Return-Path: Received: from www01.netaddress.usa.net ([204.68.24.21]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 02:17:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 23696 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Dec 1998 07:18:43 -0000 Message-ID: <19981220071843.23695.qmail@www01.netaddress.usa.net> Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 07:18:43 From: Dan Schaefer To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Subject: Airframe differences :235 vs 320 X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Bo Thisted asked about the differences between the 235 and 320 airframes. First, there are so many 235's that have had bigger engines installed, we ought to recognize that there are more models out there flying than just "235's or 320's". Almost every one I know (except me) has either started with a 320 engine, even though they originally purchased a 235 kit, or have retrofitted their planes with the larger engine - some with 360's. There are some differences in the airframes though they are subtle. The best source of such information is Lancair. Also, as I understand it, some specific changes were made at the transition from the 235 to the 320/360 but there may have been some evolutionary changes during the production runs of the 320/360's that one should know about. (Don't know if this is true, but being in the airplane business for some time, I can attest that it's almost inevitable). Some obvious changes in the 320/360 is the flap attachment and actuating mechanism. In my opinion, probably a good thing. Also, I read somewhere that the fuselage was widened a bit - also a good thing. I believe the landing gear is longer to accomodate longer props- on the 235 with standard gear, you are pretty much constrained to 62 inch diameter props - which is just a mite short for good efficiency. Further, though I haven't checked it out, I believe the flap to fuselage fairing is designed to be lined up (minimum drag, I guess) when the flaps are reflexed - where they always are in cruise. On my 235, they are lined up when the flaps are at neutral, producing a fairly large, unfaired gap when in reflex. A little thing but on this airplane, minimum drag in cruise configuration is a very good thing. There probably more things different in the various airframes - check with the factory. I can tell you though, that an early 235, built straight and correctly, is still a terrific plane! Cheers, Dan Schaefer N235SP