X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 16:13:06 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.100.31] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.7) with ESMTP id 4325799 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:58:40 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.100.31; envelope-from=LenS790501@aol.com Received: from imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (imo-ma02.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.137]) by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o4PIvocb001526 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:57:50 -0400 Received: from LenS790501@aol.com by imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.e09.88b466f (45477) for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:57:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from magic-m16.mail.aol.com (magic-m16.mail.aol.com [172.21.188.208]) by cia-mc06.mx.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMC066-b1a54bfc1dab1e5; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:57:47 -0400 From: LenS790501@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <1eef9.15d04dd5.392d77ab@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:57:47 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] 320/360 tail mod X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1eef9.15d04dd5.392d77ab_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.5 sub 155 X-AOL-ORIG-IP: 174.18.195.168 X-AOL-IP: 172.21.188.208 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: LenS790501@aol.com --part1_1eef9.15d04dd5.392d77ab_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Danny, There are many small tail 320/360s out there flying, including mine with over 700 hours, and they are not squirrely at all. Mine is extremely stable in slow flight and there is no PIO during landing. Have you flown the plane you're considering? That would be my first suggestion so you can see for yourself. Len Spina N15EG In a message dated 5/25/2010 9:28:07 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, dannymiller@wowway.com writes: Hi folks, I'm new here and I have no doubts this has been discussed at length in the past. I'm considering the purchase of a 320 with the original tail and from everything I've read it seems to be a squirrely a/c subject to PIO in the landing configuration. Can you direct me to additional resources that describe the time/effort/expense, etc. involved in retrofitting the tail section? Thanks, Danny -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --part1_1eef9.15d04dd5.392d77ab_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Danny,
There are many small tail 320/360s out there flying, including mine= with=20 over 700 hours, and they are not squirrely at all. Mine is extremely stabl= e in=20 slow flight and there is no PIO during landing. Have you flown the plane= you're=20 considering? That would be my first suggestion so you can see for=20 yourself.
Len Spina
N15EG
 
In a message dated 5/25/2010 9:28:07 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,= =20 dannymiller@wowway.com writes:
Hi=20 folks, I'm new here and I have no doubts this has been discussed at
l= ength=20 in the past.  I'm considering the purchase of a 320 with the=20 original
tail and from everything I've read it seems to be a squirrel= y a/c=20 subject to
PIO in the landing configuration.  Can you direct me= to=20 additional resources
that describe the time/effort/expense, etc. invo= lved=20 in retrofitting the
tail=20 section?

Thanks,
Danny


--
For archives and unsub= =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
--part1_1eef9.15d04dd5.392d77ab_boundary--