Let's not lose sight of the fact there is no substitute for tail volume. Modifying the linkage is great (I've built in four different ways to change the ratio of stick deflection to elevator deflection) for dealing with pitch sensitivity (I think Glasair did exactly that), but you'd be fooling yourself if you thought you could take a plane with insufficient tail volume and make it as stable as one with ample tail volume. Tail volume also helps maintain that stability and control over a larger CG range. Of course if you don't have a header tank behind the firewall, and your fuel is in the wings, AND your CG is in the right place to start with, this is a non-problem.
I decided to make my horizontal stabilizer longer about ten years ago, after doing the tail volume calculation. I'd seen a list of horizontal tail volumes listed in Pazmany's "Light Airplane Design" book, and if I remember correctly, the KR2 was not only lower than the lowest one on the list, it was a fraction of it! That's when my tail got longer. In hindsight, just lengthening the fuselage one bay would have accomplished the same goal and would have had a slightly lower drag penalty (this describes Larry's plane), but that's a little harder to change now. I think this all goes back to building what you want. Some folks like twitchy fighter planes, and some folks like stable "go-place" airplanes. I fit in the latter group... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net
