Syd brings up an interesting debating point. Has there been any flight testing done to confirm the requirement for reduced elevator travel for 1400 lb gross weight? My point is this. Reducing elevator travel increases the approach and landing speeds (one would reason that with reduced travel, you would need higher speed to maintain elevator effectiveness in order to minimize descent rate during the flare). I find this prospect somewhat unwelcome, espescially considering the possibility of an off field emergency landing where I want to be going as slow as possible when my wheels hit the rhubarb. Can the airplane enter an unrecoverable spin condition if abused at high gross weight and with unrestricted (normal C model) elevator travel? Or is the FAA being overly protective with this one? -----Original Message----- From: coupers-digest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, December 11, 1998 9:44 PM Subject: coupers-digest V1 #86
> >Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 19:17:04 -0600 >------------------------------ > >Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 22:09:05 -0600 >From: "Sydney B. Cohen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Two-Pronged Advice > >I really doubt the nose angle has anything to do with Zach's problem. >My Coupe was a C-model with an 85 hp engine until last year, when we >converted it to a D. The D conversion involves replacing the top >fuselage aluminum skin behind the firewall with stainless steel and then >reducing the elevator travel to 9 deg. up by moving the stops on the >control shafts. Nothing else changed, but now the airplane is certified >for a gross of 1400 lbs. So, before the change I could get the nose >very high (I once measured 30 deg. nose-up with a Smart Level) when >doing power-on stalls, and I found absolutly no fuel-flow problems. Now >that I have the 9 deg. limit on my elevator my nose still is able to go >up to about 28 deg. No problems with fuel. I suspect Zach has a fuel >restriction problem due to other reasons. > >Syd Cohen >NC 94196 > >
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
