X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:09:43 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m20.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.1] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.8) with ESMTP id 3189195 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:05:51 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v39.1.) id q.c02.458d3a61 (32914) for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:05:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:05:48 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Small tail vs. large tail X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1222520748" X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34 X-Spam-Flag:NO -------------------------------1222520748 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeff, One small point. I am a satisfied user of the small tail. I took my first civil flight lesson shortly after ordering a Lancair 320 slow build kit, thus I have no military or ATP training or flight time. My airplane can be trimmed all the way to touchdown and the elevator has all the authority I have ever needed. Either you have found out by personal experience or that of others that the 300 series Lancairs are, uh, less happy fliers when the CG is located in the aft most quarter of its range. The Mark II tail alone exacerbates flight problems at rearward CGs since it adds such a large rearward moment. Thus the corollary recommendation that the long engine mount be used to move the CG forward. This is especially true if lighter props and equipment locations means the empty weight CG is not at least at the most forward point so indicated in the build manual. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) Pilot not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%. In a message dated 9/27/2008 7:22:08 A.M. Central Daylight Time, jeffreyb.peterson@gmail.com writes: Harper, About six years ago I faced the decision you now face, asked the same questions, and ended up cutting out the small tail and installing the larger one. I made a web page of the process, and that is somewhere on LML, maybe Marv can point you to it. With all due respect to my fine small-feathered friends, I find that the strongest proponents of the small tail either once flew fighters, or now fly for a major airline, or both. They are much more current, experienced pilots than I will ever be. They have been through the very best flight training available. My job forces me to take 3-6 month breaks from flying. When I do fly I can do it often, but then I get involved in something demanding at work, and I have a long layoff. After a layoff I find myself controlling poorly the first few times back in the left seat. I repeatedly retrain myself. I wanted to be sure my Lancair had plenty of elevator authority. I wanted to be able to trim right onto the runway. Also, the fact that Australia really truly did reject the small tail version, then Lancair actually did change the design...that was a factor for me. I would say the large tail mod added 250 hours to my build time. I am right now dealing with the long mount cowl. I have an angle valve 200 HP engine, and have had to completely rework the cowl. I am nearly done but have at least 250 hours in the cowl as well. I chose to make gradual changes, but if I were starting again I would throw away the Lancair-provided junk and make my own from scratch. One comment: even though the cowl was c**p, the large tail was very nicely built. These are my thoughts and I hope you find them useful. Jeff Peterson N273CK -- Jeff Peterson Dept of Physics, CMU -- Jeff Peterson Dept of Physics, CMU -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001) -------------------------------1222520748 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jeff,
 
One small point.  I am a satisfied user of the small tail.  I= =20 took my first civil flight lesson shortly after ordering a Lancair 320=20= slow=20 build kit, thus I have no military or ATP training or flight time. = ; My=20 airplane can be trimmed all the way to touchdown and the elev= ator=20 has all the authority I have ever needed.
 
Either you have found out by personal experience or that of others that= the=20 300 series Lancairs are, uh, less happy fliers when the CG is located in the= aft=20 most quarter of its range.  The Mark II tail alone exacerbates flight=20 problems at rearward CGs since it adds such a large rearward moment.  T= hus=20 the corollary recommendation that the long engine mount be used to= =20 move the CG forward.  This is especially true if lighter props and=20 equipment locations means the empty weight CG is not at least at the mo= st=20 forward point so indicated in the build manual. 
 
Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL (KARR)

Pil= ot=20 not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%.
  
 
In a message dated 9/27/2008 7:22:08 A.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 jeffreyb.peterson@gmail.com writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000=20 size=3D2>Harper,

About six years ago I faced the decision you now f= ace,=20 asked the same
questions, and ended up
cutting out the small tail an= d=20 installing the larger one.

I made a web page of the process, and th= at=20 is somewhere on LML, maybe Marv
can point you to it.

With all du= e=20 respect to my fine small-feathered friends, I find that
the strongest=20 proponents
of the small tail either once flew fighters, or now fly for=20= a=20 major
airline, or both.

They are much more current, experienced=20 pilots than I will ever be.
They have been through the very best flight= =20 training available.

My job forces me to take 3-6 month breaks from=20 flying. When I do fly I
can do it often, but
then I get involved in=20 something demanding at work, and I have a long layoff.
After a layoff I= =20 find myself controlling poorly the first few times
back in the left=20 seat.
I repeatedly retrain myself.

I wanted to be sure my Lancai= r=20 had plenty of elevator authority.
I wanted to be able to trim right ont= o=20 the runway.

Also, the fact that Australia really truly did reject t= he=20 small tail version,
then Lancair actually did change the design...that=20= was=20 a factor for me.

I would say the large tail mod added 250 hours to=20= my=20 build time.

I am right now dealing with the long mount cowl. =20= I=20 have an angle valve 200 HP
engine, and have had to completely rework th= e=20 cowl.  I am nearly done
but have at least 250 hours in the cowl as= =20 well.  I chose to
make gradual changes, but if I were starting aga= in I=20 would throw away the
Lancair-provided junk and make my own from=20 scratch.

One comment: even though the cowl was c**p, the large tail= =20 was
very nicely built.

These are my thoughts and I hope you find= =20 them useful.

Jeff=20 Peterson
N273CK







--
Jeff Peterson
D= ept=20 of Physics, CMU



--
Jeff Peterson
Dept of Physics,=20 CMU

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



Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial chall= enges? = Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculator= s.
-------------------------------1222520748--