|
|
Mike -
I'm not sure if this is a correct analogy, but a negative incidence of the HS would make it act like a moveable HS like most fighters or a Cardinal. i.e, in your ES, you always would have a slight "tail input" that raises the nose. The elevator movement on final approach/roundout would compliment this. Increasing the negative incidence would therefore remove the necessity to have elevator input - ie. deflected down. Also, increasing the incidence slightly would compensate for the CG being too close to the forward limit - or as you say, the "advertised forward CG limit" is not right.
John
On Mon, 14 May 2007 09:30:03 -0400, <MikeEasley@aol.com> wrote:
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.
|
|