Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:04:34 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-4382691@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.125; envelope-from=Wolfgang@MiCom.net
From: "Wolfgang" <Wolfgang@MiCom.net>
References: <redirect-4381698@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: MK II Tail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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