Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:05:59 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-5030870@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.66; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=Et0RCQNnOp/89j7BAwXbdw2JcYveKVPt+Pbfm3y+qvbovKMiCTJn52EQAFnD6D2I;
  h=Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Columbia 400
From: Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-5029720@logan.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <list-5029720@logan.com>

That's basically an ES with wing cuffs.    One of the ES guys would have =
to give you a "not better than" number.
I would expect the glide range to be much shorter.    but on the plus =
side the touchdown speed would also be lower.

On Jun 23, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Greenbacks, UnLtd. wrote:

>=20
> My next door hangar neighbor recently purchased a Columbia 400 and I'm =
wondering if you IV guys can make a comparison of its glide capabilities =
vs the IV.
>=20
> Angier Ames
> N4ZQ
> IN THE PAINT BOOTH...:-)
> --
> For archives and unsub =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html