X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 08:19:55 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.185] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3632118 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 04 May 2009 21:28:24 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.128.185; envelope-from=keith.smith@gmail.com Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id e30so2244049fke.3 for ; Mon, 04 May 2009 18:27:48 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Uuh3Bj1pDmgijUHYMsLgRQgIdfhqxTUoUnvPAKm3Xrm7WbbwTn1VBKWGM4mWJVY9ui TnVbZMpGH8LZhuGnvN/MlO7aOtIW3sAxbsFihWGCYpQpgijGOCUM4CNoVx7WHUzKpoZP kzTPik/f/N/oFZPUzMu+TmnJa3ZCPMWiK1J0A= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.113.3 with SMTP id y3mr2724993fap.71.1241486868700; Mon, 04 May 2009 18:27:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 21:27:48 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <705847490905041827j594524cbo61d0081ad3e66970@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [LML] Re: gross weight for LNC2 From: Keith Smith X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5c2f1cd5faa0469202fb1 --001636c5c2f1cd5faa0469202fb1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Great replies, both on and off list, thank you! I suspected that CG was a bigger issue than raw weight, as the plane is certainly not wanting for power. I will become intimately familiar with the various profiles that result in a forward or aft CG. The CAFE report has some illuminating information on the handling for both configurations. I already realized a considerable difference in handling between my recent solo flight compared to the flights with the CFI beside me, particularly during landing. I'll also do myself a favor and pull 'my' POH from the plane and spend some time with it here at home to learn more about it. My experience to date has been with certified airplanes....this is a whole new ballgame. I thought that the max gross was recommended by the factory, but didn't consider the fact that builders actually publish a number for their airplane that is binding for operations. That's great information, particularly for insurance considerations. Thanks again for the advice, I intend to heed it. This is a high quality list. Keith --001636c5c2f1cd5faa0469202fb1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Great replies, both on and off list, thank you!

I suspected that CG = was a bigger issue than raw weight, as the plane is certainly not wanting f= or power.

I will become intimately familiar with the various profile= s that result in a forward or aft CG.=A0 The CAFE report has some illuminat= ing information on the handling for both configurations.=A0 I already reali= zed a considerable difference in handling between my recent solo flight com= pared to the flights with the CFI beside me, particularly during landing.
I'll also do myself a favor and pull 'my' POH from the plan= e and spend some time with it here at home to learn more about it.=A0 My ex= perience to date has been with certified airplanes....this is a whole new b= allgame.=A0 I thought that the max gross was recommended by the factory, bu= t didn't consider the fact that builders actually publish a number for = their airplane that is binding for operations.=A0 That's great informat= ion, particularly for insurance considerations.=A0

Thanks again for the advice, I intend to heed it. This is a high qualit= y list.

Keith
--001636c5c2f1cd5faa0469202fb1--