Dominic V Crain <domcrain@tpg.com.au> wrote:

G'day Bill, you are far too generous in your recollection.

But reading a couple of the posts on big V small, I can draw a comfortable
conclusion.

My post was not intended to be a critique nor an attempt to bias an opinion.
Just a review of the reasons of the bigger tail imposition by the local
authority.

However my grasp of literal efficiency is slipping and perhaps sent up blood
pressure when it was not intended.

Regards to you and Sue.

Dom

 

PS I am currently planning a coastal solo circumnavigation of Australia.
It'll be a Lancair first if it comes off.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill
& Sue
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2008 4:47 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: MKII tail vs original tail??

 

Dom, sorry, I don't recall any "ropeyness" in your flying at all. Seemed
just fine to me. I dunno, I just can't seem to discover any problem with my
small tail after 1,400 hours in all kinds of conditions. I rather like it
this way.

 

Bill Harrelson

N5ZQ 320 1,450 hrs

N6ZQ  IV under construction

 

 

 

 

The only Lancair's I have handled in the air were all large tail versions,
with one exception, that being N5ZQ in the States. Bill will undoubtedly
recall that I was - let's say "ropey" - to say the least.