Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:38:06 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail.indian-creek.net ([209.176.40.9] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.1) with ESMTP id 2524277 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:54:10 -0400 Received: from VAIO (sl15.du.indian-creek.net [209.176.40.31] toucan@78055.com) by mail.indian-creek.net with SMTP (IOA-IPAD 3.85d/96) id 2F94D00 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:53:47 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <002501c36399$45e3f7e0$1f28b0d1@VAIO> From: "Jim Cameron" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: ES Elevator trim X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:53:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C3636F.593C4E70" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C3636F.593C4E70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The ES has a tendency to be nose-heavy, and mostly feels that way in = the pattern. This is a well-known issue with the ES, and there has been = a lot of discussion here over the years about how best to deal with it. = It probably has to do with some compromises that were made in the = beginning, since the plane was designed to handle either the IO-550, = which almost everyone uses, or the lighter IO-360. From my experience with building two of them, I think the most = effective way to balance the ES out is to go with the composite prop, = which will save you 20+ pounds, way out front where it really makes a = difference. You'll give up a few knots in cruise, however, and a few = bucks at the bank. Mount your battery as far back as it will go, and = ditto everything else with a flexible location. Finally, it's not all that bad holding some back stick on approach. = It gives a good, solid control feel. On your next landing, check and = see if that stick is really all the way back, or if you just thought it = was. Jim Cameron (Legacy in progress) ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C3636F.593C4E70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
   The ES has a tendency to = be=20 nose-heavy, and mostly feels that way in the pattern.  This is a = well-known=20 issue with the ES, and there has been a lot of discussion here over the = years=20 about how best to deal with it.  It probably has to do with some=20 compromises that were made in the beginning, since the plane was = designed to=20 handle either the IO-550, which almost everyone uses, or the lighter=20 IO-360.
    From my experience = with building=20 two of them, I think the most effective way to balance the ES out is to = go with=20 the composite prop, which will save you 20+ pounds, way out front where = it=20 really makes a difference.  You'll give up a few knots in cruise, = however,=20 and a few bucks at the bank.  Mount your battery as far back as it = will go,=20 and ditto everything else with a flexible location.
    Finally, it's not = all that bad=20 holding some back stick on approach.  It gives a good, solid = control=20 feel.  On your next landing, check and see if that stick is really = all the=20 way back, or if you just thought it was.
 
Jim Cameron
(Legacy in progress)
 
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C3636F.593C4E70--