|
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:51:12 GMT, "Doug Palmer"
<shitmail@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>As far as flying characteristics, the aircar isn't known for any particular
>bad habits when properly loaded. The engine is a pusher mount but it isn't
>on a pylon. It is mounted behind and only about 12" above the center of
>lift, and also behind and approximately 24" above the CG. However, the
>engines thrust is directed down onto the top of a Stabilator - yes a flying
>tail.
So if the fuel was exhausted and the engine quit, there would be a
pitch forward, until the pilot re-trims?
<snip>
>The second issue is that this aircraft tends towards an aft CG. In fact,
>empty the aircraft is at the aft CG limit. The fuel sits close to the CG,
>pilots in front. There are usually two batteries and anchor in the nose of
>the aircraft. The aircraft needs to be loaded carefully and is generally
>test flown with extra weight in the front of the aircraft. Again
>speculation, but if improperly loaded it may have been difficult to recover
>from an aft cg stall. This may have been compounded with light stick forces
>from a balanced stabilator and aft CG.
<snip>
>While I certainly carry a bias in favor of the aircraft. I've no idea how
>well constructed the accident aircraft was. It did have over 2500 hours of
>flight time so it had some time on it. The journey was halted in Idaho as
>they waited for a fuel pump and alternator. This from the purchaser, who
>incidentally was the father of Joshua Reynolds the second victim.
If there were 2 people on board, what is the likelyhood that the plane
was aft CG? It sounds like with 2 on board you're at or close to the
forward CG limit.
No matter what else and investigation shows, it indicates the extreme
caution with which a buyer of a homebuilt must approach his first
flights. There are surprises in every airplane. If they're bad,
they're really bad.
|
|
Re: Spencer Air Car Info?
