X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:38:01 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from bay0-omc2-s31.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.167] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c4) with ESMTP id 2645250 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:25:48 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.246.167; envelope-from=tbrandetc@hotmail.com Received: from BAY135-W8 ([65.55.140.43]) by bay0-omc2-s31.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:25:11 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: tbrandetc@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_15029bfc-bdd3-4e26-b65d-5291a1e29288_" X-Originating-IP: [71.92.137.25] From: T Brand X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: RE: [LML] Re: MKII tail vs original tail?? X-Original-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:25:10 -0800 Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2008 23:25:11.0065 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5251090:01C85704] --_15029bfc-bdd3-4e26-b65d-5291a1e29288_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for your reply. I do not doubt the safety and handling qualities as= you mentioned them in your original letter(archives) and again in your res= ponse to my question. However, a few key words in your and other's responses standout because the= y have important meaning for my safety. I am speaking of the comments rega= rding a pilot's skill and experience in relation to flying the original des= ign stabilizer. =20 Being a low time pilot, I am trying to build my kit in a way that minimiz= es my exposure to stupid pilot errors, looking for any increase in safety m= argin I can grasp. Since it appears there is no safety downside to flying = with the larger horizontal stabilizer, I'll use the MKII. It appears that both styles are good enough. I appreciate everyones' comm= ents and the experience on which the comments were based. =20 Tom Brand From: marv@lancair.netTo: lml@lancaironline.netDate: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:26= :55 -0500Subject: [LML] Re: MKII tail vs original tail?? Posted for "George Shattuck" :I have absolutely no= t changed my mind on the small tail/big tail issue. I have 1200+ flight hou= rs on my airplane in every conceivable flight environment (except icing and= thunderstorms) and there are simply no negative issues I can think of rega= rding my small tail, original design airplane. As I remember it the origina= l complaints about the small tail came from the Australian aviation authori= ties during efforts to certify the airplane. With a fixed pitch prop (light= ) and the CG way aft it was/is possible to run out of down elevator authori= ty during an approach to landing. That is probably a valid critique and wou= ld have to be dealt with by the builder in deciding how to configure his ai= rplane and how to operate it. I think it was necessary for Lancair to chang= e to the MK-II tail for marketing purposes after all the hoopla about the s= mall tail.My experience with my small tail 320 has been nothing but positiv= e, with exhilarating performance and with no surprises in any configuration= . I have wound up with a big load of baggage and passenger and as one would= guess, the CG well aft and the airplane a bit light in the nose. As in all= things in aviation, situational awareness is always a requirement as is st= aying ahead of the airplane. In any situation, staying within the limits of= the envelope and not becoming complacent are a must for flying safe.I have= never felt that the MK-II large tail was necessary to operate the Lancair = 320 safely. What is necessary is a good head on the shoulders of the pilot,= training, experience, and the ability to fly the airplane within the estab= lished limits. George ShattuckN320GS----- Original Message ----- From: marv= @lancair.net To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:17 = PMSubject: MKII tail vs original tail??Posted for T Brand :Would appreciate some opinions as to whether or not the MKII tail ha= s proven its importance and safety for the 320 series planes. Read three re= ports from old (1995+) Lancair Mail Letters from pilots (whose names would = be familiar to readers) stating the change to the larger tail was not neces= sary and that they were happy with the original tail size. There has been m= ore than enough time to confirm or challenge the necessity of upgrading to = the MKII horizontal stabilizer.I also read Marv's-and others- description o= f the problems aligning hinges, redoing ribs and installing trim systems wh= en adding the early version of the MKII horizontal stabilizer to fuselages/= kits delivered in the early 1990.I am in a position where I can build eithe= r way. Would greatly appreciate hearing flying and building experience to s= upport one design over the other. Mr.'s Russell, Shattuck,..have you change= d you minds?Tom Brand______________________________________________________= ___________Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live.http://= www.windowslive.com?ocid=3DTXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008=20 -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html _________________________________________________________________ Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=3DTXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_0120= 08= --_15029bfc-bdd3-4e26-b65d-5291a1e29288_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for your reply.  I do not doubt the safety and handling qu= alities as you mentioned them in your original letter(archives) and ag= ain in your response to my question.
However, a few key words in your and other's responses standout because the= y have important meaning for my safety.  I am speaking of the comments= regarding a pilot's skill and experience in relation to flying the or= iginal design stabilizer.  
  Being a low time pilot, I am trying to build my kit in a w= ay that minimizes my exposure to stupid pilot errors, looking for any incre= ase in safety margin I can grasp.  Since it appears there is no safety= downside to flying with the larger horizontal stabilizer, I'll use the MKI= I.
  It appears that both styles are good enough. I appreciate = everyones' comments and the experience on which the comments were base= d. 
Tom Brand

<= BR>
From: marv@lancair.net
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 20= 08 14:26:55 -0500
Subject: [LML] Re: MKII tail vs original tail??
Posted for "George Shattuck" <sgs@plantationcable.net>:
I have absolutely not changed my mind on the small tail/big tail issue= . I
have 1200+ flight hours on my airplane in every conceivable flight = environment
(except icing and thunderstorms) and there are simply no ne= gative issues I can
think of regarding my small tail, original design a= irplane. As I remember it
the original complaints about the small tail = came from the Australian aviation
authorities during efforts to certify= the airplane. With a fixed pitch prop
(light) and the CG way aft it wa= s/is possible to run out of down elevator
authority during an approach = to landing. That is probably a valid critique
and would have to be deal= t with by the builder in deciding how to configure
his airplane and how= to operate it. I think it was necessary for Lancair to
change to the M= K-II tail for marketing purposes after all the hoopla about the
small t= ail.

My experience with my small tail 320 has been nothing but posit= ive, with
exhilarating performance and with no surprises in any configu= ration. I have
wound up with a big load of baggage and passenger and as= one would guess, the
CG well aft and the airplane a bit light in the n= ose. As in all things in
aviation, situational awareness is always a re= quirement as is staying ahead of
the airplane. In any situation, stayin= g within the limits of the envelope and
not becoming complacent are a m= ust for flying safe.

I have never felt that the MK-II large tail was= necessary to operate the
Lancair 320 safely. What is necessary is a go= od head on the shoulders of the
pilot, training, experience, and the ab= ility to fly the airplane within the
established limits.

George= Shattuck
N320GS

----- Original Message -----
From: marv@lanc= air.net
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:= 17 PM
Subject: MKII tail vs original tail??


Posted for T Bran= d <tbrandetc@hotmail.com>:


Would appreciate some opinions = as to whether or not the MKII tail has proven
its importance and safety= for the 320 series planes. Read three reports from
old (1995+) Lancair= Mail Letters from pilots (whose names would be familiar
to readers) st= ating the change to the larger tail was not necessary and that
they wer= e happy with the original tail size. There has been more than enough
ti= me to confirm or challenge the necessity of upgrading to the MKII
horiz= ontal
stabilizer.
I also read Marv's-and others- description of the = problems aligning hinges,
redoing ribs and installing trim systems when= adding the early version of
the
MKII horizontal stabilizer to fuse= lages/kits delivered in the early 1990.
I am in a position where I can b= uild either way. Would greatly appreciate
hearing flying and building e= xperience to support one design over the other.
Mr.'s Russell, Shattuck= ,..have you changed you minds?
Tom Brand
____________________________= _____________________________________
Get the power of Windows + Web wit= h the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=3DTXT_TAGHM_Wave= 2_powerofwindows_012008

 
--

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

Share life as it happens with the new Window= s Live. Start sharing! = --_15029bfc-bdd3-4e26-b65d-5291a1e29288_--