Return-Path: Received: from smtp6.gateway.net ([208.230.117.250]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:07:04 -0400 Received: from oemcomputer (1Cust28.tnt10.chi5.da.uu.net [63.22.154.28]) by smtp6.gateway.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA28092 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001601bf1bce$becd4600$1c9a163f@oemcomputer> From: "bobjude" To: "Lancair Mail List" Subject: LNC2 Small Tail vs. Big Tail Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:15:34 -0500 X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I agree with Dan Scharfer. Retrofit of an LNC2 from small tail to big tail is a big job and is not worth the effort. The quoted "neutral pitch stability at low air speed" of the small tail is easy to get used to after a few hours of flying it and presents no problem. Also, you don't have to worry about the potential flutter problem with the small tail. Although, at this point, I tend to think that the flutter problem is a myth generated by a faulty analysis. Bob Jude N65BJ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html