REFLECTOR:CG VS ROTATION

reflector@tvbf.org reflector@tvbf.org
Sun, 25 May 2003 12:16:46 -0700


The nose gear actuators we use in Berkuts, Cozys and EZ's would be 
perfectly capable of this.

You might want to taxi with the nose low to avoid prop damage from taxiway 
debris.

How do the two positions - nose high and nose low - compare to the current 
stance?

At 11:50 AM 5/25/03 -0600, you wrote:

>NOTE:  I AM NOT ADVOCATING THIS FOR ANYONE.  IT IS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES 
>ONLY ... BUT INITIAL STATIC TESTS LOOK GOOD.  I AM NOT SURE I WILL EVER 
>USE IT.  BUT DISCOVERY IS FUN.
>
>
>
>I realize this is a controversial subject ... but here goes.  After all 
>... experimentalis the name of the game.
>
>
>
>There has been an ongoing discussion about the weight and balance of the 
>Velocity regarding the CG (especially for those running a bigger engine 
>like an IO-540 in an Elite 173).  Even within the proper weight and 
>balance envelope it can be very light in the nose.
>
>
>
>Alan Shaw has said in the past that the Velocity flew best when it was 
>within CG limits, yet very light in the nose.  He said the best CG for 
>flying is not always the best point of rotation on the ground.  He at one 
>time recommended that the gear be moved back slightly on those non-XLs 
>running the IO-540.
>
>
>
>Are there other solutions?  Yes ... ballast ... which he says often spoils 
>the flight characteristics.
>
>
>
>NOW FOR THE CONTROVERSY ... but think before you criticize:
>
>
>
>I have asked one of my engineer friends (aeronautical) to help me design a 
>modification for the nose gear.  The mechanism is solid and strong but the 
>actual use (other than static testing) has not been proven.
>
>
>
>In essence, when the gear is down and locked (over center) the plane it at 
>a slight negative angle of attack.  That makes ground handling 
>perfect.  Theoretically, it should make landing in cross winds a bit more 
>stable ... because once its down, its down ... the slight negative angle 
>makes a no liftsituation.
>
>
>
>OK, but what about takeoff?
>
>
>
>The design includes an actuator (or a straight mechanical lever, if one 
>prefers) that raises the nose to take-offattitude.  It stays there for the 
>ground roll and take-off.
>
>
>
>Once up in the air, the gear retracts normally ... and the next time it 
>comes down, it is at the lowerlocked position.
>
>
>
>For touch and goes, you would have to activate the take offposition 
>immediately upon touch down.
>
>
>
>OK, TELL ME IM INSANE.  I can name many, many people who were called that 
>in the past ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>