Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:15:14 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web51007.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.38.138] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with SMTP id 600270 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 09 Jan 2005 09:04:01 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.190.38.138; envelope-from=bu131@swbell.net Received: (qmail 20715 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Jan 2005 14:03:43 -0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <20050109140343.20713.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.217.216.30] by web51007.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 09 Jan 2005 06:03:43 PST X-Original-Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 06:03:43 -0800 (PST) From: Dr Andre Katz Subject: IV-P weights X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii jeff is right in all points. My plane has similar albeit a bit heavier empty weight but not by much. I am 6 ' 6'' and barely fit in the thing so my back seat passenger does not exist, usually fly with 1 passenger and after 500 miles is uncomfortable. I have flown with 2 passengers and full load and it is sluggish in a hot texas summer day. the plane was built with reinforcements around the gear box so I feel it will support the extra weight that the instrument panel gave us at the completion. I have so far no structural problems. My 182 which was replaced by the lancair was much more roomier inside that this thing but I get there twice as fast and have to spend 30 minutes talking to everyone what the thing is and how much time and money it cost to get there (they all ask for it...). it fits the bill perfectly for me, my 182 was flown solo most of the times and I lost count of the hours over the texas panhandle that I wasted at 110 knots/hr.