Message-ID: <000b01bf1ace$94c09f20$5e6b1b3f@oemcomputer>
Reply-To: "dfs" <dfs@gateway.net>
From: "dfs" <dfs@gateway.net>
To: "Lancair List" <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
Subject: Standard Stabilizer vs MK-II Stabilizer
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:36:36 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
More comments on this subject follow:

I have airframe #52 which naturally, has the original (small) stabilizer. It
doesn't bother me much but one does have to mind the store while on cruise.
To allow me to spend some time looking at a chart or relevant publication, I
installed a wing leveler autopilot as I got tired of having the horizon tilt
wildly while I checked the map. Now, things are much more civilized and the
only thing that needs to be watched is the airplane's tendency to change
pitch attitude somewhat as I fly along.

With the small stabilizer, there is a tendency to divert a bit from trim
speed. I haven't experimented with it to find out just how much the airplane
would climb or dive as it only takes a touch of pressure to return things to
straight and level. It's not much of a burden and becomes second nature
after a reasonable amount of time.

If you have a constant speed prop, it's a bit harder to detect the
divergence - with a fixed pitch prop, you can hear the RPM change and you
are alerted.

Most important, in my mind, is the fact that I've expanded the envelope on
N235SP to 10% above red-line and have experienced absolutely no tendency to
flutter. Therefore, in the normal range of flight speeds, I believe I'm
staying very safe.

The amount of work required to retrofit the larger tail, from my viewpoint
theregore, isn't worth the effort.

Dan Schaefer

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html