Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:47:13 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-4385901@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.122; envelope-from=Wolfgang@MiCom.net
From: "Wolfgang" <Wolfgang@MiCom.net>
References: <redirect-4382691@logan.com> <BLU0-SMTP89C27DFF6E5DCF01771D86E2B40@phx.gbl>
Subject: Re: Re: [LML] Re: MK II Tail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm an engineer by trade. My point is what are the details, the numbers ?
. . . or am I expected to let others weigh my decisions for me ?
. . . simply because they don't want to or can't be quantitative ?

Wolfgang

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GT Phantom" <gt_phantom@hotmail.com>
To: "Wolfgang" <Wolfgang@MiCom.net>
Cc: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [LML] Re: MK II Tail


> Wolfgang,
> 
> I think you're missing the answer between the lines.
> 
> The change in handling is not dramatic.  Nor is the change in airspeed.  
> Like everything in the Aviation world, every change is a compromise.
> 
> What you get is a little more stability at the price of a little speed.  
> Some folks think it matters, others think it doesn't.
> 
> If you are that concerned about it, that is the answer to your question 
> - you should either get the Mk II tail, or more likely you should opt 
> for a Vans RV 6 instead of a Lancair 360.  There is no shame in that - 
> different people have different skill sets - but the key is to know your 
> own limitations.
> 
> If you fly a 320/360 small tail and you ARE NOT COMFORTABLE in all 
> phases of flight - buy a more stable airplane.
> 
> I have talked over a half dozen people out of even considering a Lancair 
> 235 after flying with them.  With most, I only had to ask the question:  
> Did you feel comfortable flying that?  All but one that I suspected were 
> not the sort to fly that plane said something like:  "It's too much 
> airplane for me."  Good - I'd rather not read about them in this column 
> as another statistic.  The last one had a bit more trouble giving up 
> emotionally - saying, "I think I could grow into it with practice."  
> Well, maybe he could - attitude is 90% of the battle.  But after I told 
> him he could get 90% of the speed plus grass strips and aerobatics for 
> less money in an RV6 he decided that paying a bit more for gas without 
> having the stress of more challenging handling was not for him.
> 
> Lesson:  Don't mess with this.  Fly the airplane you intend to buy.  If 
> you are not comfortable, DO NOT BUY THE AIRPLANE.  Your life, and my 
> insurance premiums, are not worth your ego.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> On 14:59, Wolfgang wrote:
>> Most of these comments, most in favor of the small tail, fail to 
>> quantify the difference in any meaningful way . . . which is quite 
>> aggravating.
>> I get the sense that "It's been that way for 50 years so why change 
>> now ?" attitude is the rule of the land.
>>
>> I don't see how that is supposed to help others that know nothing of 
>> the difference understand the difference.
>> . . . Isn't that what this list is for ?
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill N5ZQ" <n5zq@verizon.net>
>> To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
>> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 9:04 PM
>> Subject: RE: [LML] Re: MK II Tail
>>
>>
>>> And a good plan it is too, Angier.
>>> I really like the small tail much better myself.
>>>
>>> Bill Harrelson
>>> N5ZQ 320 1,800 hrs with a small tail
>>> N6ZQ  IV under construction
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm, my kit came with the large tail and I've flown a handful of
>>> 320s, all with the small tail.
>>> I'm considering cutting off the large tail and installing a small one...
>>>
>>> Angier Ames
>>> N4ZQ
>>
>>
> 
>