X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:26:29 -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 5.4.4) with ESMTP id 5439254 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:55:59 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.122; envelope-from=kkellner1@new.rr.com X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Wf+OmjdX c=1 sm=0 a=obLwkm3ISv3u5N1fLH+lKQ==:17 a=Iy1csxky15oA:10 a=m-mSg2F3nesA:10 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=BZZCda4vXVHMEyTHCugA:9 a=ZzoTPqdiB-TpP_s0sDUA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=to2ju4hKxjAA:10 a=hV-wVUytbA4A:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=I4r2wYIUrLWocHj7:21 a=TRjMOtP7O7q7aYMW:21 a=C_IRinGWAAAA:8 a=9mAwrhmp-HDHKoIM6zkA:9 a=5bFy2WvSI_yZDuGTyhQA:7 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=obLwkm3ISv3u5N1fLH+lKQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 70.92.78.168 Received: from [70.92.78.168] ([70.92.78.168:2602] helo=D4SSJS91) by hrndva-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 5E/46-00803-AFA9E5F4; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:55:23 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <984CB106C69F4A7E83F0F5D2A1FDA469@D4SSJS91> From: "Ken" X-Original-To: , "John Hafen" References: Subject: Re: [LML] LNC2 - Harminization between pitch and roll X-Original-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:55:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03AF_01CD008A.0D8E5150" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_03AF_01CD008A.0D8E5150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Randy, One option to reduce aileron stick forces is to add something similar to, b= ut not exactly, a roll trim tab. It goes on the wing opposite the wing tha= t has the trim tab. Instead of attaching the new tab to a trim servo, it i= s attached to the trailing edge of the wing, or hinge bearing block, via a = fixed push rod. The length of the rod is adjustable so you can change how = much the stick forces are reduced. The new tab with the fixed push rod mov= es opposite the direction of the aileron. =20 After reading my own description even I am confused. But, if you look at a= Cessna Corvallis (or whatever it is called) it is standard equipment. One= of the first things Cessna did to reduce the aileron stick forces when the= y purchased the Columbia line. I have flown a before and after example of this mod on a Glastar and it is = a noticeable improvement. I have no clue what the potential structural or = aerodynamic downsides might be. Ken Kellner ----- Original Message -----=20 From: John Hafen=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [LML] LNC2 - Harminization between pitch and roll Randy: It's the same on my IVP. If I sneeze, I will gain or lose 200 fe= et without touching the stick. The aileron forces are so brutal that I don= 't turn at all. I just go around the block. If I do need to turn, I use my knees to provide pressure assist. Works f= or left turns, not so much for right turns. I don't notice it after a few hundred hours, but pilots new to the plane = freak out. =20 Cheers, John On Mar 5, 2012, at 1:41 PM, Randy Hartman wrote: To: All LNC2 drivers and anyone else that wants to weigh in on the subjec= t, Subject: Stick force harmony (or stick movement vs. control surface movem= ent) between pitch and roll My Lancair 360 (N360DE), which I have flown now for 450 hours, has an cha= racteristic that I would like some input on from all you well-informed and = intelligent LML readers and contributors. The characteristic is: Very sensitive pitch axis that is not harmonized w= ith the roll axis. I have gotten used to the difference and frankly don't plan on changing a= nything about it unless someone out there has a good suggestion. I have some questions: 1. Is this typical of the LNC2? 2. What kinds of things should I be concerned about in considering = any changes to the linkage of the system? 3. Has anyone made any changes and what were the results? 4. Does anyone out there have any experience with using full pitch = deflection - in any portion of flight? I imagine it might be needed in lan= ding, full flaps, lower speeds - but I have not seen it. It seems to me the way to make an increase in aileron sensitivity is to c= hange the mechanical linkage geometry to effectively make the control surfa= ce move more degrees of rotation per degree of stick movement. This would = (and could) be done but the resultant would be the stick not getting full d= eflection (as compared to now) in the cockpit when the aileron was at full = deflection. This might not be a bad thing because right now the stick has = to be jammed up against one or the other of your thighs in order to get the= aileron to full deflection. Ideally I would like to have less sensitivity in pitch, resulting in more= stick deflection for the same pitch results as now - and less total stick = deflection in roll, which should result in more roll sensitivity. For clarification purposes - my horizontal stab and elevator are a one-of= f design of Chuck Brenner. Chuck was involved with part of the constructio= n of this project prior to my involvement with it. Randy Hartman Cell (319) 360-9775 ------=_NextPart_000_03AF_01CD008A.0D8E5150 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Randy,
 
One option to reduce aileron stick forces is to add something sim= ilar=20 to, but not exactly, a roll trim tab.  It goes on the wing opposi= te=20 the wing that has the trim tab.  Instead of attaching the new tab= to a=20 trim servo, it is attached to the trailing edge of the wing, or hinge beari= ng=20 block, via a fixed push rod.  The length of the rod is adjustable= so=20 you can change how much the stick forces are reduced.  The new tab wit= h the=20 fixed push rod moves opposite the direction of the aileron. 
 
After reading my own description even I am confused.  But, if you= look=20 at a Cessna Corvallis (or whatever it is called) it is standard equipment.&= nbsp;=20 One of the first things Cessna did to reduce the aileron stick forces when = they=20 purchased the Columbia line.
 
I have flown a before and after example of this mod on a Glastar and i= t is=20 a noticeable improvement.  I have no clue what the potential structura= l or=20 aerodynamic downsides might be.
 
Ken Kellner
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Fro= m:=20 John H= afen=20
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 9:25= =20 PM
Subject: Re: [LML] LNC2 - Harminiz= ation=20 between pitch and roll

Randy:  It's the same on my IVP.  If I sneeze, I= will=20 gain or lose 200 feet without touching the stick.  The aileron force= s are=20 so brutal that I don't turn at all.  I just go around the block.

If I do need to turn, I use my knees to provide pressure assist.=20  Works for left turns, not so much for right turns.

I don't notice it after a few hundred hours, but pilots new to the p= lane=20 freak out.  

Cheers,

John


On Mar 5, 2012, at 1:41 PM, Randy Hartman wrote:
To:=20 All LNC2 drivers and anyone else that wants to weigh in on the=20 subject,
Subject:=20 Stick force harmony (or stick movement vs. control surface movement) betw= een=20 pitch and roll
My=20 Lancair 360 (N360DE), which I have flown now for 450 hours, has an=20 characteristic that I would like some input on from all you well-informed= and=20 intelligent LML readers and contributors. The=20 characteristic is: Very sensitive pitch axis that is not harmonized with = the=20 roll axis. I=20 have gotten used to the difference and frankly don't plan on changing any= thing=20 about it unless someone out there has a good suggestion. I=20 have some questions: 1.      = ; Is this typical = of the=20 LNC2? 2.      = ; What kinds of th= ings=20 should I be concerned about in considering any changes to the linkage of = the=20 system? 3.      = ; Has anyone made = any=20 changes and what were the results? 4.      = ; Does anyone out = there=20 have any experience with using full pitch deflection - in any portion of= =20 flight?  I imagine it might be needed in landing, full flaps, lower= =20 speeds - but I have not seen it. It=20 seems to me the way to make an increase in aileron sensitivity is to chan= ge=20 the mechanical linkage geometry to effectively make the control surface m= ove=20 more degrees of rotation per degree of stick movement.  This would (= and=20 could) be done but the resultant would be the stick not getting full=20 deflection (as compared to now) in the cockpit when the aileron was at fu= ll=20 deflection.  This might not be a bad thing because right now the sti= ck=20 has to be jammed up against one or the other of your thighs in order to g= et=20 the aileron to full deflection. Ideally=20 I would like to have less sensitivity in pitch, resulting in more stick= =20 deflection for the same pitch results as now - and less total stick defle= ction=20 in roll, which should result in more roll sensitivity. For=20 clarification purposes - my horizontal stab and elevator are a one-off de= sign=20 of Chuck Brenner.  Chuck was involved with part of the construction = of=20 this project prior to my involvement with it. Randy=20 Hartman Cell=20 (319)=20 360-9775
------=_NextPart_000_03AF_01CD008A.0D8E5150--