X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:04:34 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qmta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.32] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTP id 4381773 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:17:57 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.30.32; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from omta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.51]) by qmta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id eS4U1e00816AWCUA3SHNvu; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 02:17:22 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.4] ([24.17.111.171]) by omta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id eSHM1e0053hvfg88SSHMY8; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 02:17:22 +0000 From: John Hafen Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-40--572269828 Subject: 320/360 MK II tail -- Dramatic!?! X-Original-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 19:17:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) --Apple-Mail-40--572269828 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Nah, you guys are all wrong about the dramatic thing (having seen = departures in the T-38 and F-4 but not the F-105). =20 Dramatic is the "snap-roll" my face used to do at the hands of my = x-wife, even with the ball centered. And unlike the F-105, there was = never any warning at all. No pre-stall buffeting. Just a radical and = instantaneous departure from controlled flight without any warning..... Eventually, we got into a flat spin. "Stick Forward, Ailerons and = Rudder Neutral. If not recovered, maintain full forward stick and = deploy drag chute." If that doesn't work, you either bail out or die. I bailed out, and other than a few war wounds, lived to tell about it! John Hafen 413AJ IVP On Jul 5, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Bill Kennedy wrote: > "Dramatic" is a snap roll like the F-105 would do in a deep stall = without the ball centered. It's easy to recover, but not a wonderful = flight characteristic. Plenty of warning -- lots of pre-stall buffeting. = I wouldn't contemplate changing tails (small to large or large to = small). Too much work and too little gain. >=20 > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 08:51:46 -0400 > From: gt_phantom@hotmail.com > Subject: [LML] Re: 320/360 MK II tail >=20 > If the power off stall in your plane is "dramatic," then it is = different than either my small tail 320 or my previous 235. Then again, = we might just have a different definition of "dramatic." To me = "dramatic" would be the stall characteristics of a T-38 or F-4, not = these wonderful and responsive toys. :-)=20 >=20 > If you like your plane, that is what is important. For myself, there = isn't much that I would change about my plane even if I could - unless = it were to add yet more power. But then, that's something you can never = have too much of. >=20 > All I really know is that I love my plane, which happens to be a small = tail, and given that I love it like it is I wouldn't want to give up = even 2 knots for a change that a) won't change my flying pleasure one = bit and b) might make my plane less rugged and c) might interfere with = my communications. >=20 > But hey, this is the experimental world and the beauty is that we can = all say, "I want to do this differently." >=20 > Cheers all >=20 > Bill >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 14:59, Bill Kennedy wrote: > I've got the larger, carbon fiber tail on my 320. In spite of your = opinion, it doesn't seem much like any Cessna I've flown. My guess is = that it flies a lot like the small tail version, except it has better = elevator response over a broader speed range. Being carbon fiber, it may = not have added any weight, but I don't really know. >=20 > My notion is that Lancair didn't "...mess up a good thing", but fixed = a bad thing. I've been very happy with the flying qualities of N42BK = except for its rather dramatic power off stall characteristics (which I = cannot imagine being any better with the small tail). >=20 > Bill Kennedy > N42BK, 599.6=20 >=20 > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 07:28:51 -0400 > From: anpfield@sbcglobal.net > Subject: [LML] Re: 320/360 MK II tail >=20 > Well said, Bill Rumburg!!! Don=92t mess up a good thing.=20 > =20 > Pete Field > 320, Small Tail > N775DX, St. Louis > =20 > From: William Rumburg [mailto:lancair403@verizon.net]=20 > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 5:45 PM > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Subject: [LML] 320/360 MK II tail > =20 > Many have cut off (and continue to cut off) the original 320 'small' = elevator/horizontal stabilizer. The 320/360 is a sport plane and it's a = shame to cut off or abandon the origional elevator/horizontal stabilizer = and replace it with the heavy MK II elevator/horizontal stabilizer, = turning it into a 'Cessna', as dictated by the Austalian CAA ...a SHAME! > I built and have flown a 320 with the original elevator/horizontal = stabilizer for twelve years. It's a sport plane and NOT a Cessna! > =20 > Bill Rumburg > n403Wr (Sonic bOOm) >=20 > The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your = inbox. Get started. >=20 > -- >=20 > For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html >=20 > The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your = inbox. Get started. --Apple-Mail-40--572269828 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Nah, you guys are all wrong about the dramatic = thing (having seen departures in the T-38 and F-4 but not the F-105). =  

Dramatic is the "snap-roll" my face used to do = at the hands of my x-wife, even with the ball centered.  And unlike = the F-105, there was never any warning at all.  No pre-stall = buffeting.  Just a radical and instantaneous departure from = controlled flight without any = warning.....

Eventually, we got into a flat = spin.  "Stick Forward, Ailerons and Rudder Neutral.  If not = recovered, maintain full forward stick and deploy drag = chute."

If that doesn't work, you either bail = out or die.

I bailed out, and other than a few = war wounds, lived to tell about it!

John = Hafen
413AJ IVP


On Jul = 5, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Bill Kennedy wrote:


To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: = Mon, 5 Jul 2010 08:51:46 -0400
From: gt_phantom@hotmail.com
Subje= ct: [LML] Re: 320/360 MK II tail

If the power off stall in your = plane is "dramatic," then it is different than either my small tail 320 = or my previous 235.  Then again, we might just have a different = definition of "dramatic."  To me "dramatic" would be the stall = characteristics of a T-38 or F-4, not these wonderful and responsive = toys.  :-) 

If = you like your plane, that is what is important.  For myself, there = isn't much that I would change about my plane even if I could - unless = it were to add yet more power.  But then, that's something you can = never have too much of.

All I really know is that I love my = plane, which happens to be a small tail, and given that I love it like = it is I wouldn't want to give up even 2 knots for a change that a) won't = change my flying pleasure one bit and b) might make my plane less rugged = and c) might interfere with my communications.

But hey, this is = the experimental world and the beauty is that we can all say, "I want to = do this differently."

Cheers all

Bill



On = 14:59, Bill Kennedy wrote:
I've got the larger, = carbon fiber tail on my 320. In spite of your opinion, it doesn't seem = much like any Cessna I've flown. My guess is that it flies a lot like = the small tail version, except it has better elevator response over a = broader speed range. Being carbon fiber, it may not have added any = weight, but I don't really know.

My notion is that Lancair didn't = "...mess up a good thing", but fixed a bad thing. I've been very happy = with the flying qualities of N42BK except for its rather dramatic power = off stall characteristics (which I cannot imagine being any better with = the small tail).

Bill Kennedy
N42BK, 599.6 

To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: = Fri, 2 Jul 2010 07:28:51 -0400
From: anpfield@sbcglobal.net
Subje= ct: [LML] Re: 320/360 MK II tail

Well said, Bill Rumburg!!!  Don=92t mess up a good = thing. 

 

Pete Field
320, Small Tail
N775DX, St. = Louis

 William Rumburg [mailto:lancair403@verizon.net]<= span class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 = 5:45 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] 320/360 MK II = tail

 

Many have cut off (and continue to cut off) = the original 320  'small' elevator/horizontal stabilizer. The = 320/360 is a  CAA ...a SHAME!
I built and = have flown a 320 with the original elevator/horizontal stabilizer = for twelve years. It's a sport plane and NOT a = Cessna!
 
Bill Rumburg
n403Wr (Sonic = bOOm)

The New Busy is not the old = busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get = started.
--

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

The New Busy = is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get = started.
= --Apple-Mail-40--572269828--