X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:27:25 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc3-s21.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.96] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTP id 4383069 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:01:45 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.96; envelope-from=gt_phantom@hotmail.com Received: from BLU0-SMTP33 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s21.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 6 Jul 2010 19:01:10 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [99.101.71.247] X-Originating-Email: [gt_phantom@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: gt_phantom@hotmail.com Received: from [192.168.1.67] ([99.101.71.247]) by BLU0-SMTP33.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 6 Jul 2010 19:01:10 -0700 X-Original-Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:01:08 -0400 From: GT Phantom Reply-To: gt_phantom@hotmail.com Organization: None User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Bill Kennedy X-Original-CC: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: RE: [LML] Re: 320/360 MK II tail References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2010 02:01:10.0173 (UTC) FILETIME=[45099CD0:01CB1D78] lol - ok you're older than me!  :-P

However, you make my point for me - these are fun little toys with "attitude," not "problems."

Bill


On 14:59, 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.

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

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
Subject: [LML] Re: 320/360 MK II tail

Well said, Bill Rumburg!!!  Don’t mess up a good thing. 

 

Pete Field

320, Small Tail

N775DX, St. Louis

 

From: William Rumburg [mailto:lancair403@verizon.net]
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 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!
 

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.