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"
<n5zq@verizon.net>
To: <lml@lancaironline.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 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