X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:27:25 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web36905.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.73] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with SMTP id 4383027 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:37:41 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.191.85.73; envelope-from=chris_zavatson@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 86443 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Jul 2010 00:37:06 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GY2D5puueSyMSE3JNma1rBTKpSzIcU6pEBH1akOmZ+hX0Zz/4yCR6ziLY1lNc99md/NXn7hCu7yxX3DJKcrM5radcv3/45QONHDCZlHRig8Ki/CpqLF7xNOm8l191aa6hDC9U8IvQtPokiMpHnBOnSrfJGEM3TmEE69mVCpbREM=; X-Original-Message-ID: <295304.82323.qm@web36905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: _TEN92UVM1nUJj4vNHDciaBvJUEY0ms7NBEbjmTXaswssed Zx8nQgeEXOtbJdXG9U8AhMvSJ6pp5bC1B7ATmRChjthrFEjoXbfRDTusExhO t0DeaI3mrO8iO16NzzVaX9Wq6BRjwDEvhq6Az6A5.Gyab3L84ZQ5IbADinmA jR75JXIKXoR2l2IdPFbteG5vhJn03gdRgN18i7jPz5DCuEOPLCcFri9tj_pG VhuS2LRE.bFpjV3hQ5HinS00ECho.9oZmWUBxgxpKh7_U4dCx1VfqDb3IejO 2f_dAJTCAttIThE_KpTEzgQo7NjsHsvwNHJ7XhPoXW3Oz27Iou9XcFkGp5HE EuaV9GMm6kFNiXiLjyUt4HIDU2lIMepd6LTzIGA-- Received: from [149.32.224.33] by web36905.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:37:06 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/420.4 YahooMailWebService/0.8.104.274457 References: X-Original-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 17:37:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Zavatson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: MK II Tail X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-446317610-1278463026=:82323" --0-446317610-1278463026=:82323 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott,=0ANeed to add:=0A3a.=A0 The MKII tail opened up the effective CG ran= ge.=A0 -about 1.5" rearward.=A0 =0ALancair tested and reported on the forwa= rd envelope increase, but I don't recall =0Athe numbers.=0A=0AChris Zavatso= n=A0=A0=A0 =0AN91CZ=A0=A0=0A360std=0Awww.N91CZ.com=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A__________= ______________________=0AFrom: "Sky2high@aol.com" =0ATo: = lml@lancaironline.net=0ASent: Tue, July 6, 2010 4:00:30 PM=0ASubject: [LML]= Re: MK II Tail=0A=0AWolfgang,=0A=0APlease search the LML archives before y= ou insult people that have been reporting =0Aon these characteristics and d= ifferences=A0for years.=0A=0AAnyway,=0A=0A1. Every LNC2=A0has potentially d= ifferent flight characteristics because of =0Abuilding variability.=0A=0A2.= No one has ever verified whether the wing was flap=A0normal or=A0flap refl= ex when =0Athe CG range was calculated.=0A=0A3. The small=A0horizontal may = exhibit greater sensitivity than the MKII tail, but =0Athe airplane was des= igned with the small tail and it is effective enough if =0Abuilt as designe= d.=0A=0A4. Every flight control=A0is a system and if a system component is = changed, it =0Aprobably affects the whole system - to wit, the remaining co= mments:=0A=0Aa. The small tail elevator, as issued, required very little fo= rce to displace it =0A(as opposed to the ailerons) - this leads to responsi= veness or sensitivity, =0Awhichever is preferred.=A0 Remember that LNC2's h= ave an added bob weight=A0to reduce =0Asensitivity in > 1 G maneuvers (miss= ing from 235's).=A0 However, one =0Aadditional=A0fix was for the LNC2=A0bui= lder=A0to shorten the elevator bell crank (4" =0Ato 3"), thus increasing th= e required force by 25% and reducing throw movement of =0Athe stick by 25%.= =A0=A0=A0 Of course, the=A0trim spring had to be beefed up as did the =0Afr= iction on the crucifix trim arm.=A0 This was further=A0helped by the Reiche= l =0Ageared trim wheel.=A0 Anyone with these modifications will be pleased = with the =0Aperformance of the small tail.=A0 These mods do not affect any= =A0W&B or CG issues.=0A=0Ab. Trim tabs embedded in the elevator=A0are a tot= ally different situation.=A0 There =0Aare so many different size tabs with = different effectiveness.=A0 One thing =0Aelevator mounted trim tabs do is a= dd weight to the elevator and counterbalancing =0Aweight to the horn.=A0=A0= This increased tail weight=A0can affect CG because the tail =0Aarm is so lo= ng.=0A=0Ac.=A0 Even though the MKII tail is carbon, it is additional rearwa= rd weight added =0Ato an airplane that does not like a=A0rear CG.=A0 The co= ntrols on the elevator may =0Abe the same as those outlined in a & b.=A0 La= ncair provided=A0a long (3" longer) =0Aengine mount to address undesirable = rearward CG issues that usually provided a =0A1.5" forward movement of the = CG (uh,=A0installation specific) with no ill effects.=0A=0Ad. Even small ta= il builders have effectively used the long engine mount because =0ALNC2=A0f= light characteristics can be enhanced with a more forward CG (see 2 above = =0Aand within reason).=0A=0Ae. Now, take all the variability discussed abov= e and add other combos such as =0Aheader/no header, extended wingtips, exte= nded fuel bays, battery/pump locations, =0Ayada, yada, yada................= . all having some effect on W&B - CG.=A0 See item =0A1 above.=A0 =0A=0A=0AA= nd you want meaningful flight differences described=A0merely because the LN= C2 is =0Adifferentiated by small vs big tail?=A0=A0 Dreamer................= ..=0A=0AScott Krueger=0AIO320 lawn dart, small tail, reduced bell crank, Re= ichel wheel, built with a =0Aforward CG, pleased as punch.=0A=0A=0AIn a mes= sage dated 7/6/2010 3:05:08 P.M. Central Daylight Time, =0AWolfgang@MiCom.n= et writes:=0AMost of these comments, most in favor of the small tail, fail = to quantify the =0Adifference in any meaningful way . . . which is quite = =0A=0A>aggravating.=0A>I get the sense that "It's been that way for 50 year= s so why change now ?" =0A>attitude is the rule of the land.=0A>=0A>I don't= see how that is supposed to help others that know nothing of the =0A>diffe= rence understand the difference.=0A>. . . Isn't that what this list is for = ?=0A>=0A>Wolfgang=0A>=0A>----- Original Message ----- =0A>From: "Bill N5ZQ"= =0A>To: =0A>Sent: Monday, July 05= , 2010 9:04 PM=0A>Subject: RE: [LML] Re: MK II Tail=0A>=0A>=0A>> And a good= plan it is too, Angier.=0A>> I really like the small tail much better myse= lf.=0A>>=0A>> Bill Harrelson=0A>> N5ZQ 320 1,800 hrs with a small tail=0A>>= N6ZQ=A0 IV under construction=0A>>=0A>>=0A>> -----Original Message-----=0A= >>=0A>>=0A>> Hmmm, my kit came with the large tail and I've flown a handful= of=0A>> 320s, all with the small tail.=0A>> I'm considering cutting off th= e large tail and installing a small one...=0A>>=0A>> Angier Ames=0A>> N4ZQ= =0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>--=0A>For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:= 81/lists/lml/List.html=0A>=0A=0A=0A --0-446317610-1278463026=:82323 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Scott,
=0A
Need to add:
=0A
3a.  The MKII = tail opened up the effective CG range.  -about 1.5" rearward.  La= ncair tested and reported on the forward envelope increase, but I don't rec= all the numbers.
=0A
 
=0A
Chris Zavatson  = ; 
=0A
N91CZ  
=0A
360std
=0A
www.N91CZ.com
=0A

=0A
From: "Sky2high@aol.com" <Sky2high@aol.com>To: lml@lancaironline.net<= BR>Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 = 4:00:30 PM
Subject: [LML= ] Re: MK II Tail

=0A
Wolfgang,
=0A
 
=0A
Plea= se search the LML archives before you insult people that have been reportin= g on these characteristics and differences for years.
=0A
&nb= sp;
=0A
Anyway,
=0A
 
=0A
1. Every LNC2&nbs= p;has potentially different flight characteristics because of building vari= ability.
=0A
 
=0A
2. No one has ever verified wheth= er the wing was flap normal or flap reflex when the CG range was = calculated.
=0A
 
=0A
3. The small horizontal m= ay exhibit greater sensitivity than the MKII tail, but the airplane was des= igned with the small tail and it is effective enough if built as designed.<= /DIV>=0A
 
=0A
4. Every flight control is a system a= nd if a system component is changed, it probably affects the whole system -= to wit, the remaining comments:
=0A
 
=0A
a. The sm= all tail elevator, as issued, required very little force to displace it (as= opposed to the ailerons) - this leads to responsiveness or sensitivity, wh= ichever is preferred.  Remember that LNC2's have an added bob weight&n= bsp;to reduce sensitivity in > 1 G maneuvers (missing from 235's). = However, one additional fix was for the LNC2 builder to sho= rten the elevator bell crank (4" to 3"), thus increasing the required force= by 25% and reducing throw movement of the stick by 25%.    = Of course, the trim spring had to be beefed up as did the friction on = the crucifix trim arm.  This was further helped by the Reichel ge= ared trim wheel.  Anyone with these modifications will be pleased with= the performance of the small tail.  These mods do not affect any = ;W&B or CG issues.
=0A
 
=0A
b. Trim tabs embedd= ed in the elevator are a totally different situation.  There are = so many different size tabs with different effectiveness.  One thing e= levator mounted trim tabs do is add weight to the elevator and counterbalan= cing weight to the horn.  This increased tail weight can aff= ect CG because the tail arm is so long.
=0A
 
=0A
c.=   Even though the MKII tail is carbon, it is additional rearward weigh= t added to an airplane that does not like a rear CG.  The control= s on the elevator may be the same as those outlined in a & b.  Lan= cair provided a long (3" longer) engine mount to address undesirable r= earward CG issues that usually provided a 1.5" forward movement of the CG (= uh, installation specific) with no ill effects.
=0A
 =0A
d. Even small tail builders have effectively used the long engin= e mount because LNC2 flight characteristics can be enhanced with a mor= e forward CG (see 2 above and within reason).
=0A
 
=0A<= DIV>e. Now, take all the variability discussed above and add other combos s= uch as header/no header, extended wingtips, extended fuel bays, battery/pum= p locations, yada, yada, yada................. all having some effect on W&= amp;B - CG.  See item 1 above. 
=0A
 
=0AAnd you want meaningful flight differences described merely because t= he LNC2 is differentiated by small vs big tail?   Dreamer........= ..........
=0A
 
=0A
Scott Krueger
=0A
IO32= 0 lawn dart, small tail, reduced bell crank, Reichel wheel, built with a fo= rward CG, pleased as punch.
=0A
 
=0A
 
= =0A
=0A
In a message dated 7/6/2010 3:05:08 P.M. Central Daylight T= ime, Wolfgang@MiCom.net writes:
=0A
Most of these = comments, most in favor of the small tail, fail to quantify the difference = in any meaningful way . . . which is quite
aggravating.
I get the se= nse that "It's been that way for 50 years so why change now ?" attitude is = the rule of the land.

I don't see how that is supposed to help other= s that know nothing of the difference understand the difference.
. . . I= sn't that what this list is for ?

Wolfgang

----- Original Mes= sage -----
From: "Bill N5ZQ" <n5zq@verizon.net>
To: <lml@la= ncaironline.net>
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 9:04 PM
Subject: RE: = [LML] Re: MK II Tail


> And a good plan it is too, Angier.
= > I really like the small tail much better myself.
>
> Bill = Harrelson
> N5ZQ 320 1,800 hrs with a small tail
> N6ZQ  IV under construction
>
>
>= ; -----Original Message-----
>
>
> Hmmm, my kit came with= the large tail and I've flown a handful of
> 320s, all with the smal= l tail.
> I'm considering cutting off the large tail and installing a= small one...
>
> Angier Ames
> N4ZQ



--For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm= l

=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A= =0A=0A=0A --0-446317610-1278463026=:82323--