|
Hi Christian.
Short answer:
Flaps faired with fillets is -7 deg. ON A
320/360/390. Your flaps should be aligned with the fillets in
cruise. This is pointed out clearly in the manual.
On the old 235, flaps faired with fillets is 0
deg., so the flaps actually retract ABOVE the fillets in cruise. The empennage
is also some 8" shorter than ours.
Best regards
Tim Jorgensen
360 Gamma (MKIIFBOB) 90%
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:30
PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Small tail, MK II
tail, CG range
I have a 320 big tail long engine mount with an IO-390 where I
use the extended mac from 15% to 11%
CG = FS 22,8in. - FS 30,3in. in my case 158,08 cm – 177,03 cm
(FS 0 = Firewall
rear)
(Handbook and manual show different numbers of FS )
Pilot only I'm near mac 11% in this case the plane want's to take
off with nosegear last.
The plane performs well with the extended CG. I never tested extended
rear CG.
Having an heavy engine and battery fwd firewall I can't even reach the
rear CG of 30.3"
Also at take-off-weight 850kg I can't reach rear CG.
Find My W&B below, sorry all metric.
There is still something I did not fully understand.
Where is flap 0° and +7° compared to the fuselarge wing-fillet.
Actually I use the fillet as 0° as found in the plan's
I have serial# 768
Christian
|
|
ltr |
Net wt (kg) |
Moment arm |
Moment wt |
Station (cm) |
| Nose gear |
|
|
209,85 |
85,60 |
17963,16 |
|
| LH gear |
|
|
164,35 |
199,50 |
32787,83 |
|
| RH gear |
|
|
163,25 |
199,50 |
32568,38 |
|
| test1 |
|
|
0,00 |
117,00 |
0,00 |
|
| test2 |
|
|
0,00 |
210,00 |
0,00 |
|
| test3 test4 |
|
|
|
|
0,00 |
|
| Empty CG |
|
|
537,45 |
811,60 |
83319,36 |
155,03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| max. fwd CG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Plane |
|
|
537,45 |
|
|
|
| Pilot |
|
|
55,00 |
210,00 |
11550,00 |
|
| Header full |
|
40,00 |
28,80 |
117,00 |
3369,60 |
|
| Test1 |
|
|
0,00 |
310,00 |
0,00 |
|
| Test2 |
|
|
0,00 |
90,00 |
0,00 |
|
| Test3 |
|
|
0,00 |
247,00 |
0,00 |
|
| Max fwd CG |
|
|
621,25 |
|
98238,96 |
158,13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| max. aft CG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Plane |
|
|
537,45 |
|
|
|
| Pilot |
|
|
75 |
210 |
15750 |
|
| Co Pilot |
|
|
75 |
210 |
15750 |
|
| Header 1/2 full |
|
20 |
14,4 |
117 |
1684,8 |
|
| Wing LH |
|
23 |
16,56 |
198 |
3278,88 |
|
| Wing RH |
|
23 |
16,56 |
198 |
3278,88 |
|
| Luggage |
|
|
30 |
290 |
8700 |
|
| Max aft CG |
|
|
764,97 |
|
131761,92 |
172,24 |
|
|
|
max 765 |
|
|
max177,03 |
On Issue No.1, 1st QTR 99, page
8,
you'll find the following
article:
===========================
LANCAIR 320/360 CG LIMITS
Recently both Orin, with his MK-II
tail and Doug, with his standard tail
configured 320 performed some
flight tests with adjusted fwd CG's.
Basically, they flew with a
slightly forward CG to define how much farther
forward acceptable flight and most
importantly, flair to a landing could be
maintained. the standard, smaller
tailed 320's played out a little sooner
but a fwd limit of 11% worked quite
nicely. both reported good authority at
the flair and enhanced stability as
they moved the CG forward. This 11% of
MAC should be considered since it
offers greater overall CG travel before
getting too far aft-which is
ofcourse, something to be avoided.
===========================
|