Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:54:51 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1991226@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <captd1@earthlink.net>
Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.74] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.5)
  with ESMTP id 1991193 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:15:24 -0500
Received: from user-33qtsmj.dialup.mindspring.com ([199.174.242.211] helo=earthlink.net)
	by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 18ZYDK-0002aW-00
	for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 07:15:22 -0800
X-Original-Message-ID: <3E281E7E.3090409@earthlink.net>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:17:18 -0500
From: Capt D <captd1@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (nscd1)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: lml   LNC2  Tail Flutter?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    I'm sure most of you are aware of Martin Hollman's (sp) analysis 
indicating the possiblity of tail flutter in the L-320's with the large 
Mk-II tail.  He suggests three large bid plys on both the top and bottom 
of the fuselage to the tail.  I just wanted to see what the group 
consensus was??  Is this a good idea or a waste of time?  The only down 
side is some extra weight.  And I do intend to push the plane to it's 
limit, which many pilots may not.  Thanks for the input.
     D. Story, ATP