Scott wrote:

"I believe the flat aileron trailing edge is to supress "aileron snatch"
and/or flutter while maintaining control effectivess............"

Scott, back when I built my 235 ('86 to '93), the reason given at the time
for the blunt edge of the ailerons was to eliminate a slight dead-band in
roll response vs stick input noticed on one of Lance's early prototypes. No
mention of "aileron snatch" or flutter elimination was ever made (at least
back then) and I believe the 320 aileron system is much like the early 235.
In fact, flutter should not be an issue assuming proper construction of the
aileron system, e.g., solid no-slop control circuit and proper
counterbalancing. (Mine are just a couple percent "over-balanced" after
paint and dirt).

Must work as I have absolutely no dead-band in roll input, and, during my
flight tests, I opened the flight envelope to about 10% over VNE (VERY
carefully, I must add) to be sure that flutter wasn't lurking just over
red-line. It wasn't, and in fact, I've never felt the dreaded "buzz"
signaling an incipient flutter. Of course, since my 235 has never flown with
any other kind of aileron, I have no way of knowing what it would have been
like with sharp trailing edges. One of the things I like about my ailerons
is how they stiffen up with increasing airspeed - a good thing (IMHO) that
MAY be attributable to the blunt trailing edges.

Since the airfoil of the horizontal is quite different than the wing, the
same requirements do not seem to be imposed on the elevator - like all
(most?) LNC2's, my elevator has a sharp trailing edge and NO discernable
dead-band. I don't know about you, but I like to refer to my 235 as
"responsive" in pitch - meaning that if you have to sneeze, it's best to
take your hand off the stick!

Dan Schaefer