X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Received: from [67.8.181.30] (account marv@lancaironline.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.1.8) with HTTP id 2044791 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 May 2007 22:42:05 -0400 From: marv@lancair.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Flight Characteristic Question To: X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.1.8 Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:42:05 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <051420071408.15857.46486D530009D9F300003DF12213528573050E079C019D0A@comcast.net> References: <051420071408.15857.46486D530009D9F300003DF12213528573050E079C019D0A@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html;charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Posted for erosiak@comcast.net:

Mike,

Mine was set to -.6 (minus zero point six degrees)..

Ed Rosiak


-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: MikeEasley@aol.com
> 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.