Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 12:01:16 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b8) with ESMTP id 1795312 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:58:53 -0400 Received: from RWolf99@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id q.5b.2ef6fe55 (1320) for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:58:49 -0400 (EDT) From: RWolf99@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <5b.2ef6fe55.2acb2038@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:58:48 EDT Subject: Reducing Pitch Sensitivity X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 108 Moving the elevator attachment point inwards -- towards the axis of rotation -- is a good way to reduce the pitch sensitivity. You accomplish two things that way. You get less elevator motion for a given stick displacement, and it takes more force to get it. (Actually, stick force is the issue more than stick displacement.) Best of all, the modification is minimal and is easily reversible. You can move the attachment point back where it was and leave the empty hole there if you don't get the results you want. I would think that 3/4 inch would be okay. You might actually put in two holes -- a hole as close as you possibly can to the axis of rotation and another in between that one and the original one. (I don't know how much room you have in the IV's) Choose during the flight test phase. For the record, I have flown two Lancair 360's. One was way too pitch sensitive and the other was very, very nice. Yes, the sensitive one had a small tail but I think it was more of a CG issue (light stick forces) than a tail size issue (pitch damping). The big-tail airplane had a very far forward CG. - Rob Wolf