X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:30:03 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2043311 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 May 2007 08:30:48 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.157.36; envelope-from=MikeEasley@aol.com Received: from MikeEasley@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id q.c67.138259a4 (40521) for ; Mon, 14 May 2007 08:30:03 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeEasley@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:30:02 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Flight Characteristic Question X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1179145802" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5365 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1179145802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From a performance standpoint, the ideal incidence of the horizontal stabilizer would result in the elevator being in the neutral position in cruise at a typical CG, right? My ES cruises with the elevator deflected downward enough to expose the elevator counterweight arm about 1/4" above the horiz stab. That's at a fairly forward CG. As the CG moves aft the deflection increases slightly. Doesn't that suggest that the optimum incidence on my horiz stab would be positive, not negative .6 like the TSIO ESs are doing? My horiz stab is mounted at zero. I'm probably at the bottom of the list when it comes to aeronautical engineering, but it seems to make sense that the issue isn't the incidence of the horiz stab but the advertised forward CG limit, or the effectiveness of the elevator (size, shape, deflection, etc.). Mike Easley Colorado Springs ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -------------------------------1179145802 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From a performance standpoint, the ideal incidence of the horizontal=20 stabilizer would result in the elevator being in the neutral position in cru= ise=20 at a typical CG, right?
 
My ES cruises with the elevator deflected downward enough to expose the= =20 elevator counterweight arm about 1/4" above the horiz stab.   That= 's=20 at a fairly forward CG. As the CG moves aft the deflection increases=20 slightly.  Doesn't that suggest that the optimum incidence on my horiz=20= stab=20 would be positive, not negative .6 like the TSIO ESs are doing?  My hor= iz=20 stab is mounted at zero.
 
I'm probably at the bottom of the list when it comes to aeronautical=20 engineering, but it seems to make sense that the issue isn't the incidence o= f=20 the horiz stab but the advertised forward CG limit, or the effectiveness of=20= the=20 elevator (size, shape, deflection, etc.).
 
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs



See=20= what's free at AOL= .com.
-------------------------------1179145802--