X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 03:18:29 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.147] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTP id 4383182 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:45:24 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.147; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from imo-da04.mx.aol.com (imo-da04.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.202]) by imr-da05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o673ijWF011151 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:44:45 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-da04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.d80.c07ee2b (43973) for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from magic-m21.mail.aol.com (magic-m21.mail.aol.com [172.20.22.194]) by cia-dd03.mx.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILCIADD036-abc54c33f827220; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:44:39 -0400 From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:44:39 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: MK II Tail X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c8385.4c95544c.39655227_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.5 sub 155 X-AOL-ORIG-IP: 67.175.87.113 X-AOL-IP: 172.20.22.194 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: Sky2high@aol.com --part1_c8385.4c95544c.39655227_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris, There ya go, another addition to flight characteristic variability in LNC2s. Maybe the Aussies tested a stick sensitive small tail Lancair at rearward CG and didn't like its stability....... Ergo, Lancair stuck a Legacy (then in design) horizontal stab on the tail feathers and called it macaroni. Scott PS, I am going back under my rock now. In a message dated 7/6/2010 9:29:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time, chris_zavatson@yahoo.com writes: Scott, Need to add: 3a. The MKII tail opened up the effective CG range. -about 1.5" rearward. Lancair tested and reported on the forward envelope increase, but I don't recall the numbers. Chris Zavatson N91CZ 360std _www.N91CZ.com_ (http://www.n91cz.com/) ____________________________________ From: "Sky2high@aol.com" To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 4:00:30 PM Subject: [LML] Re: MK II Tail Wolfgang, Please search the LML archives before you insult people that have been reporting on these characteristics and differences for years. Anyway, 1. Every LNC2 has potentially different flight characteristics because of building variability. 2. No one has ever verified whether the wing was flap normal or flap reflex when the CG range was calculated. 3. The small horizontal may exhibit greater sensitivity than the MKII tail, but the airplane was designed with the small tail and it is effective enough if built as designed. 4. Every flight control is a system and if a system component is changed, it probably affects the whole system - to wit, the remaining comments: a. The small tail elevator, as issued, required very little force to displace it (as opposed to the ailerons) - this leads to responsiveness or sensitivity, whichever is preferred. Remember that LNC2's have an added bob weight to reduce sensitivity in > 1 G maneuvers (missing from 235's). However, one additional fix was for the LNC2 builder to shorten 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 geared 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. b. Trim tabs embedded in the elevator are a totally different situation. There are so many different size tabs with different effectiveness. One thing elevator mounted trim tabs do is add weight to the elevator and counterbalancing weight to the horn. This increased tail weight can affect CG because the tail arm is so long. c. Even though the MKII tail is carbon, it is additional rearward weight added to an airplane that does not like a rear CG. The controls on the elevator may be the same as those outlined in a & b. Lancair provided a long (3" longer) engine mount to address undesirable rearward CG issues that usually provided a 1.5" forward movement of the CG (uh, installation specific) with no ill effects. d. Even small tail builders have effectively used the long engine mount because LNC2 flight characteristics can be enhanced with a more forward CG (see 2 above and within reason). e. Now, take all the variability discussed above and add other combos such as header/no header, extended wingtips, extended fuel bays, battery/pump locations, yada, yada, yada................. all having some effect on W&B - CG. See item 1 above. And you want meaningful flight differences described merely because the LNC2 is differentiated by small vs big tail? Dreamer.................. Scott Krueger IO320 lawn dart, small tail, reduced bell crank, Reichel wheel, built with a forward CG, pleased as punch. In a message dated 7/6/2010 3:05:08 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Wolfgang@MiCom.net writes: 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 sense 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 others that know nothing of the difference understand the difference. . . . Isn't that what this list is for ? Wolfgang ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill N5ZQ" To: 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 small 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.html --part1_c8385.4c95544c.39655227_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Chris,
 
There ya go, another addition to flight characteristic variability in= =20 LNC2s.  Maybe the Aussies tested a stick sensitive small tail La= ncair=20 at rearward CG and didn't like its stability....... Ergo, Lancair stu= ck a=20 Legacy (then in design) horizontal stab on the tail feathers&nbs= p;and=20 called it macaroni.
 
Scott
 
PS, I am going back under my rock now.
 
In a message dated 7/6/2010 9:29:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 chris_zavatson@yahoo.com writes:
 
Chris Zavatson   
N91CZ  
360std
From: "Sky2high@aol.com"= =20 <Sky2high@aol.com>
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Sent:=20 Tue, July 6, 2010 4:00:30 PM
= Subject: [LML] Re: MK II=20 Tail

Wolfgang,
 
Please search the LML archives before you insult people that have= been=20 reporting on these characteristics and differences for years.
 
Anyway,
 
1. Every LNC2 has potentially different flight characteristics= =20 because of building variability.
 
2. No one has ever verified whether the wing was flap normal= =20 or flap reflex when the CG range was calculated.
 
3. The small horizontal may exhibit greater sensitivity than= the=20 MKII tail, but the airplane was designed with the small tail and it is= =20 effective enough if built as designed.
 
4. Every flight control is a system and if a system component= is=20 changed, it probably affects the whole system - to wit, the remaining=20 comments:
 
a. The small tail elevator, as issued, required very little force= to=20 displace it (as opposed to the ailerons) - this leads to responsiveness= or=20 sensitivity, whichever is preferred.  Remember that LNC2's have an= added=20 bob weight to reduce sensitivity in > 1 G maneuvers (missing fro= m=20 235's).  However, one additional fix was for the=20 LNC2 builder to shorten the elevator bell crank (4" to 3"), th= us=20 increasing the required force by 25% and reducing throw movement of the= stick=20 by 25%.    Of course, the trim spring had to be beef= ed up=20 as did the friction on the crucifix trim arm.  This was=20 further helped by the Reichel geared trim wheel.  Anyone with= these=20 modifications will be pleased with the performance of the small tail.&nb= sp;=20 These mods do not affect any W&B or CG issues.
 
b. Trim tabs embedded in the elevator are a totally different= =20 situation.  There are so many different size tabs with different=20 effectiveness.  One thing elevator mounted trim tabs do is add weig= ht to=20 the elevator and counterbalancing weight to the horn.  This=20 increased tail weight can affect CG because the tail arm is so=20 long.
 
c.  Even though the MKII tail is carbon, it is additional rear= ward=20 weight added to an airplane that does not like a rear CG.  The= =20 controls on the elevator may be the same as those outlined in a & b.=  =20 Lancair provided a long (3" longer) engine mount to address undesir= able=20 rearward CG issues that usually provided a 1.5" forward movement of the= CG=20 (uh, installation specific) with no ill effects.
 
d. Even small tail builders have effectively used the long engine= mount=20 because LNC2 flight characteristics can be enhanced with a more for= ward=20 CG (see 2 above and within reason).
 
e. Now, take all the variability discussed above and add other comb= os=20 such as header/no header, extended wingtips, extended fuel bays, battery= /pump=20 locations, yada, yada, yada................. all having some effect on= W&B=20 - CG.  See item 1 above. 
 
And you want meaningful flight differences described merely be= cause=20 the LNC2 is differentiated by small vs big tail?  =20 Dreamer..................
 
Scott Krueger
IO320 lawn dart, small tail, reduced bell crank, Reichel wheel, bui= lt=20 with a forward CG, pleased as punch.
 
 
In a message dated 7/6/2010 3:05:08 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 Wolfgang@MiCom.net writes:
Most=20 of these comments, most in favor of the small tail, fail to quantify= the=20 difference in any meaningful way . . . which is quite
aggravating.=
I=20 get the sense that "It's been that way for 50 years so why change now= ?"=20 attitude is the rule of the land.

I don't see how that is suppo= sed to=20 help others that know nothing of the difference understand the=20 difference.
. . . Isn't that what this list is for=20 ?

Wolfgang

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill= N5ZQ"=20 <n5zq@verizon.net>
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent:= =20 Monday, July 05, 2010 9:04 PM
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: MK II=20 Tail


> And a good plan it is too, Angier.
> I real= ly=20 like the small tail much better myself.
>
> Bill=20 Harrelson
> N5ZQ 320 1,800 hrs with a small tail
> N6ZQ&nb= sp; IV=20 under construction
>
>
> -----Original=20 Message-----
>
>
> Hmmm, my kit came with the large= tail=20 and I've flown a handful of
> 320s, all with the small tail.
= >=20 I'm considering cutting off the large tail and installing a small=20 one...
>
> Angier Ames
> N4ZQ



--
F= or=20 archives and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

= --part1_c8385.4c95544c.39655227_boundary--