Return-Path: Received: from marvkaye.olsusa.com ([205.245.9.221]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO203-101c) ID# 0-44819U2500L250S0) with SMTP id AAA24522 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:05:05 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981113170149.02c41960@olsusa.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:01:49 -0500 To: lancair.list@olsusa.com From: Lynda Frantz (by way of Marvin Kaye ) Subject: 360 small vs big tail X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> BS apparently continues to follow the small tail. We have run numerious articles in the LNN about this issue. Here is my humble opinion restated for those interested. If there ever was any problem with the small tail it was due to either too much friction in the elevator control system, a curved elevator hinge line which results in friction, failure to shorten the elevator bell crank (see SDR's and SB) or falure to switch to the geared trim system (see SDR's). All of these problems would fall into the category of builder error. If you build the small tail intelligently you will have no problems. There are pro and cons to both tails however. The small tail is faster by a few knots, it's lighter, all the aero guys agree that it will not flutter at any speed, and it provides less longitudinal stability. The MarkII tail (big) is heavier, is slower by a few knots, provides increased longitudinal stability and according to one aero guy requires a stiffer epenage to prevent flutter. I have flown both tails and can't detect any difference. Of course, both installations I flew were properly done and my mission is cross country cruising not aerobatics. Jim Frantz