|
|
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<< 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
|
|