X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 17:18:52 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from outbound-mail.vgs.untd.com ([64.136.55.15] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with SMTP id 3636807 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 09 May 2009 01:08:12 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.55.15; envelope-from=jkezele@juno.com X-UOL-TAGLINE: true Received: from outbound-bu1.vgs.untd.com (webmail01.vgs.untd.com [10.181.12.141]) by smtpout05.vgs.untd.com with SMTP id AABFALD47ANEN8UA for (sender ); Fri, 8 May 2009 22:06:37 -0700 (PDT) X-UNTD-OriginStamp: 9OvJUXd2tUqhLb258iQtPUqwQNCnQd34KpbfHnX8p7yjn76+zBsqXQ== Received: (from jkezele@juno.com) by webmail01.vgs.untd.com (jqueuemail) id PF4J97HU; Fri, 08 May 2009 22:05:57 PDT Received: from [10.181.11.33] by webmail01.vgs.untd.com with HTTP: Sat, 9 May 2009 05:05:18 GMT X-Originating-IP: [10.181.11.33] Mime-Version: 1.0 From: "jkezele@juno.com" X-Original-Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 05:05:18 GMT X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] gross weight for LNC2 X-Mailer: Webmail Version 4.0 X-Original-Message-Id: <20090508.230518.7309.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="--__JWM__J4b28.3726S.0c3fM" X-ContentStamp: 8:4:208413173 X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 10.181.12.141|webmail01.vgs.untd.com|outbound-bu1.vgs.untd.com|jkezele@juno.com ----__JWM__J4b28.3726S.0c3fM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I look at this subject a little different. First, I must state that I a= m not an aeronautical engineer ( but I do keep Daniel Raymer's test "Air= craft Design: A Conceptual Approach" as part of my just for fun books). = I recall that Lancair had a picture of a static load test to 9G. The l= oads with respect to fight dynamics and static are not the same. So if = the designed GW was 1685 lbs then any GW about the designed GW would be = a fraction of the the original designed load factor. For example 1685 = X 9G =3D 15,165 lbs, solve for 1916 lbs and you would get about 7.9 G st= atic. The published Flight load limitation data for 1685 lbs and calculations = similar to above for 1916 lbs is as follows. = 1685 Lbs 1916 Lbs Flaps Up +4.5g -2.3g +3.96g -2.02g Flaps Down +2.5g -2.0g +2.2g -1.76g at 1350 lbs published load limitations: = 1350 Lbs Flaps Up +6.0g -3.0g I don't see it as simple as if IT will take off then I am good to go! I= see it as, if I choose to fly over the designed GW then I am decreasing= my structural margin of safety (factor of safety). Now these are appro= ximates and I have not taken the time to crunch the numbers with respect= to wing loading and increased GW with respect to climb and glide ratios= , maximum ceiling, Takeoff and landing distances, braking coefficients, = inertia loads, gust factors and others. Perhaps someday I will sit down= and build a good V-n diagram, for now this will have to do. Have fun b= uilding and flying. Respectfully, = John Kezele LNC2 (who knows) ____________________________________________________________ Shop from a huge selection of custom labels. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOTMj0NKKBLfqeYxybEyn9= g5Aovz5KloSEDeHmL6PoTOt0WGeSG9S/ ----__JWM__J4b28.3726S.0c3fM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252

I look at this subject a little different.  First, I must = state that I am not an aeronautical engineer ( but I do keep Daniel Raym= er's test "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach" as part of my just fo= r fun books).  I recall that Lancair had a picture of a static load= test to 9G.  The loads with respect to fight dynamics and static a= re not the same.  So if the designed GW was 1685 lbs then any = GW about the designed GW would be a fraction of the the original designe= d load factor.  For example  1685 X 9G =3D 15,165 lbs, solve f= or 1916 lbs and you would get about 7.9 G static.

The published Flight load limitation data for 1685 lbs and calculatio= ns similar to above for 1916 lbs is as follows.

 

1685 Lbs

1916 Lbs

Flaps Up

+4.5g

-2.3g

+3.96g

-2.02g

Flaps Down

+2.5g

-2.0g

+2.2g

-1.76g

at 1350 lbs published load limitations:

 

1350 Lbs

Flaps Up

+6.0g

-3.0g

I don't see it as simple as if IT will take off then= I am good to go!  I see it as, if I choose to fly over the designe= d GW then I am decreasing my structural margin of safety (factor of= safety).  Now these are approximates and I have not taken the time= to crunch the numbers with respect to wing loading and increased GW wit= h respect to climb and glide ratios, maximum ceiling, Takeoff and landin= g distances, braking coefficients, inertia loads, gust factors and other= s.  Perhaps someday I will sit down and build a good V-n diagram, f= or now this will have to do.  Have fun building and flying.

Respectfully,

John Kezele

LNC2 (who knows)



______________________= ______________________________________
Shop fr= om a huge selection of custom labels. Click now!
----__JWM__J4b28.3726S.0c3fM--