X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 06:26:27 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com ([209.85.221.179] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.5) with ESMTP id 4191517 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 03:16:50 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.221.179; envelope-from=bobatbmackey@gmail.com Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so944307qyk.1 for ; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:16:13 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; b=TPoNVfgNAuPKmaEjX7k40vLA1FLPPPtAxWpEUtGFHp7OhiHOVP9kNSN3WRKdc+tuse 780oYgWa99fiY3HjtuhfGsBxnTRW3Heso8aBgB82jFSkD4jtXI/gKVo7YOIqflrssT+z ogg8HD8LY1GYtK7AV2FOdnKE0RXAHbSWldLGo= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: bobatbmackey@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.211.196 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:16:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:16:12 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 43962d8b77ed1cf2 Received: by 10.229.99.77 with SMTP id t13mr709407qcn.80.1270106172329; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:16:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: [LML] Legacy maintenance idea From: bob mackey X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > While working on my Legacy kit it occurred to me that once it's flying inspection > and maintenance of the main gear would be so much easier if the stub wing skin > could be removed. I attached a hinge to the leading edge so that the skin could be > opened as shown in the picture. Now I'm trying to decide what sort of fasteners > I should use on the trailing edge. Any suggestions? Inspections would be a little easier. Especially if you don't have a creeper to roll under the aircraft. But this will drastically reduce the torsional stiffness of the wing. It might fly safely that way, but I would want to check the structural and aeroelastic engineering to see what effects this major change would have. I would expect that Greg Cole and Tim Ong sized the spars to take all of the flight loads even without the skins - that's one way to allow for poor construction technique in homebuilt aircraft. But intentionally giving up the torsional stiffness of the wing is certainly not what they had in mind. IF (and that's a BIG IF) you had a bunch of really good screws and nutplates to keep the rear of that door closed tight, how would you keep the airflow smooth over the hingeline? It takes only a small bump or slot or leakage to disrupt natural laminar flow on the upper forward surface of the wing. I strongly recommend discussing this build variation with the airframe designers. Greg Cole - Windward Aviation. http://www.windward-performance.com/contact.php Timothy Ong - Leading Edge Aircraft http://www.leadingedgeaircraft.com/ timothy.ong@leadingedgeaircraft.com Maybe Lancair has someone on the staff that can give an honest engineering assessment. Or maybe they can only give the lawyer-approved party line. -bob