The LS-3 measured higher in L/D than the 3a according to Dick Johnson's
tests. I actually have a letter from Wolf Lemke that was with papers that
came with my LS-3a assuring owners that there is no difference in
performace from follow-up factory tests of the 3a after Dick's flight
tests??

I also noticed the following quote on wikipedia for the LS-3:
"In spite of its weight the LS3 is a nimble climber. It is also less
sensitive to rain or dirt than other types with the same profile."

I'm not sure who posted this to the Wiki or if this applies only to the 3
or 3a? Was there any change in profile for the 3a?

Matt
LS3-a "RX"

At 15:44 22 October 2008, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:26=A0pm, "Bill Daniels" wrote:
You know, I've been flying FX 67-150 and -170 airfoils for years.
=A0I've
smashed thousands of bugs, flown through many rain showers and even
collected substantial ice on occasion yet I've not seen any unusual
performance degradation when analyzing flights with SeeYou nor did I
feel
any in flight. =A0In fact, those glides with crappy wings often show a
height/distance ratio well above the published L/D. =A0I know Bob
Faris
g=
ets
great results with his LS-3a in the same conditions. =A0I wonder if
these
airfoils are getting a bad rap.

Bob Faris flies an LS-3, which is rather different than an LS-3a in
the flap/aileron vs flaperon and wing weight areas. Read something in
the past year that suggested that the FX67/170 and 150 did not degrade
on long spans where the thickness was 15%, but can't find it at the
moment.

Frank Whiteley