X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:00:30 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from snt0-omc3-s48.snt0.hotmail.com ([65.54.51.85] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTP id 4382911 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:27:09 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.51.85; envelope-from=bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com Received: from SNT139-W34 ([65.55.90.137]) by snt0-omc3-s48.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:26:33 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_c341974e-97fa-4dca-a7ef-b025fd05a8d0_" X-Originating-IP: [65.182.245.218] From: Bill Kennedy X-Original-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: MK II Tail X-Original-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:26:33 -0700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2010 22:26:33.0868 (UTC) FILETIME=[4A2964C0:01CB1D5A] --_c341974e-97fa-4dca-a7ef-b025fd05a8d0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kitplanes magazine had an article featuring Lancair (small tail) flight tes= t done by a qualified test pilot. The pilot found significant stability pro= blems with the design (I think most of the problems were in the pitch axis)= . It was years ago. I'm happy mine has the Mk II tail=2C but wouldn't consi= der changing an already completed plane to get one. Maybe someone can find the article for you. I think it answers some of your= questions. I can't since I have no small tail experience. > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Date: Tue=2C 6 Jul 2010 16:04:34 -0400 > From: Wolfgang@MiCom.net > Subject: [LML] Re: MK II Tail >=20 > Most of these comments=2C most in favor of the small tail=2C fail to quan= tify the difference in any meaningful way . . . which is quite=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 ? >=20 > Wolfgang >=20 > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Bill N5ZQ" > To: > Sent: Monday=2C July 05=2C 2010 9:04 PM > Subject: RE: [LML] Re: MK II Tail >=20 >=20 > > And a good plan it is too=2C Angier. > > I really like the small tail much better myself. > > > > Bill Harrelson > > N5ZQ 320 1=2C800 hrs with a small tail > > N6ZQ IV under construction > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > Hmmm=2C my kit came with the large tail and I've flown a handful of > > 320s=2C all with the small tail. > > I'm considering cutting off the large tail and installing a small one..= . > > > > Angier Ames > > N4ZQ >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht= ml =20 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search=2C chat and e-mail from your inb= ox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=3DPID28326::T:WLMTAGL:O= N:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1= --_c341974e-97fa-4dca-a7ef-b025fd05a8d0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kitplanes magazine had an article featuring Lancair (small tail) flight tes= t done by a qualified test pilot. The pilot found significant stability pro= blems with the design (I think most of the problems were in the pitch axis)= . It was years ago. I'm happy mine has the Mk II tail=2C but wouldn't consi= der changing an already completed plane to get one.

Maybe someone ca= n find the article for you. I think it answers some of your questions. I ca= n't since I have no small tail experience.

>=3B To: lml@lancaironl= ine.net
>=3B Date: Tue=2C 6 Jul 2010 16:04:34 -0400
>=3B From: Wo= lfgang@MiCom.net
>=3B Subject: [LML] Re: MK II Tail
>=3B
>= =3B Most of these comments=2C most in favor of the small tail=2C fail to qu= antify the difference in any meaningful way . . . which is quite
>=3B= aggravating.
>=3B I get the sense that "It's been that way for 50 yea= rs so why change now ?" attitude is the rule of the land.
>=3B
>= =3B I don't see how that is supposed to help others that know nothing of th= e difference understand the difference.
>=3B . . . Isn't that what thi= s list is for ?
>=3B
>=3B Wolfgang
>=3B
>=3B ----- Or= iginal Message -----
>=3B From: "Bill N5ZQ" <=3Bn5zq@verizon.net>= =3B
>=3B To: <=3Blml@lancaironline.net>=3B
>=3B Sent: Monday= =2C July 05=2C 2010 9:04 PM
>=3B Subject: RE: [LML] Re: MK II Tail
= >=3B
>=3B
>=3B >=3B And a good plan it is too=2C Angier.>=3B >=3B I really like the small tail much better myself.
>=3B &= gt=3B
>=3B >=3B Bill Harrelson
>=3B >=3B N5ZQ 320 1=2C800 hrs= with a small tail
>=3B >=3B N6ZQ IV under construction
>=3B &= gt=3B
>=3B >=3B
>=3B >=3B -----Original Message-----
>= =3B >=3B
>=3B >=3B
>=3B >=3B Hmmm=2C my kit came with the l= arge tail and I've flown a handful of
>=3B >=3B 320s=2C all with the= small tail.
>=3B >=3B I'm considering cutting off the large tail an= d installing a small one...
>=3B >=3B
>=3B >=3B Angier Ames>=3B >=3B N4ZQ
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B --
>= =3B For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.= html

Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search= =2C chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn more. = --_c341974e-97fa-4dca-a7ef-b025fd05a8d0_--