X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:28:53 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.63] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c4) with ESMTP id 2641462 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:02:41 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.63; envelope-from=panelmaker@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=rORUddmPl/LloOuA2kLubnesN+u3syri93FX+DGAKbtTiUqiY+dcAJ4VJ5/TwXcE; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To:Thread-Index:Message-ID:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [76.30.49.213] (helo=DELL8300) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1JDSt0-0005Sq-OA for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:02:02 -0500 From: "Jim Nordin" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: MKII tail vs original tail? X-Original-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:02:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004B_01C85473.C1C451A0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AchUhpTeZxMRAPyxTAizG4aj1A3wPAAHlWtA X-Original-Message-ID: X-ELNK-Trace: bdfc62829fd2a80cc8ad50643b1069f8239a348a220c2609e73a4ef0a6452b2f0000679b478a453093caf27dac41a8fd350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 76.30.49.213 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C85473.C1C451A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I can't comment on the value of the large tail, as I have a small tail because several small tail fliers said they didn't know they had a problem and when I asked about the (aligning hinges on) elevators, one of the earlier (well known now gone) support people at Lancair said to put full length (each side) piano hinges for a stronger / smoother / well aligned operation. This could mitigate problems experienced with the small tail. I don't know as I ain't flying yet but I do have expensive full length piano hinges on the elevators. It is indeed smoothe operating! Jim _____ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of marv@lancair.net Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 1:17 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] MKII tail vs original tail?? Posted for T Brand : 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 ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C85473.C1C451A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I can’t comment on the value = of the large tail, as I have a small tail because several small tail fliers = said they didn’t know they had a problem and when I asked about the = (aligning hinges on) elevators, one of the earlier (well known now gone) support = people at Lancair said to put full length (each side) piano hinges for a = stronger / smoother / well aligned operation. This could mitigate problems = experienced with the small tail. I don’t know as I ain’t flying yet but = I do have expensive full length piano hinges on the elevators. It is indeed = smoothe operating!

Jim

From: = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of marv@lancair.net
Sent: Friday, January 11, = 2008 1:17 PM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] MKII tail = vs original tail??

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

------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C85473.C1C451A0--