X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 13:21:10 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3633886@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <keith.smith@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-fx0-f222.google.com ([209.85.220.222] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14)
  with ESMTP id 3632657 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 05 May 2009 11:52:32 -0400
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.222; envelope-from=keith.smith@gmail.com
Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so5045359fxm.19
        for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Tue, 05 May 2009 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=xghjmu992BpSiD3A6Kl5VAZczXIOHCLgLrQmGRg7n8JQgbd/kFeVIHEiBzli9JfOzT
         lmtX/9/B310Vmmv2SoNAA30Dzikc0STKMGYWno2kBd2Y0MlAP2SKwKjZly+phGil30eO
         ibmdmyVvs3s3g2cIa5KIOfuC/1nc9EP+Ze8OI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.125.144 with SMTP id y16mr264752far.93.1241538714401; Tue, 
	05 May 2009 08:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <list-3632488@logan.com>
References: <list-3632488@logan.com>
X-Original-Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:51:54 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <705847490905050851k6857167cgaaa2f49b7f9c961d@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] gross weight for LNC2
From: Keith Smith <keith.smith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502e5010bfc4504692c4257

--00504502e5010bfc4504692c4257
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It looks like the max gross for my airplane is 1916, with empty weight of
1266.  That is a reasonable 'hard' number that I see no need to exceed.  The
combination of the relatively high empty weight (1266) with a 'factory'
gross of 16xx was a big cause of concern for me, and is what originally lead
me down this train of thought.

With the legal weights no longer being an issue, I'm going to turn my
attention to CG ranges.

Thanks again.

Keith

--00504502e5010bfc4504692c4257
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It looks like the max gross for my airplane is 1916, with empty weight of 1=
266.=A0 That is a reasonable &#39;hard&#39; number that I see no need to ex=
ceed.=A0 The combination of the relatively high empty weight (1266) with a =
&#39;factory&#39; gross of 16xx was a big cause of concern for me, and is w=
hat originally lead me down this train of thought.<br>
<br>With the legal weights no longer being an issue, I&#39;m going to turn =
my attention to CG ranges.<br><br>Thanks again.<br><br>Keith<br><br>

--00504502e5010bfc4504692c4257--