I'm an engineer by trade. My point is what are the details, the numbers ?
. . . or am I expected to let others weigh my decisions for me ?
. . . simply because they don't want to or can't be quantitative ?

Wolfgang

----- Original Message -----
From: "GT Phantom" <gt_phantom@hotmail.com>
To: "Wolfgang" <Wolfgang@MiCom.net>
Cc: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [LML] Re: MK II Tail


> Wolfgang,
>
> I think you're missing the answer between the lines.
>
> The change in handling is not dramatic.  Nor is the change in airspeed. 
> Like everything in the Aviation world, every change is a compromise.
>
> What you get is a little more stability at the price of a little speed. 
> Some folks think it matters, others think it doesn't.
>
> If you are that concerned about it, that is the answer to your question
> - you should either get the Mk II tail, or more likely you should opt
> for a Vans RV 6 instead of a Lancair 360.  There is no shame in that -
> different people have different skill sets - but the key is to know your
> own limitations.
>
> If you fly a 320/360 small tail and you ARE NOT COMFORTABLE in all
> phases of flight - buy a more stable airplane.
>
> I have talked over a half dozen people out of even considering a Lancair
> 235 after flying with them.  With most, I only had to ask the question: 
> Did you feel comfortable flying that?  All but one that I suspected were
> not the sort to fly that plane said something like:  "It's too much
> airplane for me."  Good - I'd rather not read about them in this column
> as another statistic.  The last one had a bit more trouble giving up
> emotionally - saying, "I think I could grow into it with practice." 
> Well, maybe he could - attitude is 90% of the battle.  But after I told
> him he could get 90% of the speed plus grass strips and aerobatics for
> less money in an RV6 he decided that paying a bit more for gas without
> having the stress of more challenging handling was not for him.
>
> Lesson:  Don't mess with this.  Fly the airplane you intend to buy.  If
> you are not comfortable, DO NOT BUY THE AIRPLANE.  Your life, and my
> insurance premiums, are not worth your ego.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On 14:59, Wolfgang wrote:
>> Most of these comments, most in favor of the small tail, fail to
>> quantify the difference in any meaningful way . . . which is quite
>> aggravating.
>> I get the sense that "It's been that way for 50 years so why change
>> now ?" attitude is the rule of the land.
>>
>> I don't see how that is supposed to help others that know nothing of
>> the difference understand the difference.
>> . . . Isn't that what this list is for ?
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill N5ZQ" <n5zq@verizon.net>
>> To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
>> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 9:04 PM
>> Subject: RE: [LML] Re: MK II Tail
>>
>>
>>> And a good plan it is too, Angier.
>>> I really like the small tail much better myself.
>>>
>>> Bill Harrelson
>>> N5ZQ 320 1,800 hrs with a small tail
>>> N6ZQ  IV under construction
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm, my kit came with the large tail and I've flown a handful of
>>> 320s, all with the small tail.
>>> I'm considering cutting off the large tail and installing a small one...
>>>
>>> Angier Ames
>>> N4ZQ
>>
>>
>
>


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