X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 09:52:02 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms173013pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.13] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 5001393 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:10:15 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.13; envelope-from=n5zq@verizon.net Received: from p6520y ([unknown] [173.72.167.62]) by vms173013.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LM500AWFZ7PXSQ2@vms173013.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 08:09:26 -0500 (CDT) X-Original-Message-id: From: "Bill Harrelson" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-reply-to: Subject: Re: [LML] Long mount / short tail X-Original-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:09:24 -0400 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0111_01CC2104.C4788400" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3508.1109 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3508.1109 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0111_01CC2104.C4788400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Phil, We have a long mount =E2=80=93 small tail 320. I have zero complaints = about control authority or elevator characteristics and we=E2=80=99re = coming up on 2,000 hrs and 10 years. Why would you consider the large = tail an =E2=80=9Cupgrade=E2=80=9D? If I were building again, = I=E2=80=99d be willing to pay extra for the small tail. Bill Harrelson N5ZQ 320 1,950 hrs N6ZQ IV under construction From: Phillip J. Kocmoud=20 Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 8:28 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Subject: [LML] Long mount / short tail I know the big tail / small tail is hotly debated, but I currently have = a long engine mount and a small tail 360 kit. I am not going to upgrade = to the large tail if I can fly this aircraft in the long mount / short = tail configuration. =20 Is any on this list flying a small tail and a long engine mount with a = 360 engine? If so, can you tell me about your flight characteristics? = Has anyone also flown the small tail / short mount and can provide some = comparisons? =20 Thank you, =20 Phil ------=_NextPart_000_0111_01CC2104.C4788400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Phil,
 
We have a long mount =E2=80=93 small tail 320. I have zero = complaints about control=20 authority or elevator characteristics and we=E2=80=99re coming up on = 2,000 hrs and 10=20 years. Why would you consider the large tail an = =E2=80=9Cupgrade=E2=80=9D?  If I were=20 building again, I=E2=80=99d be willing to pay extra for the small = tail.
 
Bill Harrelson
N5ZQ 320 1,950 hrs
N6ZQ  IV under construction
 
 
 
 
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 8:28 AM
Subject: [LML] Long mount / short tail
 

I=20 know the big tail / small tail is hotly debated, but I currently have a = long=20 engine mount and a small tail 360 kit. I am not going to upgrade to the = large=20 tail if I can fly this aircraft in the long mount / short tail=20 configuration.

 

Is=20 any on this list flying a small tail and a long engine mount with a 360 = engine?=20 If so, can you tell me about your flight characteristics? Has anyone = also flown=20 the small tail / short mount and can provide some=20 comparisons?

 

Thank=20 you,

 

Phil

------=_NextPart_000_0111_01CC2104.C4788400--