X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [97.101.11.102] (account marv@lancaironline.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.2c4) with HTTP id 2641219 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:17:14 -0500 From: marv@lancair.net Subject: MKII tail vs original tail?? To: X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.2c4 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:17:14 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Posted for T Brand <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) stating the change to the larger tail was not necessary and that
they were happy with the original tail size. There has been more than enough
time to confirm or challenge the necessity of upgrading to the MKII horizontal
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 fuselages/kits delivered in the early 1990.
I am in a position where I can build either way. Would greatly appreciate
hearing flying and building experience to support one design over the other.
Mr.'s Russell, Shattuck,..have you changed you minds?
Tom Brand
_________________________________________________________________
Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008