Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:38:47 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtprelay1.dc3.adelphia.net ([24.50.78.4] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b8) with ESMTP id 1770220 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:08:58 -0400 Received: from worldwinds ([207.175.254.66]) by smtprelay1.dc3.adelphia.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id H2Y4MX06.S01 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:08:57 -0400 From: "Gary Casey" X-Original-To: "lancair list" Subject: mass balance X-Original-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 07:07:11 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 <> As usual, a very excellent post by Brent. As an aside, the Cessna Cardinal has a central balance weight attached by a bracket to the spar - there have been numerous cracks in these brackets - your point exactly. On the other hand, the (Lancair) central arm is designed for considerable loads and you are almost certain to never have a flutter-induced load at the same time as a maximum pilot-induced load. So adding some weight to the central bracket probably doesn't increase the stress on the brackets (note I said probably). A central weight might even be a good thing as the elevator itself has some flexibility and most of the unbalanced weight is toward the center and the balance weights are way out at the tips. Putting a little weight at the center will distribute the weight and reduce the torsional moment in the elevators themselves (a good thing). In fact, I looked at my integral weights and thought that the elevator itself needed stiffening. I am still tempted to put some unidirectional carbon diagonally across the tips to stiffen the joint between the weights and the elevator. Gary Casey