X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 17:51:58 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web111411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com ([67.195.15.192] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.7) with SMTP id 4329669 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 28 May 2010 17:43:00 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=67.195.15.192; envelope-from=randylsnarr@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 90718 invoked by uid 60001); 28 May 2010 21:42:23 -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=Maochrmx9ZOV/wNgM2bg1xd3yleS/t6hIe6OGPjF+9mRa7djseBu9r+sdxxcxvChHuJ7uaiGZmQpRm5zgHnsNuT+Lij0p37Q+cXnRHj88H2LYsn5nuVzJWXhjVBgmTvXP5LUwwQl07iqL9MhLrQ3j0YtM6P9xgm8P7xAhdWwvuU=; X-Original-Message-ID: <690522.89975.qm@web111411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: SnfLKhgVM1m2VHEhV4Lyh_GnJlSICxZxZ14kPVPoCF_R7ow wHaIL24NnGzNkHtKLQSsCq90Jj23dNetFP1z0KEHkjAsi7Vo3ZD2DXqhZEAJ wQciGX3jRdTq2cbv6pGGCKxDB0USi0_JZQhHEJZ1usjzhpbSO.SQHItH7JmN w0gKJboXC7PzcdQcmbLJPqdDGj.4xVLXdqOLBBshYlk45TNdoY03Kup4HuYI qDlot_E93lWRha5B9n_WbDXlevQ2wHIKrVlRHNgHMOK4XmdvGFMMX7wIxn5D tO2M4oahepp6.7e95pCl5xmq2m8CAhhuXeRwFQa4U.2oDupB0G4Ln.JBn04F z6kjwM_ZYZ.LQpryW24xVgwtVU_zHV_Repo0s_Q-- Received: from [76.8.220.18] by web111411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 28 May 2010 14:42:23 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/11.0.8 YahooMailWebService/0.8.103.269680 X-Original-Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:42:23 -0700 (PDT) From: randy snarr 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="0-1868428384-1275082943=:89975" --0-1868428384-1275082943=:89975 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FYI, The tail on the Legacy is the MK II Tail... Randy Snarr N694RS --- 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 --0-1868428384-1275082943=:89975 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
FYI,
The tail on the Legacy is the MK II T= ail...
Randy Snarr
N694RS

--- On Wed, 5/26/10, Larry Henney= <LHenney@charter.net> wrote:
=
From: Larry Henney <LHenney@charter.net>
Subject: [LML] 320/36= 0 tail mod
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 1= 1:41 AM

=0A=0A =0A
Danny,
=0A
 
= =0A
I've = flown a lot in both =0Abig and small tails and hardly notice a difference a= nymore, but I do prefer =0Athe large tail.  One practical conside= ration I've seen with students in the =0Asmall tail is the need for a littl= e more precise airspeed control on =0Afinal.  If one is 10 kts fast in= the large tail it seems less sensitive in =0Athe flare than the same error= in the small tail.  This should not matter =0Ahowever, I'm only sugge= sting flying a precise 1.3 Vso on final.  When =0Aairspeed is properly= scanned the small tail flares and lands nicely.  I've =0Aseen a lot o= f PIO while waiting for the airspeed to arrive at 1.3Vso or less in =0Athe = flare.  It's highly self critiquing and highly entertaining for the = =0Ainstructor.
=0A
 
=0A
Retrofit?  =0AHmmm.  I've n= ot known of a single small tail driver who actually did it =0Aafter 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 t= hey sell the carbon MK II tail in a fast build version I expect it could be= =0Adone in less than a month but it would be a huge undertaking for a novi= ce =0Abuilder (imho).
=0A
 
=0A
Good Luck with your =0Adecisio= n.
=0A
 
=0A
Larry Henney
=0A
N360LH (big =0Atail)=0A
93= 0 hrs

=0A
=0A
=0AFrom: LenS790501@aol.com [mailto:LenS790501@aol.com] =0A
Sent= : Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:13 PM
To: =0Alml@lancaironline.net<= br>Subject: Re: [LML] 320/360 tail =0Amod

=0A
=0A
Danny,
=0A<= div>There are many small tail 320/360s out there flying, including mine wit= h =0Aover 700 hours, and they are not squirrely at all. Mine is extremely s= table in =0Aslow flight and there is no PIO during landing. Have you flown = the plane you're =0Aconsidering? That would be my first suggestion so you c= an see for =0Ayourself.
=0A
Len Spina
=0A
N15EG
=0A<= div> =0A
=0A
In a message dated 5/25/2010 9:28:07 A.M. U= S Mountain Standard Time, =0Adannymiller@wowway.com writes:
=0AHi folk= s, I'm new here and I =0A have no doubts this has been discussed at
len= gth 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 squirr= ely a/c subject to
PIO in the =0A landing configuration.  Can you = direct me to additional resources
that =0A describe the time/effort/exp= ense, etc. involved in retrofitting the
tail =0A section?

Thanks= ,
Danny


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

=0A=0A --0-1868428384-1275082943=:89975--