Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net> Sender: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net> To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:15:02 -0500 Message-ID: <redirect-609592@logan.com> X-Original-Return-Path: <colyncase@earthlink.net> Received: from HQEMGATE03.nvidia.com ([216.228.112.143] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 609586 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:55:25 -0500 Received-SPF: neutral receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.228.112.143; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net Received: from hqemfe02.nvidia.com (Not Verified[172.16.227.92]) by HQEMGATE03.nvidia.com id <B41eb1ad80000>; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:54:32 -0800 Received: from hqemfe03.nvidia.com ([172.16.227.123]) by hqemfe02.nvidia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:54:55 -0800 Received: from thelma.nvidia.com ([172.16.228.84]) by hqemfe03.nvidia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:54:55 -0800 Received: from ccaselt (cvpn-16-111.nvidia.com [10.2.16.111]) by thelma.nvidia.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA02650 for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:54:51 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Message-ID: <017e01c4fc37$8a3a8bb0$d410020a@nvidia.com> From: "colyncase on earthlink" <colyncase@earthlink.net> X-Original-To: <lml@lancaironline.net> References: <redirect-607727@logan.com> Subject: Re: Approved Weights for Lancair IVP/IVPTs X-Original-Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:54:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_017B_01C4FBF4.79183C80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Original-Return-Path: colyncase@earthlink.net X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2005 01:54:55.0266 (UTC) FILETIME=[8AA49820:01C4FC37] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_017B_01C4FBF4.79183C80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable included in the post below is reference to Dave Morss's LA to Lakeland 6 = hour record. I assume he didn't land with empty tanks? Anyone know how much gas he = had? (this is pertinent to the thread). I don't know what the tailwind was that day but workiing backwards it = looks like he had to have more than 140 gals ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Brent Regan=20 Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 5:14 PM Subject: Re: Approved Weights for Lancair IVP/IVPTs My thanks to Roberto d'Enginero for providing the calculations that = substantiate the points that I was trying to make in my previous post, = those being: 1) You can load an aircraft well past its listed gross weight and it = will still fly. 2) The more weight you add the less safe the situation. 3) You cannot fly an airplane with a stall speed greater than its = maneuvering speed Va. Whether the ultimate gross weight is 18,000 or 28,500 pounds is = irrelevant to the point. In the spirit of Bob's post I should point out = that Bob is using the wing lift and the gross weight interchangeably. = This is not correct (I'll take those quarters back). Using the 18,000 = pound number as the ultimate gross weight is, by design, calculated to = be conservative. As Bob pointed out, the load carried IN the wings = (including the wing structure) is not factored . Also not considered is = the lift generated by the fuselage, the vertical component of the = propeller thrust at high alpha and the effect of temperature on the = composite structure. Bob's assertion that the wings will clap at 18,000 = pounds gross is very probably inaccurate and would require empirical = determination. Perhaps Roberto d'Testpilot would volunteer. Bob writes " Brent continues with the mythical 200% (8.8G) ultimate = load factor, which doesn't exist and never has!" Ouch, this one is gonna hurt. I would direct you to the Lancair = published flyer circa 1992 attached. Next to G Loading (ultimate) you = will see the "mythical" +8.8. Also note the 2,900 pound gross weight and = 82 gallons of fuel. Bob also writes "My apologies to the persons named, it's not the = purpose of my posting to embarrass anyone." Not to worry, I am offended = by people with malicious intent , not by ones who are well meaning but = misinformed. I suspect the only one you have embarrassed is yourself. People who live in false premiss(es) shouldn't throw conclusions. My theory is this. The original IV was designed with a 2,900 lb gross = and a 2.0 to 1 safety factor. A IV wing weighs about 180 Lbs all up or = 360 Lbs the pair and both will carry 492 Lbs of fuel (original 82 = gallons) for a total of 852 pounds of wing and fuel and the balance of = 2048 pounds in the fuselage. It is the fuselage that is trying snap off = the wings so if you reduce the factor of safety to ultimate failure from = 2.0 to 1.5 (Part 23.303 spam can margins) you get a new fuselage weight = of 2731 lbs. Add back the wing weight and you get 3583 Lbs gross = weight. Interesting close to the 3550 now published.=20 The increase in gross weight from 2,900 lbs to 3,550 lbs has come at = the cost of a reduction in the factor of safety from ~2.0 to ~1.5. and = an increase in stall speeds. Lancair DID do an empirical wing strength test, back when the earth = was still cooling, and as I recall (and I am probably wrong) the wing = failed at ~11 Gs. This would correspond to a fuselage weight of 22,528 = and a gross weight of 23,380 lbs. Factor in fuselage lift and vertical = thrust component and 28,500 isn't so far off the mark. However, a test = IS the best way to know for sure so, Roberto, if you want your quarter, = do the test and send me the results. If the wings come off at 23,250 Lbs = (half way between our numbers) take off weight, you win.=20 Is a gross weight of 3,550 Lbs safe? Safety is relative and if you = load your plane more than the situation will allow your relatives will = find out. Regards Brent Regan -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- ------=_NextPart_000_017B_01C4FBF4.79183C80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type = content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>included in the post below is reference = to Dave=20 Morss's LA to Lakeland 6 hour record.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I assume he didn't land with empty = tanks? =20 Anyone know how much gas he had?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>(this is pertinent to the = thread).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I don't know what the tailwind was that = day but=20 workiing backwards it looks like he had to have more than 140 = gals</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: = black"><B>From:</B>=20 <A title=3Dbrent@regandesigns.com = href=3D"mailto:brent@regandesigns.com">Brent=20 Regan</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, January 14, 2005 = 5:14=20 PM</DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Approved Weights = for Lancair=20 IVP/IVPTs</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3DArial>My thanks to Roberto d'Enginero for = providing=20 the calculations that substantiate the points that I was trying to = make in my=20 previous post, those being:<BR><BR>1) You can load an aircraft = well past=20 its listed gross weight and it will still fly.<BR>2) The more weight = you add=20 the less safe the situation.<BR>3) You cannot fly an airplane with a = stall=20 speed greater than its maneuvering speed Va.<BR><BR>Whether the = ultimate gross=20 weight is 18,000 or 28,500 pounds is irrelevant to the point. In the = spirit of=20 Bob's post I should point out that Bob is using the wing lift and the = gross=20 weight interchangeably. This is not correct (I'll take those quarters = back).=20 Using the 18,000 pound number as the ultimate gross weight is, by = design,=20 calculated to be conservative. As Bob pointed out, the load carried IN = the=20 wings (including the wing structure) is not factored . Also not = considered is=20 the lift generated by the fuselage, the vertical component of the = propeller=20 thrust at high alpha and the effect of temperature on the composite=20 structure. Bob's assertion that the wings will clap at 18,000 = pounds=20 gross is very probably inaccurate and would require empirical = determination.=20 Perhaps Roberto d'Testpilot would volunteer.<BR><BR>Bob writes "=20 </FONT><BIG><FONT face=3Darial size=3D2><BIG>Brent continues with the = mythical=20 200% (8.8G) ultimate load factor, which doesn't exist and never=20 has!"<BR><BR>Ouch, this one is gonna hurt. I would direct you to the = Lancair=20 published flyer circa 1992 attached. Next to G Loading = (ultimate) you=20 will see the "mythical" +8.8. Also note the 2,900 pound gross weight = and 82=20 gallons of fuel.<BR><BR>Bob also writes "</BIG></FONT></BIG><FONT = face=3Darial=20 size=3D2><BIG>My apologies to the persons named, it's not the purpose = of my=20 posting to embarrass anyone." Not to worry, I am offended by = people with=20 malicious intent , not by ones who are well meaning but misinformed. I = suspect=20 the only one you have embarrassed is yourself.<BR><BR>People who live = in false=20 premiss(es) shouldn't throw conclusions.<BR><BR>My <B>theory</B> is = this. The=20 original IV was designed with a 2,900 lb gross and a 2.0 to 1 safety=20 factor. A IV wing weighs about 180 Lbs all up or 360 Lbs the = pair and=20 both will carry 492 Lbs of fuel (original 82 gallons) for a total of = 852=20 pounds of wing and fuel and the balance of 2048 pounds in the = fuselage. It is=20 the fuselage that is trying snap off the wings so if you reduce the = factor of=20 safety to ultimate failure from 2.0 to 1.5 (Part 23.303 spam can = margins) you=20 get a new fuselage weight of 2731 lbs. Add back the wing weight and = you=20 get 3583 Lbs gross weight. Interesting close to the 3550 now = published.=20 <BR><BR>The increase in gross weight from 2,900 lbs to 3,550 lbs has = come at=20 the cost of a reduction in the factor of safety from ~2.0 to = ~1.5. and=20 an increase in stall speeds.<BR><BR>Lancair DID do an empirical wing = strength=20 test, back when the earth was still cooling, and as I recall (and I am = probably wrong) the wing failed at ~11 Gs. This would correspond = to a=20 fuselage weight of 22,528 and a gross weight of 23,380 lbs. = Factor in=20 fuselage lift and vertical thrust component and 28,500 isn't so far = off the=20 mark. However, a test IS the best way to know for sure so, Roberto, if = you=20 want your quarter, do the test and send me the results. If the wings = come off=20 at 23,250 Lbs (half way between our numbers) take off weight, you win. = <BR><BR>Is a gross weight of 3,550 Lbs safe? Safety is relative and if = you=20 load your plane more than the situation will allow your relatives will = find=20 out.<BR><BR>Regards<BR>Brent Regan<BR></BIG></FONT> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P> <CENTER><IMG=20 src=3D"CID:{94E0C59B-48B8-499B-B566-33A470C2EBAE}/Lancair = Flyer.jpg"></CENTER></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_017B_01C4FBF4.79183C80--