Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!digex!btnet-peer!btnet!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!mmallory
From: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory)
Subject: Re: 17 misconceptions - The Flight Test
Message-ID: <mmalloryF4Bxnu.6JF@netcom.com>
Followup-To: rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Organization: ICGNetcom
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <73slvn$5b2$1@news.monmouth.com> <VA.000006ca.003319ce@hbmltd>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 19:19:06 GMT
Lines: 13
Sender: mmallory@netcom10.netcom.com
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:42649 rec.aviation.piloting:30320

Dave Mould (davem@airstrip.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: The g was not nearly as high as in Hilton's experiment or the theory 
: predicts.  So - what was the difference in my experiment?  The trim tab 
: is conventional, though is also a balance tab (moves with elevator so 
: as to reduce forces).

Suspect that your initial trim setting was affected by power (you said 
you were *climbing*); the airflow over the horizontal tail resulting in a 
more *nose-down* trim setting than would otherwise be the case.  Setting 
the trim in an 80 kt *descent* (reduced or zero power) would result in a 
more *nose-up* setting, which in turn would result in greater 
acceleration at the higher speed.

