X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from omr-d09.mx.aol.com ([205.188.108.133] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTP id 6294710 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 28 May 2013 17:35:06 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.108.133; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb05.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb05.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.76]) by omr-d09.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 31D8D7000008C for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 17:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-mta001c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mta001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.234.129]) by mtaomg-mb05.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 7D872E000096 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 17:34:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com Full-name: Sky2high Message-ID: <1491a9.7d7a1ffe.3ed67ce5@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 17:34:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lancair Aerobatics To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1491a9.7d7a1ffe.3ed67ce5_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 168 X-Originating-IP: [67.175.156.123] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1369776871; bh=B36o/7uy6MBB7T2rkYOBc2XuDCLyDy57qsWrjm3Y8C4=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=iiI1/0J/v3zW6dn6oU/n/t2v2lP+8yufc6li+O47nLHzcymWwnR5VD58JH4XKprOG AG3P55g073XPVkkN+jS3xukEu2QGrVtVnRZQ5Ws60L0mosiN0F2A+HHGsxlVfGQod/ WpcifSEgOS+uq3it2AfjdF6S+JVVxHdLbSGT5eFM= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:488504704:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294c51a522e6010a --part1_1491a9.7d7a1ffe.3ed67ce5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Tom, et al, =20 OK, here it is from the horse's mouth ....... =20 =20 =20 Page 9 of Chapter I of the POH (Dec 1994) claims a 320/360 wing loading of= =20 22.17 lbs per sq ft at max takeoff weight (MTOW). Page 10 of Chapter II= =20 states the 320/360 MTOW is 1685 lbs. 1685/22.17 =3D 76 sq ft wing area. F= or=20 those that increased their MTOW to 1800 lbs, the wing loading would be=20 calculated as 1800/76 =3D 23.7 along with a reduction in the load factor l= imit to=20 (1685 x 4.5)/1800 =3D +4.2 G=E2=80=99s instead of +4.5 G's..=20 Blue Skies,=20 Grayhawk=20 Literature? Insight? Wikileaks? =20 =20 In a message dated 5/28/2013 3:58:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time, =20 n20087@yahoo.com writes: I have seen the 19lb/sq ft number quoted in at least 2 places but as =20 grayhawk points out the math does not work out. I have also seen the wing= area=20 quoted as 78sq ft. In addition, on a long trip with my wife I am always= =20 1800# where I certified the aircraft. That puts me in the region of 26lb/s= q=20 ft. Anybody have the "real" wing area and insight to why 19lb/sq ft turns= =20 up in the literature? Thanks Tom Sent from my iPad On May 28, 2013, at 1:53 PM, _Sky2high@aol.com_ (mailto:Sky2high@aol.com) = =20 wrote: =20 320/370 wing area =3D 70 sq. ft. Avg operating weight of 360 =3D 1600 lbs= . =20 Wing loading =3D 22.857142857142 =20 Grayhawk =20 PS Quad Cities Challenger II =3D 5 lbs/sq ft. - exciting in turbulence. =20 =20 In a message dated 5/28/2013 12:38:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 _cwfmd@yahoo.com_ (mailto:cwfmd@yahoo.com) writes: Airframe Wing Loading =20 Cessna 150/172 10.5 traffic pattern hazard! Pitts S2 13 RV8 15.5 Lancair 360 19 Lancair IV-P 36.2 ! Internet poll- not scientific or stat signif --part1_1491a9.7d7a1ffe.3ed67ce5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en

Tom, et al,

OK, here it is from the horse's mouth .......

Page 9 of Chapter I o= f the POH=20 (Dec 1994) claims a 320/360 wing loading of 22.17 lbs per sq ft at max take= off=20 weight (MTOW). Page 10 of Ch= apter=20 II states the 320/360 MTOW is 1685 lbs. 1685/22.17 =3D 76 sq ft wing area= . For those that increased their MT= OW to=20 1800 lbs, the wing loading would be calculated as 1800/76 =3D 23.7&nbs= p;along=20 with a reduction in the load factor limit to (1685 x 4.5)/1800 =3D +4.= 2 G=E2=80=99s=20 instead of +4.5 G's..

Blue Skies,

Grayhawk

Literature? Ins= ight?=20 Wikileaks?

In a message dated 5/28/2013 3:58:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 n20087@yahoo.com writes:

=

I have seen the 19lb/sq ft number quoted in at least 2 places but as= =20 grayhawk points out the math does not work out. I have also seen th= e=20 wing area quoted as 78sq ft. In addition, on a long trip with my w= ife I=20 am always 1800# where I certified the aircraft. That puts me in the regio= n of=20 26lb/sq ft. Anybody have the "real" wing area and insight to why 19= lb/sq=20 ft turns up in the literature?

Thanks

Tom

Sent from my iPad

On May 28, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote:

320/370 wing area =3D 70 sq. ft. Avg operating weight of 360= =3D 1600=20 lbs. Wing loading =3D 22.857142857142

Grayhawk

PS Quad Cities Challenger II =3D 5 lbs/sq ft. - exciting in=20 turbulence.

In a message dated 5/28/2013 12:38:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time, = cwfmd@yahoo.com writes:

Airframe = ;=20 Wing Loading

Cessna=20 150/172     10.5   traffic patter= n=20 hazard!
Pitts=20 S2          &= nbsp;      =20 13
RV8         =             &nb= sp;=20 15.5
Lancair=20 360          = =20 19
Lancair=20 IV-P          = ;=20 36.2    !

Internet poll- not scientific or sta= t=20 signif

<= /FONT>

--part1_1491a9.7d7a1ffe.3ed67ce5_boundary--