X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:38:05 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-6613552@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <indigoaviation@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-pb0-f50.google.com ([209.85.160.50] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7)
  with ESMTPS id 6613102 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:56:35 -0500
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.160.50; envelope-from=indigoaviation@gmail.com
Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id rr13so5705034pbb.23
        for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 05:55:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.130.39 with SMTP id ob7mr18360639pbb.63.1385387759648;
 Mon, 25 Nov 2013 05:55:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.252.7 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 05:55:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <list-6613041@logan.com>
References: <list-6613041@logan.com>
X-Original-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:55:59 -0500
X-Original-Message-ID: <CAMDLiWfjqJyFpi+CdcUJfV-Euijwm8SbR+ULFUFu1XC_+rF6cA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Difference between 235 & 320 airframes
From: swaid rahn <indigoaviation@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10d06b4a468904ec00b979

--047d7b10d06b4a468904ec00b979
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Thanks Bob,
Sounds like the landing roll is the limiting factor. I think I would prefer
the O-320 also.
Happy Landings,
Swaid


On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:09 AM, bob mackey <n103md@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

--047d7b10d06b4a468904ec00b979
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Thanks Bob,</div><div>Sounds like the landing roll is=
 the limiting factor. I think I would prefer the O-320 also.</div><div>Happ=
y Landings,</div><div>Swaid</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><=
div class=3D"gmail_quote">
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:09 AM, bob mackey <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:n103md@yahoo.com" target=3D"_blank">n103md@yahoo.com</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<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>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7b10d06b4a468904ec00b979--