Return-Path: Received: from spamgaaf.compuserve.com ([149.174.217.151]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:51:44 -0400 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spamgaaf.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.7) id QAA15747 for lancair.list@olsusa.com; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:54:30 -0400 From: Lynda Frantz Subject: BIG vs Small Tail Sender: Lynda Frantz To: "INTERNET:lancair.list@olsusa.com" Message-ID: <199910201654_MC2-89BD-5FB0@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Message text written by INTERNET:lancair.list@olsusa.com >I am in the process of finishing a partly built Lancair 360. The horizontal stabilizer is the standard smaller one. My question, is it worth it to cut it off and replace it with the newer one? How is the handling as compared to the newer stabilizer? Has anyone done it? And how difficult of a project is it going to be?< Having flown both, it is not worth it provided: A. The existing small tail elevator hinge line is straight B. There is virtually no friction in the elevator control system C. The elevator bell crank has been shortened D. The elevator trim system is a geared system E. The trim/feel centering springs have been upgraded to stiffer springs Resale migh be better with the M-II tail due to perceptions. The smaller tail is reportedly a knot or two faster, lighter and all agree definitely has no projected flutter problems. The M-II tail may or may not require additional BID stiffining of the aft fuselage/epenage depending upon whom you believe to prevent flutter. Tough call. Good luck. Jim Frantz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html