Hmmm.

I think I have a comment worth posting on the tail size.

Now, here in OZ I have a “large tail” 320.

Yet, it seems that there were two ways of determining the “large tail” design when the local authority demanded it.

One was to create a new 25% larger horizontal stab with the elevator full width, and the elevator horns wrapped around the ends.

The other was to extend the horizontal stab the 25% while retaining the same elevator width. ( Thus, my request to Grayhawk for a measure of the length of his tail – er, elevator - ahem!)

Now, at approach speeds, I find I run out of pitch trim at about the point of stabilized approach with landing flap (30) on final.

This means that the there is always an ever so slight tendency for pitch down at that speed.

Which in turn means stability.

Now, Airbus, in its wisdom, and for those who have flown or still fly ‘em know, decided Lancair had a great idea with this nose down pitch stability on approach.

‘Cos at 100’ on final, the elevator computer takes a snapshot of the pitch angle, and retains that in memory.

Then at 50’ the elevator computer commences a positive nose down pitch which demands the pilot commences a flare into the landing.

Bloody marvelous mates.

Also I had the privilege of flying Bill and Sue’s 320 at Fredericksburg last year, although I suggest Bill would suggest the term, “fly”, is a gross exaggeration in my case, and confess I couldn’t tell the difference between my tail and theirs.

What I found a mystery was the over-control I exhibited in both pitch and roll axes. Mine is very stable in both areas.

Dom Crain

VH-CZJ