X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:28:45 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.176] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2458464 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:49:20 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.233.166.176; envelope-from=jldysart@zirkel.us Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a25so4425088pyi for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:48:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.10.13 with SMTP id n13mr7683340pyi.1194367720470; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:48:40 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from Jacknewdell ( [72.165.28.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v56sm20086045pyh.2007.11.06.08.48.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:48:39 -0800 (PST) From: "Jack Dysart" X-Original-To: Subject: RE: Needing performance information on the Lancair 200 and 235 X-Original-Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:48:34 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <007501c82094$df7dc770$6401a8c0@Jacknewdell> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0076_01C8205A.331EEF70" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcgghJK8QAzyMORBQnC5hJFdE/M7WAAEBENA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Original-Sender: Jack Dysart This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C8205A.331EEF70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd also question the location, angle, and condition of the pitot tube. Jack Dysart _____ From: kneaded pleasures [mailto:kneadedpleasures@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 7:10 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Needing performance information on the Lancair 200 and 235 A close friend has a pristine Lancair 200 that he has asked me to fly and then render opinion on the aircraft's performance. It looks great and has obvious excellent workmanship in its construction. After a thorough annual condition inspection, I flew it and found that it was seriously lacking in power. In fact, with just 10 degrees of flaps and gear extended, it never accelerated beyond 60 knots (though it was simultaneously rising at about 400 ft per minute). I didn't immediately retract the gear because I was concerned that the plane was flying just above stall. In the traffic pattern, I retracted the gear and got just 78 knots - still with 10 degrees flap. I landed uneventfully. There was no abnormal balance or control of the airplane and, in fact, its construction symmetry is nearly perfect. Jack test of the landing gear showed completely flush retract of gear and doors - not likely that something was dragging. This plane has an 0200 engine with 9 to 1 pistons producing some extra horsepower; perhaps a total of 115. Its prop is a light weight (27 lbs) cockpit adjustable, electric IVOPROP. Does performance sound right for such an early version aircraft? Who has had experience in these underpowered planes? What performance numbers should we be seeing? Without more power and speed, I would be reluctant to take on a passenger for flight. Greg Nelson ------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C8205A.331EEF70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I’d also question the = location, angle, and condition of the pitot tube.

 

Jack = Dysart

From: = kneaded pleasures [mailto:kneadedpleasures@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, November = 05, 2007 7:10 AM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Needing = performance information on the Lancair 200 and 235

 

A close friend has a pristine Lancair 200 that he has asked me = to fly and then render opinion on the aircraft's performance.  = It looks great and has obvious excellent workmanship in its construction.  = After a thorough annual condition inspection, I flew it and found that it was = seriously lacking in power.  In fact, with just 10 degrees of flaps and gear extended, it never accelerated beyond 60 knots  (though it was simultaneously rising at about 400 ft per minute).  I didn't = immediately retract the gear because I was concerned that the plane was flying just = above stall.  In the traffic pattern, I retracted the gear and got just = 78 knots - still with 10 degrees flap.  I landed uneventfully.  = There was no abnormal balance or control of the airplane and, in fact, its = construction symmetry is nearly perfect.  Jack test of the landing gear showed completely flush retract of gear and doors - not likely that something = was dragging.  This plane has an 0200 engine with 9 to 1 = pistons producing some extra horsepower; perhaps a total of 115.  Its = prop is a light weight (27 lbs) cockpit adjustable, electric = IVOPROP.

 

Does performance sound right for such an early version aircraft?  Who has had experience in these underpowered = planes?  What performance numbers should we be seeing?  Without more power and = speed, I would be reluctant to take on a passenger for flight.   Greg = Nelson

------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C8205A.331EEF70--