X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:37:47 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm26-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com ([98.139.213.74] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTPS id 6509069 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:39:20 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.213.74; envelope-from=chris_zavatson@yahoo.com Received: from [98.139.212.149] by nm26.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Oct 2013 00:38:46 -0000 Received: from [98.139.212.227] by tm6.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Oct 2013 00:38:45 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1036.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Oct 2013 00:38:45 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 871598.18689.bm@omp1036.mail.bf1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 89279 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Oct 2013 00:38:44 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=IMudxflAgQ742E9B0ZRzNrhGfsSW+vIWSmVjwFNBOlz8UkO4l+s3YOgJjbH0BRZuB3qmKycKIoJO0t9Zu/ykTM8+22L8JmCfsurQgiyRI0SHl81sK37Dc7BWdrK7iQAoilt0+lFA+/QnWwhxxogCcDU8dzv94HZ8o0zS/Lp/XXU=; X-YMail-OSG: TooHjZ8VM1mYIfr1SEbBf2TwAv7Sw9.aQGEr50m0sr5kZKg 8swuVRrNNJPVEGLUF.Tg0qb3ztGKN0Oq.KjEuXkSCopKHY.qA29IKYif_8Wu JQoXcYcN12qDXn3BWfHM_u9qQxR4ijN_cnrF52AO2H4V156km_gCspI0iX6E gIiLpFn30eFqCyutDNYVL9eTQToCZxVV8BYvFRfS4nfNHutPcVvQGizLF7Dl Ng4.85szLkNtZRB7wi0mi.330f9bZlWJet7wcGvXr6flcP9CphPEHg95FJ0p WFZGYtwT.BGYFiC5h7jDXRLJTDRbSmHfvWDAbxtzFkQ.mmH4teEcPRkgAYeY 4lIxODLfRzvIm82G8mbL6nqRaqVSer1WUrPyuR6ct9dsmPMxLDwM_av27Br8 grBk0T7lEsE5dv0C9u1HRkmzVUsNqvna9M2YumrFth80jkJOSK_Ql6.Z0Vf_ oEsOSnzjz5o0xNdvBPuOy25xpspXzuEdLUZ8QJhDsPwiYHVPHuVBnH9LDE4A 0ImzlV9bmRP4WkCftE_PkP4tOYQ5BfmmXKYMKKYm5ZQ_FSGF76FF02u2YY0k fQuTXhWRCZjz_5zQaoCxLtFB.sLeZ6gMV0OMAXNr3VejAM6873t2XDeo.8ck Rb6NrTaFRuvaRA41i4bnavRMElU_VlHW0Cz.rHf4urGWfdru.aCM_bKFNNwR kiZ8wQCVRCnw1lnaA4phTeDTXj3uEoloBEtu..7oRmT14yQ31B4PiO3mAUzm spJ..FjfdqWgLYjzBOwv9WAKU_A3VpVSfChdTfJjeW1ZuEnuJ53KDB9KP_U. 9NiioVHD0JCjLiJh1W5GeH.MuGaGLkKNW.nWc3w_p0g-- Received: from [172.14.16.72] by web121604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:38:44 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001,Q3JhaWcsCldoYXQgaXMgeW91csKgaW5jaWRlbmNlIGFuZ2xlIG9mIHRoZSBob3Jpem9udGFsIHJlbGF0aXZlIHRvIHRoZSBsb25nZXJvbj_CoCBBbHNvLCBpcyB0aGVyZSBhIHNwZWVkIGF0IHdoaWNoIHRoZSBlbGV2YXRvciB0cmFpbHMgaW4tbGluZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBzdGFiaWxpemVyPyAKQ2hyaXMKCgpTZW50IGZyb20gbXkgc3BpZmZ5IGlQaG9uZQoKT24gT2N0IDksIDIwMTMsIGF0IDI6NDkgUE0sICJDcmFpZyBTY2h1bHplIiA8Y3JhaWdAc2t5Ym9sdC5uZXQ.IHdyb3RlOgoKCkhpIENocmlzLCAKwqAgClMBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.160.587 References: <019101cec539$708141d0$5183c570$@net> <260A849C-E57E-4B8A-9708-40759C134DFC@yahoo.com> X-Original-Message-ID: <1381365524.87820.YahooMailNeo@web121604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:38:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Zavatson Reply-To: Chris Zavatson Subject: Re: [LML] 320/360 performance and stability X-Original-To: Craig Schulze X-Original-Cc: "" In-Reply-To: <260A849C-E57E-4B8A-9708-40759C134DFC@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-36511695-1676778285-1381365524=:87820" ---36511695-1676778285-1381365524=:87820 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig,=0AWhat is your=C2=A0incidence angle of the horizontal relative to th= e longeron?=C2=A0 Also, is there a speed at which the elevator trails in-li= ne with the stabilizer? =0AChris=0A=0A=0ASent from my spiffy iPhone=0A=0AOn= Oct 9, 2013, at 2:49 PM, "Craig Schulze" wrote:=0A=0A= =0AHi Chris, =0A=C2=A0 =0ASince I have upgraded from 320 to 360 my airplane= is now on the=0Aforward side of its CG range.=C2=A0 It's nice now when I t= hrow a few things in=0Athe back.=C2=A0 Since this discussion all came up I = looked at my elevator in=0Aflight and it is clearly is flying in an up elev= ator condition even though the=0Atrim spring is trying to push the stick fo= rward to keep level flight.=C2=A0=0AThat is why I was thinking that a littl= e reduced down thrust may not have the=0Atail fighting so much to keep ever= ything in balance for level flight.=C2=A0 Don=E2=80=99t=0Ahave room to do m= uch but wondering it that would help put the elevator in more of=0Aa neutra= l position. =0A=C2=A0 =0ACraig Schulze =0AN73S =0A=C2=A0 =0AFrom:Chris Zava= tson=0A[mailto:chris_zavatson@yahoo.com] =0ASent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013= 4:55 AM=0ATo: lml@lancaironline.net=0ASubject: Re: [LML] 320/360 performan= ce and stability =0A=C2=A0 =0ACraig, =0A"I=C2=A0was thinking about reduc= ing engine=0Adownthrust.=C2=A0 Any thoughts on this Chris?" =0A=C2=A0 =0A= Less downthrust is destabilizing.=C2=A0 =0AIf you are going to change dow= nthrust, I would=C2=A0love to=0Arecord your neutral point before and after.= =C2=A0 It is rare to get stability=0Adata on a propeller changes like this.= =0A=C2=A0 =0AHere is paper that discusses the stability changes to the= =0AHawkeye E-2C simply by increasing prop disc solidity.=C2=A0 Four blade t= o eight=0Ablade prop. =0A=C2=A0http://n91cz.com/Interesting_Technical_Repo= rts/E2_prop_change.pdf =0AChris Zavatson =0AN91CZ =0A360std =0Ahttp://w= ww.n91cz.net/ =0A=C2=A0 =0AFrom:Craig Schulze [mailto:craig@skybolt.net] = =0ASent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:04=0APM=0ATo: 'dudewanarace@yahoo.com= '=0ASubject: RE: 320/360 performance and=0Astability =0A=C2=A0 =0AHi To= m, =0A=C2=A0 =0AWhat type of odd experiences are you having with=0Ayours?= =C2=A0 I have been noticing that the faster I go the more pitch sensitive= =0Ait is. I =C2=A0have the small tail too and my elevator position is about= the=0Asame as yours in cruise.=C2=A0 I was thinking about reducing engine= =0Adownthrust.=C2=A0 Any thoughts on this Chris? =0A=C2=A0 =0AWhat were t= he results of flattening the bottom of the=0Aflaps?=C2=A0 Any speed gain? = =0A=C2=A0 =0ACraig =0ASmall tail 360 N73S =0A=C2=A0 =0A=C2=A0 =0AFrom:= dudewanarace@yahoo.com [mailto:dudewanarace@yahoo.com] =0ASent: Wednesday, = October 02, 2013 4:50=0AAM=0ATo: lml@lancaironline.net=0ASubject: 320/360 p= erformance and=0Astability =0A=C2=A0 =0AReaders, =0AI have been watch= ing this conversation with interest.=0A=C2=A0I have some odd experiences wi= th stability in my small tail 360 that was=0Aimproperly built (not by me). = =C2=A0Geez, that is going to hurt resale.. haha =0A=C2=A0 =0AAnyway, I = have been waiting to comment as it will just fog=0Athe data that has been p= resented given my totally odd arrangement and lack of=0Aany real data. =C2= =A0All of my 'data' is seat of the pants, thus not worth=0Amentioning. =C2= =A0But, figured I could expand on an envelope probably few have=0Avisited j= ust for interesting reading. =0A=C2=A0 =0AThis is my elevator angle wit= h the airplane in a forward=0AC.G. condition (header fuel only, single pilo= t), flaps in reflex and, well,=0Agoing as fast as an RV-7 will go in format= ion. :) =0Ahttp://www.n54sg.com/images/tuft_test_08.jpg =0A=C2=A0 =0A= So, this problem poses a few issues. =0AFirst, this is obviously drag, pr= obably a measurable amount=0Athus for me the driving force behind correctin= g it one day. =C2=A0Second is the=0Aavailable elevator travel. =C2=A0If you= read the manual, I have the correct=0Aamount of up / down elevator travel.= =C2=A0But, if the photo is my starting=0Apoint, it means I have much less = up, and way too much down available to use.=0A=C2=A0The important part bein= g the elevator up while in the flare. =C2=A0Given=0Aa forward C.G. and a hu= ge amount of flaps, this can be an issue. (ask me how I=0Aknow...) =0A=C2= =A0 =0ANext I would like to mention that not all small tails trim=0Athe s= ame. =C2=A0Some use a spring system to bias the entire elevator.=0A=C2=A0Ot= hers use trim tabs. =C2=A0I have a tab that due to its placement and=0Aodd = elevator deflection has a limited functional envelope. =C2=A0Another=0Adriv= ing force to change incidence. =0A=C2=A0 =0ANow the often obvious quest= ion people ask is why haven't I=0Afixed it yet. =C2=A0Well, because the job= of fixing it is going to totally=0Asuck, and I wanted it to be the last th= ing I do as my other aerodynamic changes=0Amay affect the angle of incidenc= e. =C2=A0This brings me to the next subject,=0Awhat I have changed. =0A= =C2=A0 =0ASo I have this airplane going faster than most and figured=0Awh= y stop now.. I made a rather drastic change that some call the beluga belly= .=0A=C2=A0It has been done to a few Legacys that race with varied applicati= ons of=0Athe same idea. =C2=A0Those familiar with the 320/360 fuselage will= notice it in=0Athis picture: =0Ahttp://www.n54sg.com/images/tuft_test_04= .jpg =0AI'm working on a write up for my website detailing the=0Aproject = and its purpose and will have that posted sometime soon. =C2=A0But, I=0Awil= l report that this did change the downwash on my horiztonal and did change= =0Amy required angle of incidence. Hence, I'm glad I waited to change that.= =0A=C2=A0It actually requires less up elevator than it did before so less n= egative=0Aincidence. =C2=A0The general theory is I have corrected some flow= around the=0Afuselage thus making the entire horizontal a bit more effecti= ve. =C2=A0Some=0Amodified Legacys experienced something similar. =C2=A0I on= ly wish it would have=0Acorrected it more! =C2=A0I now know more about this= mod and maybe would have=0Aapplied it differently. =C2=A0Just not sure I'm= willing to do the work again=0Afor unknown gains. =0A=C2=A0 =0AThe oth= er aerodynamic change I made (that relates to the=0Aoriginal stability post= ) is I removed the cusp from the bottom surface of my=0Aflaps as suggested = in a book about GA airfoils by Harry Riblett. =C2=A0Below is=0Aa simplified= version of his drawing. =C2=A0(Not accurate, just for explanation=0Apurpos= es) =C2=A0The solid black is the modification. =0Ahttp://www.n54sg.com/im= ages/Flap_Drawing.jpg =0ASo, what I have done to the camber of the wing i= s a bit odd=0AI suppose, but it was odd to start with. =C2=A0Keep in mind, = the 320 / 360=0Aailerons already have this modification. =C2=A0I didn't get= the 10 kts I=0Athought I would. =C2=A0(Aren't all mods worth 10 kts? haha)= =C2=A0But, it is a=0Adifferent airfoil. =C2=A0Stall was no different, but = the pitch force did=0Aincrease with flaps extended. =C2=A0Not a bad thing i= n my opinion.=0A=C2=A0Overall it is hard to explain, it is a different wing= , just can't=0Apinpoint how.=C2=A0 =0A=C2=A0 =0AIn the end I think I ha= ve made the airplane aerodynamically=0Abetter, but I have moved the problem= . =C2=A0It seems with just a little bit=0Acleaner airplane I ran in to the = limit of the propeller. =C2=A0Previously more=0Arpm always netted more spee= d. =C2=A0Now the top 250ish rpm doesn't do much at=0Aall. =C2=A0Total bumme= r! =C2=A0Having to learn a lot more about propellers than=0AI ever thought = I would now... =0A=C2=A0 =0AResults of my airplane at Reno this year: = =0AQualifying: 268.272 mph=0ASport Medallion: 1st 261.906 mph (only 2600= =0Arpm!)=0AHeat 1C: 3rd 268.300 mph=0AHeat 2C: 2nd 265.030 mph=0AHeat 3C: 2= nd 266.717 mph=0ABronze Race: 2nd 266..944 mph =0A=C2=A0 =0AI have some= really cool video from my helmet/dash cameras,=0Ajust trying to get it all= edited. =C2=A0Hear is a teaser of some VERY close=0Aracing with Dave Morss= in his Legacy: http://youtu.be/iegd6ylVHI4 =0ABest to watch in full scre= en in HD. =C2=A0Keep in mind,=0Aobjects in a wide angle lens are closer tha= n they appear! haha =0A=C2=A0 =0ATom McNerney =0Ahttp://www.n54sg.com= /=C2=A0 ---36511695-1676778285-1381365524=:87820 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Craig,
What is = your incidence angle of the horizontal relative to the longeron? = Also, is there a speed at which the elevator trails in-line with the stabi= lizer?
Chris

Sen= t from my spiffy iPhone

On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:49 = PM, "Craig Schulze" <cr= aig@skybolt.net> wrote:

<= div>
=0A=0A=0A
=