Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #38478
From: Marvin Kaye <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Control Surfaces
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:30:36 -0500
To: <lml>
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.
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster