X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 14:55:26 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from n12.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com ([74.6.228.92] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.7) with SMTP id 4327057 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 26 May 2010 14:35:36 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.6.228.92; envelope-from=mattreeves@yahoo.com Received: from [76.13.12.66] by n12.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2010 18:35:01 -0000 Received: from [76.13.10.184] by t7.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2010 18:35:01 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp125.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2010 18:35:01 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 156138.94496.bm@omp125.mail.ac4.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 26693 invoked by uid 60001); 26 May 2010 18:35:01 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=bcM1iBNalha0bOiFACl1xk+7Spp1cx3mMdrFZ6NpwYcilKR67l6d2j2OYrHDHWoB4qMH8Ggg8w5RF+5jQS3DVLxBjIJ+3pNvvT54aMp2oyb2kgK4GkAQVJR2URw8WiW9K2r9TceDI7g3dBtoIkYp1uLXJQH4uCwkkrYyurADAXA=; X-Original-Message-ID: <935563.26479.qm@web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: FSzjgJcVM1nnqDRhFsovM1BCEmWOzmpEHK3gqlUupU7N_UY vINCovktNTr8WOj_I041Z1te3fIJyrKVys91LSCENwYeUmlFUFGjpeYIyYkl raIRBgdcrAyKVX2tXpGG0rzUtUSoVBw6Hvt9wVFvOcqWGX2wLZHq7N9WRIIQ x8LjCUMZSYy01ynUKVFAmk8KXoLmAaQ.IOREyibEtqS_FNjmZVdwI4gA.GSI JbOIpq2fknU3Yl11JvBCmu2jTmME9ZotYmIueXpjONOXoGs8ojQ5y.7unqaO fer1tvU3vzSgHVTHuDIXTl1MEYdC4Gk343AcoosZCrHRYxnLkrtXpUqCuf80 zMGaWDjfPFLa7TkAKsrufv0KrBG9oQCfQEqDL Received: from [74.37.176.12] by web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 26 May 2010 11:35:00 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/11.0.8 YahooMailWebService/0.8.103.269680 X-Original-Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Reeves Subject: Re: [LML] 320/360 tail mod X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-37314589-1274898900=:26479" --0-37314589-1274898900=:26479 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mike Campbell from Arizona did cut his short tail off of his flying Dreamca= tcher 360 back in the day.=A0=20 He did retro to the bigger tail.=A0 I remember a picture of him cutting off= the tail with a large saw which made me cringe.=A0 In the end, I believe h= e said it was a ton of work and was not worth it and had to do again, he wo= uld not have done it.=A0=20 Mike was an incredible builder and was featured on the cover of many magazi= nes and even had his Dreamcatcher displayed at the New York Museum of Moder= n Art as a really neat hanging display.=A0 He had his own clothing and even= a great video of his building process and some awesome aerobatic flying in= the 360.=A0 Later he built a Giles aerobatic plane and it had an incredibl= e paint scheme of an alien breaking out of the inside of the plane.=A0=20 Remember too you will have to repaint and getting the paint to match up is = hard. My vote is don't do it.=A0 I have flown in both small and large MKII tail 3= 20's and vote not a significant difference.=A0 I fly with power right down = to the runway which provides just enough air over the tail to give me plent= y of control with no pitch problems. That Dreamcatcher was an amazing plane if any of you remember it.=A0 It had= the picture of the Aztec Goddess underneath it and was just an incredible = airplane.=A0 I am sure Mike is sad he sold it and it was later destroyed in= an accident that was not the fault of the airplane. I think that was late 80's early 90's that all happened.=A0 MIke was a grea= t, energetic builder and Lancair promoter.=A0 I heard he wanted to design h= is own airplane but is so busy now running his own company. Matt --- On Wed, 5/26/10, Larry Henney wrote: From: Larry Henney Subject: [LML] 320/360 tail mod To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 11:41 AM =0A=0A =0ADanny,=0A=A0=0AI've flown a lot in both =0Abig and small tails an= d hardly notice a difference anymore,=A0but I do prefer =0Athe large tail.= =A0 One practical consideration I've seen with students in the =0Asmall tai= l is the need for a little more precise airspeed control on =0Afinal.=A0 If= one is 10 kts fast in the large tail it seems less sensitive in =0Athe fla= re than the same error in the small tail.=A0 This should not matter =0Ahowe= ver, I'm only suggesting flying a precise 1.3 Vso on final.=A0 When =0Aairs= peed is properly scanned the small tail flares and lands nicely.=A0 I've = =0Aseen a lot of PIO while waiting for the airspeed to arrive at 1.3Vso or = less in =0Athe flare.=A0 It's highly self critiquing and highly entertainin= g for the =0Ainstructor.=0A=A0=0ARetrofit?=A0 =0AHmmm.=A0 I've not known of= a single small tail driver who actually did it =0Aafter flying.=A0 I'd gue= ss it would not be too much pain to do for an =0Aexperienced builder.=A0 Do= es Lancair still stock/ sell retrofit tails?=A0 =0AIf they sell the carbon = MK II tail in a fast build version I expect it could be =0Adone in less tha= n a month but it would be a huge undertaking for a novice =0Abuilder (imho)= .=0A=A0=0AGood Luck with your =0Adecision.=0A=A0=0ALarry Henney=0AN360LH (b= ig =0Atail)=0A930 hrs =0A=0A=0AFrom: LenS790501@aol.com [mailto:LenS790501@aol.com] =0A Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:13 PM To: =0Alml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] 320/360 tail =0Amod =0A=0ADanny, =0AThere are many small tail 320/360s out there flying, includ= ing mine with =0Aover 700 hours, and they are not squirrely at all. Mine is= extremely stable in =0Aslow flight and there is no PIO during landing. Hav= e you flown the plane you're =0Aconsidering? That would be my first suggest= ion so you can see for =0Ayourself.=0ALen Spina=0AN15EG=0A=A0=0A=0AIn a mes= sage dated 5/25/2010 9:28:07 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, =0Adannymiller= @wowway.com writes:=0AHi folks, I'm new here and I =0A have no doubts this= has been discussed at length in the past.=A0 I'm =0A considering the purchase of a 320 with the = original tail and from =0A everything I've read it seems to be a squirrely a/c subj= ect to PIO in the =0A landing configuration.=A0 Can you direct me to additional r= esources that =0A describe the time/effort/expense, etc. involved in retrofitting t= he tail =0A section? Thanks, Danny -- For archives and unsub =0A http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List= .html =0A=0A=0A --0-37314589-1274898900=:26479 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mike Campbell from Arizona did cut his short = tail off of his flying Dreamcatcher 360 back in the day. 

He d= id retro to the bigger tail.  I remember a picture of him cutting off = the tail with a large saw which made me cringe.  In the end, I believe= he said it was a ton of work and was not worth it and had to do again, he = would not have done it. 

Mike was an incredible builder and wa= s featured on the cover of many magazines and even had his Dreamcatcher dis= played at the New York Museum of Modern Art as a really neat hanging displa= y.  He had his own clothing and even a great video of his building pro= cess and some awesome aerobatic flying in the 360.  Later he built a G= iles aerobatic plane and it had an incredible paint scheme of an alien brea= king out of the inside of the plane. 

Remember too you will ha= ve to repaint and getting the paint to match up is hard.

My vote is do= n't do it.  I have flown in both small and large MKII tail 320's and v= ote not a significant difference.  I fly with power right down to the = runway which provides just enough air over the tail to give me plenty of co= ntrol with no pitch problems.

That Dreamcatcher was an amazing plane= if any of you remember it.  It had the picture of the Aztec Goddess u= nderneath it and was just an incredible airplane.  I am sure Mike is s= ad he sold it and it was later destroyed in an accident that was not the fa= ult of the airplane.

I think that was late 80's early 90's that all = happened.  MIke was a great, energetic builder and Lancair promoter.&n= bsp; I heard he wanted to design his own airplane but is so busy now runnin= g his own company.

Matt

--- On Wed, 5/26/10, Larry Henney = <LHenney@charter.net> wrote:

From: Larry Henney <LHenney@charter.net>
Subject= : [LML] 320/360 tail mod
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wednesday, M= ay 26, 2010, 11:41 AM

=0A=0A =0A
Danny,=0A
 
=0A
I've flown a lot in both =0Abig and small tails and hardly noti= ce a difference anymore, but I do prefer =0Athe large tail.  One = practical consideration I've seen with students in the =0Asmall tail is the= need for a little more precise airspeed control on =0Afinal.  If one = is 10 kts fast in the large tail it seems less sensitive in =0Athe flare th= an the same error in the small tail.  This should not matter =0Ahoweve= r, I'm only suggesting flying a precise 1.3 Vso on final.  When =0Aair= speed is properly scanned the small tail flares and lands nicely.  I'v= e =0Aseen a lot of PIO while waiting for the airspeed to arrive at 1.3Vso o= r less in =0Athe flare.  It's highly self critiquing and highly entert= aining for the =0Ainstructor.
=0A
 
=0A
Retrofit?  =0AHmmm.=   I've not known of a single small tail driver who actually did it =0A= after flying.  I'd guess it would not be too much pain to do for an = =0Aexperienced builder.  Does Lancair still stock/ sell retrofit tails= ?  =0AIf they sell the carbon MK II tail in a fast build version I exp= ect it could be =0Adone in less than a month but it would be a huge underta= king for a novice =0Abuilder (imho).
=0A
 
=0A
Good Luck with y= our =0Adecision.
=0A
 
=0A
Larry Henney
=0A
N360LH (big =0At= ail)
=0A
930 hrs

=0A
=0A
=0AFrom: LenS790501@aol.com [mailto:LenS790501@aol.com] = =0A
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:13 PM
To: =0Alml@lanc= aironline.net
Subject: Re: [LML] 320/360 tail =0Amod
=0A
=0A
Dan= ny,
=0A
There are many small tail 320/360s out there flying, incl= uding mine with =0Aover 700 hours, and they are not squirrely at all. Mine = is extremely stable in =0Aslow flight and there is no PIO during landing. H= ave you flown the plane you're =0Aconsidering? That would be my first sugge= stion so you can see for =0Ayourself.
=0A
Len Spina
=0A
N= 15EG
=0A
 
=0A
=0A
In a message dated 5/25/2010 = 9:28:07 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, =0Adannymiller@wowway.com writes:=0A
Hi folks, I'm new here and I =0A have no doubts this has been discu= ssed at
length in the past.  I'm =0A considering the purchase of a= 320 with the original
tail and from =0A everything I've read it seems = to be a squirrely a/c subject to
PIO in the =0A landing configuration.&= nbsp; Can you direct me to additional resources
that =0A describe the t= ime/effort/expense, etc. involved in retrofitting the
tail =0A section?=

Thanks,
Danny


--
For archives and unsub =0A http:= //mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

=0A=0A --0-37314589-1274898900=:26479--