X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:46:58 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.178] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c4) with ESMTP id 2643478 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:30:02 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.233.166.178; envelope-from=jldysart@zirkel.us Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id d32so2282573pye.12 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:29:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.82.16 with SMTP id j16mr6651712pyl.57.1200248961887; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:29:21 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from Jacknewdell ( [72.165.28.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n44sm18086473pyh.26.2008.01.13.10.29.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:29:20 -0800 (PST) From: "Jack Dysart" X-Original-To: Subject: RE: MKII tail vs original tail?? X-Original-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:29:12 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <005601c85612$32a3e120$6501a8c0@Jacknewdell> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0057_01C855D7.86450920" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AchWDOlRdWrdCwHaQ8KUxCxZT9jgtwAAyJlQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: Jack Dysart This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01C855D7.86450920 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When looking at airplane kits I test flew a Glassair Super IIS and liked it. Then I flew a small tail Lancair and liked the overall handling in the air, but was concerned with the pitch sensitivity. I remember thinking that my wife, a low time pilot, would never want to fly this thing. The next day I flew a Lancair 360 with the MKII tail and thought the difference in pitch characteristics was dramatic; my comfort level went way up. My wife also took a test flight and gave me her "permission" to buy the kit. I fly out of a 4400' runway at 6870 MSL and for several months of the year the density altitude often exceeds 10,000'. Under these conditions I use over 3000' of runway on landing. I could probably learn to fly the small tail plane here, but am very glad I have the more stable pitch control afforded by the MKII. Jack Dysart N817S Steamboat Springs, CO _____ From: marv@lancair.net [mailto:marv@lancair.net] Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 12:27 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: MKII tail vs original tail?? Posted for "George Shattuck" : I have absolutely not changed my mind on the small tail/big tail issue. I have 1200+ flight hours on my airplane in every concievable flight environment (except icing and thunderstorms) and there are simply no negative issues I can think of regarding my small tail, original design airplane. As I remember it the original complaints about the small tail came from the Australian aviation authorities during efforts to certify the airplane. With a fixed pitch prop (light) and the CG way aft it was/is possible to run out of down elevator authority during an approach to landing. That is probably a valid critique and would have to be dealt with by the builder in deciding how to configure his airplane and how to operate it. I think it was necessary for Lancair to change to the MK-II tail for! marketing purposes after all the hoopla about the small tail. My experience with my small tail 320 has been nothing but positive, with exhilarating performance and with no surprises in any configuration. I have wound up with a big load of baggage and passenger and as one would guess, the CG well aft and the airplane a bit light in the nose. As in all things in aviation, situational awareness is always a requirement as is staying ahead of the airplane. In any situation, staying within the limits of the envelope and not becoming complacent are a must for flying safe. I have never felt that the MK-II large tail was necessary to operate the Lancair 320 safely. What is necessary is a good head on the shoulders of the pilot, training, experience, and the ability to fly the airplane within the established limits. George Shattuck N320GS ----- Original Message ----- From: marv@lancair.net To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2: 17 PM Subject: 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 fly! ing 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01C855D7.86450920 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

When looking at airplane kits I = test flew a Glassair Super IIS and liked it.  Then I flew a small tail = Lancair and liked the overall handling in the air, but was concerned with the pitch sensitivity.  I remember thinking that my wife, a low time pilot, = would never want to fly this thing.  The next day I flew a Lancair 360 = with the MKII tail and thought the difference in pitch characteristics was = dramatic; my comfort level went way up.  My wife also took a test flight and = gave me her “permission” to buy the kit. =  

 

I fly out of a 4400’ runway = at 6870 MSL and for several months of the year the density altitude often = exceeds 10,000’.  Under these conditions I use over 3000’ of runway on = landing.  I could probably learn to fly the small tail plane here, but am very glad I have = the more stable pitch control afforded by the MKII.

 

Jack = Dysart

N817S

Steamboat Springs, CO

From: = marv@lancair.net [mailto:marv@lancair.net]
Sent: Saturday, January = 12, 2008 12:27 PM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: MKII tail vs = original tail??

 

Posted for "George Shattuck" <sgs@plantationcable.net>:

I have absolutely not changed my mind on the small tail/big tail issue. = I
have 1200+ flight hours on my airplane in every concievable flight = environment
(except icing and thunderstorms) and there are simply no negative issues = I can
think of regarding my small tail, original design airplane. As I = remember it
the original complaints about the small tail came from the Australian = aviation
authorities during efforts to certify the airplane. With a fixed pitch = prop
(light) and the CG way aft it was/is possible to run out of down = elevator
authority during an approach to landing. That is probably a valid = critique
and would have to be dealt with by the builder in deciding how to = configure
his airplane and how to operate it. I think it was necessary for Lancair = to
change to the MK-II tail for! marketing purposes after all the hoopla = about the
small tail.

My experience with my small tail 320 has been nothing but positive, with =
exhilarating performance and with no surprises in any configuration. I = have
wound up with a big load of baggage and passenger and as one would = guess, the
CG well aft and the airplane a bit light in the nose. As in all things = in
aviation, situational awareness is always a requirement as is staying = ahead of
the airplane. In any situation, staying within the limits of the = envelope and
not becoming complacent are a must for flying safe.

I have never felt that the MK-II large tail was necessary to operate the =
Lancair 320 safely. What is necessary is a good head on the shoulders of = the
pilot, training, experience, and the ability to fly the airplane within = the
established limits.

George Shattuck
N320GS

----- Original Message -----
From: marv@lancair.net To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2: 17 PM
Subject: 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 fly! ing 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=3DTXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008
 

------=_NextPart_000_0057_01C855D7.86450920--