1. I got what I thought was a good checkout by the previous owner, and didn't really see a problem with flying the airplane. I am using half flaps for landing to limit the aft stick pressure I need to maintain a good approach. There is not enough nose up trim from the elec mac servo to compensate for this. Thoughts, ideas and background? I do know about the Mk II tail, but that is probably not an option. Is there some sort of bob-weight I can install to lower the pitch sensitivity?

Scotty,

 

First, everything Mark said is absolutely correct. 

 

Second, every wee Lancair 235/320/360 (hereafter 360) is somebody's custom airplane.  You may need to adjust some things to your liking and pilot style.

 

1.  Most 360's have stayed with the mechanical friction/spring elevator trim system.  There may be some limits if your servo operated system is moving a trim tab that is not effective enough (not large enough?) to meet the requirements of elevator forces at low speeds and certain CG limits.  However, a larger trim tab may exceed the ability of the servo (I have seen stripped gears in MAC servos) and alter the balance of the control surface.  Your elevator linkage should have been built with a bob-weight (just behind the baggage bulkhead) to add proper feed back during G-loaded maneuvering - make sure it is rigged exactly as Lancair calls out in the construction manual.  Small tail 360s are renowned for pitch sensitivity - stay alert.

 

Here is some further discussion of pitch trim: 

 

Many, if not most, 360 builders shortened the elevator bellcrank hole location from a 4" arm to a 3" arm.  This was first proposed by a girth-challenged builder and results in a 25% reduction in stick movement for the same elevator movement.  Another benefit is the that the force necessary to move the elevator is increased by 25% , thus reducing the "lightness."  Of course, pitch control is a system - all the consequences must be considered.  This change required stronger springs be used for the trim and that required the friction holding the manual trim control be increased so that it became quite an effort to make trim adjustments.  Dick Reichel then invented the gear driven spring loaded trim system (with a walnut wheel, no less) that works very well with the increased trim spring forces. 

 

I have such modifications and trim system and it is adjusted so that I also run out of nose down trim when fully loaded at race speeds, that is up until about half the fuel is burned off.  I have never run out of nose up trim at full flaps even though I have biased my airplane to a more forward CG.  My W&B notes that the minimum solo pilot weight is 150 pounds since the CG will be too far forward if the only fuel remaining is in the header tank and the baggage compartment is empty.

 

As you may have noticed, flap deployment has a great effect on the pitch of the airplane.  Ergo, half-flaps leaves you with relevant nose up "trim."  That is, you are not pitched nose down as much as you would be at full flaps.  In the example you gave, the flaps are participating in the trim of your airplane.  That is OK if you realize the limits (and options) imposed by their use.  Maybe you could examine the range your trim tab moves thru and see if it would be useful to change the range to give more nose up trim?

 

The "big" tail is good but moves the CG aft - not good in airplanes already built with an aft CG bias.

 

The long engine mount moves the engine forward 3" and the CG forward about 1.5". This option is frequently chosen for those with rear CG problems and/or the big tail.  It is not so good in an airplane with nose-up trim problems.

 

<<<