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 nm5.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.94.237.206] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with SMTP id 5002483 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:34:07 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.94.237.206; envelope-from=anpfield@sbcglobal.net Received: from [66.94.237.200] by nm5.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2011 12:33:32 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.112] by tm11.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2011 12:33:32 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1017.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2011 12:33:32 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 116513.83011.bm@omp1017.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 14251 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2011 12:33:31 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=DKIM-Signature:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To; b=TK3qRHEpEBRaghNc7PU8N/0bpqsRdEdiKVgGU8yjBcyuR9nQiXjptt1btoyRzHbm/JxYURfJSSR4aiqMe9kf56hgIAcLs+Eyiv1txiqrYb08Pr/4vjNslhumWQ9ViCqPnVfAuydEx6nwHB0CglWcgPYlNghtKRJnQMG3vPI1PHM= ; Received: from pbfaviation (anpfield@70.230.156.119 with login) by smtp101.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 03 Jun 2011 05:33:31 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: M2dqCgKswBDQjE8MoF8jSmCdTsUI2v7j63ZxcFoNP0Q8o1U- X-YMail-OSG: dxCJoF0VM1mrjF1w7FFvfrtIyKDervTmkVDPhNc.KvekPOL _VArpFZsdhAp36VO8agKa7dltHl2qc4HYBqR.TQqHD0wGX6xFD_eHpEDw1PC OC1.T97.dOoh3hltxxVfqOfBCUoPHIdg3bObI_wxNwxAjguszmEUbn_dKNzH YefPNAPnq72wmWH768rYGHBNakBNR9qMWoqwuvMLMlFHgomGcTMtaEHWLjag 3rM0BMWpRTGq5eRKbLOQr2rHG.vGS2iWVR4iw6QI6NGlTcBT_mHUF8zPX0sI .RdXCxsNZN6m2v.u1JOGaJySKYXH2BpVe53r8XcYqwh.byWOKfj_xCoKT0xg S0ibTljRGlZuGTe6Hj1e4l2mCyzM- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: "Peter Field" X-Original-To: "'Phillip J. Kocmoud'" , References: Subject: RE: Long mount / short tail X-Original-Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 07:32:53 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <096289CE7A654673A171506D44C37CF0@pbfaviation> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004D_01CC21C0.740DCA40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090 Thread-Index: Acwh5lwlMUWma3cCR1SIotcUpmCy9gAAJLzw In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01CC21C0.740DCA40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Phil: I have the small tail and short engine mount. I've never flown any LNC2 with the large tail so I can't give you any comparison, but I can say my airplane has perfectly acceptable handling qualities. My CG came out right at the forward limit which I believe is important. It is a pitch sensitive airplane; however, as a former F-4 driver, I find the handling qualities quite acceptable. It did not take me long to adapt to the airplane and I basically fly it with a light touch on the stick. I do not believe your longer mount will make much difference and it will certainly provide more room behind the baffling. Everybody has what they like. Cheers, Pete Field LNC2, 90 hours IO-390, MT-12 prop _____ From: Phillip J. Kocmoud [mailto:pkocmoud@hyper-it.com] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 7:29 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: 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. 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? Thank you, Phil ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01CC21C0.740DCA40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Phil:
     I=20 have the small tail and short engine mount.  I've never flown any = LNC2 with=20 the large tail so I can't give you any comparison, but I can say my = airplane=20 has perfectly acceptable handling qualities.  My CG came out = right at=20 the forward limit which I believe is important.  It is a pitch = sensitive=20 airplane; however, as a former F-4 driver, I find the handling qualities = quite=20 acceptable.  It did not take me long to adapt to the airplane and I = basically fly it with a light touch on the stick.  I do not = believe=20 your longer mount will make much difference and it will certainly = provide more=20 room behind the baffling.  Everybody has what they like. =20
 
Cheers, =
Pete = Field
LNC2, 90=20 hours
IO-390, MT-12 prop
From: Phillip J. Kocmoud=20 [mailto:pkocmoud@hyper-it.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 = 7:29=20 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Long mount / = short=20 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_004D_01CC21C0.740DCA40--