Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:09:24 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-6613040@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.216.41; envelope-from=bob@bmackey.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Difference between 235 & 320 airframes
From: bob mackey <n103md@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134a0ca07cd6604ebfccbba

--001a1134a0ca07cd6604ebfccbba
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

My experience is very similar to Gary Edwards'. Having flown a few
differently equipped Lancair 235 aircraft, I am perfectly happy to have a
high-compression O-320. It has well over twice the climb rate of a similar
airframe with an O-235. Like Gary, I need much less room to takeoff than to
land. 3000' of pavement is a comfortable minimum. On smooth grass, the
runway could be shorter, as there will be more drag on the landing roll.

Also, the O-320 properly set up is happy to fly LOP, down to about 6.5 to
7.0 gph.

Personally, if I had a 235 with an O-235 engine, I would sell it and buy an
O-320.

--001a1134a0ca07cd6604ebfccbba
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">My experience is very similar to Gary Edwards&#39;. Having=
 flown a few differently equipped Lancair 235 aircraft, I am perfectly happ=
y to have a high-compression O-320. It has well over twice the climb rate o=
f a similar airframe with an O-235. Like Gary, I need much less room to tak=
eoff than to land. 3000&#39; of pavement is a comfortable minimum. On smoot=
h grass, the runway could be shorter, as there will be more drag on the lan=
ding roll.=A0<div>
<br></div><div>Also, the O-320 properly set up is happy to fly LOP, down to=
 about 6.5 to 7.0 gph.=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Personally, if I had a 2=
35 with an O-235 engine, I would sell it and buy an O-320.=A0</div></div>

--001a1134a0ca07cd6604ebfccbba--