X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 13:41:35 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta11.charter.net ([216.33.127.80] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.7) with ESMTP id 4326610 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:59:11 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.80; envelope-from=lhenney@charter.net Received: from imp11 ([10.20.200.11]) by mta11.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.09.02.04 201-2219-117-106-20090629) with ESMTP id <20100526115833.XPTX14520.mta11.charter.net@imp11> for ; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:58:33 -0400 Received: from CYBERMAX ([96.39.213.138]) by imp11 with smtp.charter.net id NByS1e00B2zjSxc05ByYen; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:58:32 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=qU5ZuYy1v4MA:10 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=QP5IY3kgAAAA:8 a=MT31rHHCdZP_9F8ZLUAA:9 a=kXIjp5SIfWmvHGYxoYYA:7 a=nKv1bvCBb_sBTPD9PE_7wHpIjHUA:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=CVU0O5Kb7MsA:10 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=zEoJXyrrGmEA:10 a=7RoFoUXTPAKzC_mDpQQA:9 a=gg5qDs2wz5EOZeUrcxEA:7 a=ZfaUpYC3QQJEKiNRFbxR-FNT13IA:4 From: "Larry Henney" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: 320/360 tail mod X-Original-Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 06:58:22 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0049_01CAFCA0.D881E9C0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acr8x8bLCJJkjY/3TxOx1sBbs0nSzgAAZUlQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01CAFCA0.D881E9C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Danny, I've flown a lot in both big and small tails and hardly notice a difference anymore, but I do prefer the large tail. One practical consideration I've seen with students in the small tail is the need for a little more precise airspeed control on final. If one is 10 kts fast in the large tail it seems less sensitive in the flare than the same error in the small tail. This should not matter however, I'm only suggesting flying a precise 1.3 Vso on final. When airspeed is properly scanned the small tail flares and lands nicely. I've seen a lot of PIO while waiting for the airspeed to arrive at 1.3Vso or less in the flare. It's highly self critiquing and highly entertaining for the instructor. Retrofit? Hmmm. I've not known of a single small tail driver who actually did it after flying. I'd guess it would not be too much pain to do for an experienced builder. Does Lancair still stock/ sell retrofit tails? If they sell the carbon MK II tail in a fast build version I expect it could be done in less than a month but it would be a huge undertaking for a novice builder (imho). Good Luck with your decision. Larry Henney N360LH (big tail) 930 hrs _____ From: LenS790501@aol.com [mailto:LenS790501@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:13 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] 320/360 tail mod Danny, There are many small tail 320/360s out there flying, including mine with over 700 hours, and they are not squirrely at all. Mine is extremely stable in slow flight and there is no PIO during landing. Have you flown the plane you're considering? That would be my first suggestion so you can see for yourself. Len Spina N15EG In a message dated 5/25/2010 9:28:07 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, dannymiller@wowway.com writes: Hi folks, I'm new here and I have no doubts this has been discussed at length in the past. I'm considering the purchase of a 320 with the original tail and from everything I've read it seems to be a squirrely a/c subject to PIO in the landing configuration. Can you direct me to additional resources that describe the time/effort/expense, etc. involved in retrofitting the tail section? Thanks, Danny -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01CAFCA0.D881E9C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Danny,
 
I've flown = a lot in both=20 big and small tails and hardly notice a difference anymore, but I = do prefer=20 the large tail.  One practical consideration I've seen with = students in the=20 small tail is the need for a little more precise airspeed control on=20 final.  If one is 10 kts fast in the large tail it seems less = sensitive in=20 the flare than the same error in the small tail.  This should not = matter=20 however, I'm only suggesting flying a precise 1.3 Vso on final.  = When=20 airspeed is properly scanned the small tail flares and lands = nicely.  I've=20 seen a lot of PIO while waiting for the airspeed to arrive at 1.3Vso or = less in=20 the flare.  It's highly self critiquing and highly entertaining for = the=20 instructor.
 
Retrofit? =20 Hmmm.  I've not known of a single small tail driver who actually = did it=20 after flying.  I'd guess it would not be too much pain to do for an = experienced builder.  Does Lancair still stock/ sell retrofit = tails? =20 If they sell the carbon MK II tail in a fast build version I expect it = could be=20 done in less than a month but it would be a huge undertaking for a = novice=20 builder (imho).
 
Good Luck = with your=20 decision.
 
Larry = Henney
N360LH (big = tail)
930 = hrs

From: LenS790501@aol.com = [mailto:LenS790501@aol.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:13 PM
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: [LML] 320/360 tail=20 mod

Danny,
There are many small tail 320/360s out there flying, including mine = with=20 over 700 hours, and they are not squirrely at all. Mine is extremely = stable in=20 slow flight and there is no PIO during landing. Have you flown the plane = you're=20 considering? That would be my first suggestion so you can see for=20 yourself.
Len Spina
N15EG
 
In a message dated 5/25/2010 9:28:07 A.M. US Mountain Standard = Time,=20 dannymiller@wowway.com writes:
Hi folks, I'm new = here and I=20 have no doubts this has been discussed at
length in the past.  = I'm=20 considering the purchase of a 320 with the original
tail and from=20 everything I've read it seems to be a squirrely a/c subject to
PIO = in the=20 landing configuration.  Can you direct me to additional = resources
that=20 describe the time/effort/expense, etc. involved in retrofitting = the
tail=20 section?

Thanks,
Danny


--
For archives and = unsub=20 = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_0049_01CAFCA0.D881E9C0--