test



> Dominic V Crain <domcrain@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> G'day Bill, you are far too generous in your recollection.
>
> But reading a couple of the posts on big V small, I can draw a
> comfortable
> conclusion.
>
> My post was not intended to be a critique nor an attempt to bias an
> opinion.
> Just a review of the reasons of the bigger tail imposition by the local
> authority.
>
> However my grasp of literal efficiency is slipping and perhaps sent up
> blood
> pressure when it was not intended.
>
> Regards to you and Sue.
>
> Dom
>
>  
>
> PS I am currently planning a coastal solo circumnavigation of Australia.
> It'll be a Lancair first if it comes off.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of
> Bill
> & Sue
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2008 4:47 AM
> To: lml@lancaironline.net
> Subject: [LML] Re: MKII tail vs original tail??
>
>  
>
> Dom, sorry, I don't recall any "ropeyness" in your flying at all. Seemed
> just fine to me. I dunno, I just can't seem to discover any problem with
> my
> small tail after 1,400 hours in all kinds of conditions. I rather like
> it
> this way.
>
>  
>
> Bill Harrelson
>
> N5ZQ 320 1,450 hrs
>
> N6ZQ  IV under construction
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> The only Lancair's I have handled in the air were all large tail
> versions,
> with one exception, that being N5ZQ in the States. Bill will undoubtedly
> recall that I was - let's say "ropey" - to say the least.