.  But I know the
girlfriend likes to pack heavy. Might b= e=20 time to look for a 4-place...

-Rob  (Lancair 360 MKII, 15%=20 completed)



--
For archives and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
--part1_f706.c8629cd.3e330ddb_boundary--