X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:23:50 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTP id 4383772 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:30:44 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.122; envelope-from=Wolfgang@MiCom.net X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=jfMbZ+4tkgrYlaJBi3iJCtg6TDszHDHJJpQ3TdTfnr0= c=1 sm=0 a=zNANCjgXmV0A:10 a=MHZY6FYWMEQOp7S43i2QIw==:17 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=rTjvlri0AAAA:8 a=o1OHuDzbAAAA:8 a=pHB2UWU98jn_xpvGK_8A:9 a=h5AoXDrj1BhN5mgoMsAA:7 a=iLBy9erbCtb0IQQ_STUxy40Yet8A:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=CVU0O5Kb7MsA:10 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=Dr9Wx-Q63l4A:10 a=ILCZio5HsAgA:10 a=DFQhpSknOYMdJtZ3cysA:9 a=4vXnpnWpcYj3Ri0WSl8A:7 a=agdYLIHkC07WmF354Y_SYYlb9DYA:4 a=MHZY6FYWMEQOp7S43i2QIw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.218.201.50 Received: from [74.218.201.50] ([74.218.201.50:1233] helo=Lobo) by hrndva-oedge04.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.39 r()) with ESMTP id 03/0B-12304-F6F843C4; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:30:07 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <004d01cb1de0$e1b868f0$6401a8c0@Lobo> From: "Wolfgang" X-Original-To: , References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: MK II Tail X-Original-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 10:30:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004A_01CB1DBF.5A5F38A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01CB1DBF.5A5F38A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Excuse me but I fail to see how pointing out a lack of information up = front is "insulting". What I call "insulting" is a manufacturer refusing to fix false = information being advertised about their product. I wasn't aware there is a requirement to search the archives to validate = incomplete comments=20 made by someone who supposedly already knows the details but didn't give = any support for their comments. You point out many factors that can influence the question to some = degree or another but don't quantify much. . . . That's part of my original point. Without hard answers, the = comments I referred to are just opinions. Back to the point, a larger tail will allow a larger CG range, but it = seems some don't mind being limited. Wolfgang ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Sky2high@aol.com=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [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. =20 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=20 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 -----=20 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 ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01CB1DBF.5A5F38A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Excuse me but I fail to see how pointing out a lack of information = up front=20 is "insulting".
What I call "insulting" is a manufacturer refusing to fix false = information=20 being advertised about their product.
 
I wasn't aware there is a requirement to search the archives to = validate=20 incomplete comments
made by someone who supposedly already knows the details but didn't = give=20 any support for their comments.
 
You point out many factors that can influence the question to some = degree=20 or another but don't quantify much.
. . . That's part of my original point. Without hard answers, the = comments=20 I referred to are just opinions.
 
Back to the point, a larger tail will allow a larger CG range, but = it seems=20 some don't mind being limited.
 
Wolfgang
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Sky2high@aol.com=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 = 7:00=20 PM
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: MK II = 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 = 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 = 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 = from=20 235's).  However, one additional fix was for the=20 LNC2 builder to shorten the elevator bell crank (4" to 3"), = thus=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 = beefed 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. =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 = weight 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 = rearward=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 = undesirable=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 = forward=20 CG (see 2 above and within reason).
 
e. Now, take all the variability discussed above and add other = combos=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 = because=20 the LNC2 is differentiated by small vs big tail?  =20 Dreamer..................
 
Scott Krueger
IO320 lawn dart, small tail, reduced bell crank, Reichel wheel, = built=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 = supposed 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 = really=20 like the small tail much better myself.
>
> Bill=20 Harrelson
> N5ZQ 320 1,800 hrs with a small tail
> = N6ZQ  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



--
For=20 archives and unsub=20 = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_004A_01CB1DBF.5A5F38A0--