X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:23:49 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web54410.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.49.140] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with SMTP id 2605340 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:12:19 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.190.49.140; envelope-from=randylsnarr@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 20695 invoked by uid 60001); 19 Dec 2007 16:11:39 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=nzl5jCC+92UpVxXXkhHjNen+OIA4KugyhuvGnDmBZAtNJWC4m3aKO2n0oQ+tn0XwaP7j8fUNvlOT63zO4KssonOXVO7J4kB+C204fzWRsJ4Uz8Z+4XKx+iHgWzp6Qr+z057+MYq3uywtJ5f9vbOSZglyNy7YY9OTOpwyeC6933s=; X-YMail-OSG: tbgj5Q8VM1lA1or5YE9_AebAXXD9OgiFPj_raJwf Received: from [208.187.197.66] by web54410.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:11:39 PST X-Original-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:11:39 -0800 (PST) From: randy snarr Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 320/360 efficiency and economy - hole in the market? X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1724477330-1198080699=:12362" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Original-Message-ID: <434495.12362.qm@web54410.mail.yahoo.com> --0-1724477330-1198080699=:12362 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Grayhawk, Good point but RV's don't count. The airplane has to have real get your check book out sex appeal. Randy. Sky2high@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 12/19/2007 12:32:26 A.M. Central Standard Time, fredmoreno@optusnet.com.au writes: I have been pondering Lorn’s commentary about how his 320 cannot be beat for efficient and cost effective cross country cruising. With oil probably permanently above $70-80/bbl and avgas at $5 a gallon, he makes an excellent point. Efficiency (particularly cost efficiency) should be a key figure of merit. However, Lancair has gone upscale and offers only expensive, fire-breathing kit airplanes. This list has noted that a Legacy starts at $200K completed, and works up. Has Lancair left a hole in the market place? If one could produce a relatively simple, fast and efficient lower cost kit for 320/360 engines, is there a currently untapped market? The most efficient cross country airplane I have found is the Dyn-Aero MCR Sporter which has one kit version (short wings) that carries two people at 160 knots on 100 Rotax horsepower – fixed gear no less. But it lacks the sex and beauty of the Lancair family airplanes. And we all know that airplanes have to be beautiful, particularly after all that labor. Is it time to bring back the Lancair 320, upgraded, simpler, even slicker, and keep it inexpensive? Fred, Consider Van's Aircraft RV-7A (360) or RV-9A (320) at $28,000 for a fast build kit and the Legacy FG (390) at $39,000. Note that the Legacy has solved certain aerodynamic problems present in the 200/300 series Lancairs plus offering a larger cabin. I doubt that a glass fast build 300 like plane could be kitted for much less than the Legacy FG. Modern fixed gear aircraft do not lose much speed, gain in payload and panel space (reduces the need for certain switches and lights). Ask any ES flyer. We need a CAFE test. Let's suppose plane X is 3 gal/hr more efficient than plane Y where efficiency calculated over equal distances and the speed difference is not greater than 50 mph. Let's also say that X base cost is $12,000 more than plane Y. That would be 3000 gallons if measured in $4 gallons of fuel or 1000 hours of flight time if measured in flight hours. At 100 hours per year, plane Y would fly for ten years before its base costs would catch up to plane X. OK, ok, ok - I know that Y would have to fly longer over the woods and thru the air to grandma's house (but not that much longer). I'm not sure that there is a performance hole that hasn't been filled by the FG Legacy or an RV. Grayhawk Fly Faster and Cheaper with Manageable Risk. Retired persons need to set goals and engage in activities that exclude shuffleboard and bingo games. Flying LOP is marginally acceptable. --------------------------------- See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter. --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. --0-1724477330-1198080699=:12362 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Grayhawk,
Good point but RV's don't count.
The airplane has to have real get your check book out sex appeal.

Randy.



Sky2high@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/19/2007 12:32:26 A.M. Central Standard Time, fredmoreno@optusnet.com.au writes:
I have been pondering Lorn’s commentary about how his 320 cannot be beat for efficient and cost effective cross country cruising. 
With oil probably permanently above $70-80/bbl and avgas at $5 a gallon, he makes an excellent point.  Efficiency (particularly cost efficiency) should be a key figure of merit. 
However, Lancair has gone upscale and offers only expensive, fire-breathing kit airplanes.   This list has noted that a Legacy starts at $200K completed, and works up. 
Has Lancair left a hole in the market place? 
If one could produce a relatively simple, fast and efficient lower cost kit for 320/360 engines, is there a currently untapped market?
The most efficient cross country airplane I have found is the Dyn-Aero MCR Sporter which has one kit version (short wings) that carries two people at 160 knots on 100 Rotax horsepower – fixed gear no less.  But it lacks the sex and beauty of the Lancair family airplanes.  And we all know that airplanes have to be beautiful, particularly after all that labor.
Is it time to bring back the Lancair 320, upgraded, simpler, even slicker, and keep it inexpensive?
Fred,
 
Consider Van's Aircraft RV-7A (360) or RV-9A (320) at $28,000 for a fast build kit and the Legacy FG (390) at $39,000.  Note that the Legacy has solved certain aerodynamic problems present in the 200/300 series Lancairs plus offering a larger cabin.  I doubt that a glass fast build 300 like plane could be kitted for much less than the Legacy FG.  Modern fixed gear aircraft do not lose much speed, gain in payload and panel space (reduces the need for certain switches and lights).  Ask any ES flyer.
 
We need a CAFE test.  Let's suppose plane X is 3 gal/hr more efficient than plane Y where efficiency calculated over equal distances and the speed difference is not greater than 50 mph.  Let's also say that X base cost is $12,000 more than plane Y.  That would be 3000 gallons if measured in $4 gallons of fuel or 1000 hours of flight time if measured in flight hours.  At 100 hours per year, plane Y would fly for ten years before its base costs would catch up to plane X.  OK, ok, ok - I know that Y would have to fly longer over the woods and thru the air to grandma's house (but not that much longer).
 
I'm not sure that there is a performance hole that hasn't been filled by the FG Legacy or an RV.
 
Grayhawk
Fly Faster and Cheaper with Manageable Risk.
Retired persons need to set goals and engage in activities that exclude shuffleboard and bingo games. 
Flying LOP is marginally acceptable.




Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. --0-1724477330-1198080699=:12362--