X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:34:27 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.145] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3869032 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:27:21 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.145; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from imo-da02.mx.aol.com (imo-da02.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.200]) by imr-da03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n8TDQj8u029698 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:26:45 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-da02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id q.c1f.6b290e5c (65098) for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:26:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:26:54 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 360 rudder weight X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1254230814" X-Mailer: AOL 9.1 sub 5006 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: Sky2high@aol.com -------------------------------1254230814 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kudos to those that picked up on my error. Yes, less weight to balance the rudder, but weight at a further aft arm for the aircraft CG. In a private email the builder has adequately located other weights forward, including using a long engine mount. What awaits is the final weighing of the aircraft for W&B CG purposes. Grayhawk Yup, a good dose of thinking is better done before the flying finger of fate roams the keyboard. In a message dated 9/28/2009 8:20:38 P.M. Central Daylight Time, michael.s.reinath@nasa.gov writes: <> It is true that it is more aft in terms of fuselage station, but it is actually closer to the hinge line at the top, and should require a little less weight to balance. Mike Reinath LNC2 at 960 hrs San Jose, CA -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html -------------------------------1254230814 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Kudos to those that picked up on my error. Yes, less weight to balanc= e the=20 rudder, but weight at a further aft arm for the aircraft CG.  In= a=20 private email the builder has adequately located other weights forward,=20 including using a long engine mount.  What awaits is the final weighi= ng of=20 the aircraft for W&B CG purposes.
 
Grayhawk
 
Yup, a good dose of thinking is better done before the flyi= ng=20 finger of fate roams the keyboard.
 
In a message dated 9/28/2009 8:20:38 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 michael.s.reinath@nasa.gov writes:
<<Then, you placed the tail light high on the rudder= - more=20 aft than low on
the rudder - thus requiring even more balance=20 weight.>>

It is true that it is more aft in terms of fusela= ge=20 station, but it is
actually closer to the hinge line at the top, and= should=20 require a little
less weight to balance.


Mike Reinath
L= NC2 at=20 960 hrs
San Jose, CA


--
For archives and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html=
-------------------------------1254230814--