X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:55:08 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from tr13.bluewin.ch ([195.186.18.82] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3637952 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 10 May 2009 15:32:29 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=195.186.18.82; envelope-from=patrick.hayoz@bluemail.ch Received: from [192.168.1.49] (83.76.78.246) by tr13.bluewin.ch (The Blue Window 8.0.0228.0.022) (authenticated as patrick.hayoz@bluemail.ch) id 49AD5D4B01BA7AD4 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 10 May 2009 19:31:54 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.15.0.081119 X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 21:31:52 +0200 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: gross weight for LNC2 From: Patrick Hayoz X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: gross weight for LNC2 Thread-Index: AcnRpfgokdEjDQyUE0SAwb9FH1F4NA== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3324835914_1929935" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3324835914_1929935 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Does there exist some numbers of Flight load limitations and critical speed= s for the extended wing configuration of a Lancair 320 ( Mine=B9s flying since 2003) ? Considering the original 1685 Lbs and the the 1800 Lbs MTOW. Thank you for any comments and considerations. Respectfully Patrick Hayoz LNC2 Am 09.05.09 23:18 schrieb "jkezele@juno.com" unter : > I look at this subject a little different. First, I must state that I am= not > an aeronautical engineer ( but I do keep Daniel Raymer's test "Aircraft > Design: A Conceptual Approach" as part of my just for fun books). I reca= ll > that Lancair had a picture of a static load test to 9G. The loads with > respect to fight dynamics and static are not the same. So if the designe= d 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, solv= e for > 1916 lbs and you would get about 7.9 G static. >=20 > The published Flight load limitation data for 1685 lbs and calculations > similar to above for 1916 lbs is as follows. >=20 > 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: >=20 > 1350 Lbs=20 > 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 approximat= es > 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 loa= ds, > gust factors and others. Perhaps someday I will sit down and build a goo= d V-n > diagram, for now this will have to do. Have fun building and flying. >=20 > Respectfully,=20 >=20 > John Kezele >=20 > LNC2 (who knows) >=20 >=20 > ____________________________________________________________ > Shop from a huge selection of custom labels. Click now! > z5KloSEDeHmL6PoTOt0WGeSG9S/> >=20 --=20 --B_3324835914_1929935 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] Re: gross weight for LNC2 Does there exist some numbers of Flight load limitations and critical spee= ds for the extended wing  configuration of a Lancair 320 ( Mine’s= flying since 2003) ?

Considering the original 1685 Lbs and the the 1800 Lbs MTOW.
Thank you for any comments and considerations.

Respectfully

Patrick Hayoz

LNC2


Am 09.05.09 23:18 schrieb "jkezele@juno.com= " unter <jkezele@juno.com>:
<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>I look at this subject a little different.  = ;First, I must state that I am not an aeronautical engineer ( but I do keep = Daniel Raymer's test "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach" as p= art of my just for 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 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 lo= ad factor.  For example  1685 X 9G =3D 15,165 lbs, solve for 1916 lb= s and you would get about 7.9 G static.

The published Flight load limitation data for 1685 lbs and calculations sim= ilar to above for 1916 lbs is as follows.

 16= 85 Lbs 1916 Lbs
Flaps Up +4.5g -2.3g +3.96g -2.02g
Flaps Down +2.5g<= FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> -2.0g = +2.2g -1.76g
at 1350 lbs publishe= d load limitations:

 1350 Lbs
Flaps Up +6.0g -3.0g
I don't see it as si= mple 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 m= argin of safety (factor of safety).  Now these are approximates and I h= ave not taken the time to crunch the numbers with respect to wing loading an= d increased GW with respect to climb and glide ratios, maximum ceiling, Take= off and landing distances, braking coefficients, inertia loads, gust factors= and others.  Perhaps someday I will sit down and build a good V-n diag= ram, for now this will have to do.  Have fun building and flying.

Respectfully,

John Kezele

LNC2 (who knows)


____________________________________________________________
Shop from a huge selection of custom labels. Click now! <http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/BLSrjpTO= TMj0NKKBLfqeYxybEyn9g5Aovz5KloSEDeHmL6PoTOt0WGeSG9S/>


--

--B_3324835914_1929935--