Good point Wolfgang. I believe that Angier's comment and my reply were
both meant more in jest than in the spirit of practicality. However,
here are my very condensed thoughts on small vs. large tail.

The small tail is:
1. Smaller, less wetted area, less drag.
2. Lighter
3. Simpler
4. electrically transparent (you can put your vhf nav antenna inside)
5. has not produced any structural stresses that requires additional
bids in the fuselage (the large tail has)
6. I personally, haven't found any appreciable advantage in either
stability or stall recovery characteristics with the large tail.
 
I regularly stall airplanes with both tails and although the stall, if
allowed to progress, will often break fairly hard one way or the other,
normal stall recovery technique (stop the nose with the rudder) if
applied with some alacrity along with releasing back pressure and
applying power will produce acceptable stall recovery with either tail.

My conclusion is that I fail to find sufficient advantage in the large
tail to counter the disadvantages.

Anyway, it's been that way for 17 years so why change now?


Bill Harrelson
N5ZQ 320 1,800 hrs
N6ZQ  IV under construction





-----Original Message-----
 On Behalf Of Wolfgang
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 4:05 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: MK II Tail


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