From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Control Surfaces
To: lml
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:30:36 -0500
Message-ID: <web-1566595@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <7D755A9D-CF9A-49E5-B262-62133742861F@airforcemechanical.com>
References: <list-1565012@logan.com>
 <7D755A9D-CF9A-49E5-B262-62133742861F@airforcemechanical.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1";format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for Kevin Kossi <kevin@airforcemechanical.com>:

  Thanks Scott,
  
  Now at least I know I did it right!.
  It's a real shame to put all that Micro on a surface that otherwise  should
have only needed fine tuning. I guess there was too much  weight on the
elevators when they got put together and they got  squeezed more than they
should have.
  
  Yes that really pisses me off. I did four weeks of build shop and  tried to
to do everything myself, but things just moved faster than I  could keep up
with.
  Once I got her home and took a close look at some of the BID's that  the
helpers did, I decided to grind most of them out and re do them  to my
standards.
  
  
  You live and some of us learn.
  
  
  Kevin Kossi
  Legacy 72%
  New York
  
  

> Any time the airflow sees a step down there is turbulence, loss of  
> attachment, an increase in drag and, perhaps, some loss of control  
> surface authority.  In the small operating range about cruise  
> speed, the control surface should be at least at the same level as  
> the attached flying surface or even a bit larger as the air can  
> follow a minor curved elevation (no pun here) in the surface over  
> which it is flowing.