X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:16:12 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.156] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.8) with ESMTP id 3189827 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 23:31:10 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=72.14.220.156; envelope-from=jeffreyb.peterson@gmail.com Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 22so1183638fge.1 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:30:34 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=jNdgQ2J1BC0S08V0411gKsXpsHps/0DTfqnunHmPQD+GTpHQs5EdRlVmofzB0tlJs/ YIXkwBlZozffhRptDSDbZ7alqBpXICRErKN6d1PQnO4ehEuxaJiIdUMYkBcdl3BgW6nm 6ezmtK+21Kt7fsch/s87XcFWrDyRx5lFV0BjY= Received: by 10.86.94.11 with SMTP id r11mr2919926fgb.0.1222572634604; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.49.16 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:30:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <7b85bf8e0809272030v1dfa6dddh294c8d6d793491f5@mail.gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 23:30:34 -0400 From: "Jeff Peterson" Reply-To: jbp@cmu.edu X-Original-To: "Lancair mail list" Subject: Re: Small tail vs. large tail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Scott, My plane is not yet flying so I can not report on its flying characteristics. And I am NOT and aeronautical engineer. Usually people like what they are used to, and few of us have much experience in both models. It is hard to judge by testimonials. Wasn't there an EAA test pilot report on the small tail L360? If I remember the pilot found the stick forces/g to be alarmingly light. If I understand this, low f/g is not just an annoyance resulting in lack of tactile feedback, but an indication that the stall recovery will be slow. if you visualize an airplane falling in stall, it seems reasoanable that a larger tail and elevator could speed the recovery. Again, I am no expert. Thanks for bring up the issue of rebalancing. I did switch to the long mount when I changed to the the large tail. I agree it is very important not to let the CG move too far aft. At first I was impressed with how light the new carbon horiz. stab was, then I added the elevator counter weights. I made plaster molds, so I could get as much lead as far forward as possible, but still they really did add considerable weight. After changing the tail and mount I did a preliminary weight and balance and I seem to be on target so far. I will do another W and B when the cowl is done. -Jeff --------------------- Jeff, One small point. I am a satisfied user of the small tail. I took my first civil flight lesson shortly after ordering a Lancair 320 slow build kit, thus I have no military or ATP training or flight time. My airplane can be trimmed all the way to touchdown and the elevator has all the authority I have ever needed. Either you have found out by personal experience or that of others that the 300 series Lancairs are, uh, less happy fliers when the CG is located in the aft most quarter of its range. The Mark II tail alone exacerbates flight problems at rearward CGs since it adds such a large rearward moment. Thus the corollary recommendation that the long engine mount be used to move the CG forward. This is especially true if lighter props and equipment locations means the empty weight CG is not at least at the most forward point so indicated in the build manual. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) Pilot not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%.