X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:23:47 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-mb01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.207.164] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6004950 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:13:16 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.207.164; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.13]) by imr-mb01.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 530251C0001B9 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:12:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mna004a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mna004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.106.13]) by mtaomg-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id F3FA3E000082 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:12:41 -0500 (EST) References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CFBD6CD4E3D2A3_2294_75A4_webmailstg-d01.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 37288-STANDARD Received: from 12.110.229.82 by webmailstg-d01.sysops.aol.com (205.188.103.147) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:12:40 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CFBD6CD4D7EBBE-2294-1F63@webmailstg-d01.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [12.110.229.82] X-Original-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:12:41 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:488349184:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d290d50eef6890355 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFBD6CD4E3D2A3_2294_75A4_webmailstg-d01.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Tim, You are hilarious! Come to Oshkosh and be a stand up comic at LOBO's dinner= ! Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Tim J=C3=B8rgensen To: lml Sent: Thu, Jan 10, 2013 7:17 am Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 What is your friend suffering from? =20 Bill Harrelson pretty much summed it up, but here goes....... =20 The 320/360 is slightly larger than the 235. The cabin is wider and quite a= bit higher. I am 6' 1" and can not get into my friends=C2=B4 235. Other 23= 5=C2=B4s might be built differently, I dunno. =20 The 320/360 empennage is 8" longer, probably giving the rudder and elevator= a bit more authority. =20 The 320/360 has an oleo nose gear strut. These were at some point available= as a retrofit for the 235, but it was a USD 2.500,- or so option. =20 The 320/360 flaps are hinged at the bottom wing skin and the flaps are fair= ed in with the fillets in the reflexed position for reduced drag. =20 Many (most?) 320/360 have the adjustable rudder pedal option. =20 Many 320/360 have long range tanks. =20 Many 320/360 have fwd. hinged canopy (yes, also a few 235=C2=B4s). =20 Some 320/360 have outback gear (beefed up mlg. and 5" wheels). =20 Some 320/360 have the larger MKII tail, which improves handling, safety and= cg range (flame suit on!) =20 Some / many / more 320/360 have constant speed props for improved performan= ce and added expense..... =20 Last, but not least, we have the numbers issue:=20 =20 My friends=C2=B4 numbers are: =20 L235/320, fixed pitch prop, equipped for VFR day. Long range tanks (no, I d= unno why either). =20 Gross wt. 1490 lbs. =20 Empty wt. 1010 lbs. Pilot wt. 220 lbs. 45 min. fuel reserve 39 lbs. Wife (small model) 132 lbs. =20 Luggage and fuel for flight planning max. 89 lbs. =20 His options are: =20 Leave with wife but without luggage and plan for a 1.7 hour flight, maintai= ning 45 min. reserve fuel (required here). =20 Ditch the bitch and fly 4.22 hrs. away, still maintaining 45 min. reserve b= ut without luggage. =20 Invite me for a ride (or his mum in law) and fly for 11 minutes without res= erve. Don=C2=B4t land (max. landing wt. 1400 lbs.). =20 Be a true experimenter. Ignore all factory recommendations; they dunno what= they are talking about anyway. Shove in 50 lbs. of luggage. Bring a medium= sized friend, let=C2=B4s say 180 lbs., and fill them long range tanks to t= he caps. Take off with all of those 1774 lbs. and practice some deep stalls= . You gotta know your aircraft, right? Come in for a low pass, leave with t= he mandatory victory roll and come back for some short field practice. Atta= boy, go show=C2=B4em; that=C2=B4s the spirit! =20 =20 I guess the bottom line is: you pays yer money........ There is nothing wrong with a 235, in fact it is a VERY nice plane, it just= has different specifications. If you are a skinny feller and you want some= "cheap" fun, a 235/235 could very well be the thing for you. If you can li= ve with the weight limitations, a 235/320 is not a bad choce either. If you= can find something as nice as Randy=C2=B4s, it doesn=C2=B4t get any better= ! =20 If you want (or weigh) a little more on a relatively comparable budget, you= should find yourself a nice 320/360. I am a fat guy, so I would pay 20k ekstra for a nice 320/360 any day. I don= =C2=B4t like the concept of buying an aircraft and deliberately taking it b= eyond factory recommendations every time I fly.=20 =20 But, then again, I am a sissy. I even take the shells out of my shotgun bef= ore pointing it at anyone. Would you believe that? Tssshhh............ =20 Regards Tim Jorgensen 360MKIIOBFB / 99% =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 =20 From: Gary Edwards=20 =20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 =20 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:32 AM =20 Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 =20 =20 =20 Tim, =20 =20 =20 The 235 airframe gross weight was subsequently (1998) raised to 1,500 lbs= . on take-off and 1,400 lbs. on landing. =20 =20 =20 ...A friend of mine later bought that very same 235 kit and still suffers= ........ =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Along with the 235, I would surmise that there may not be very many 320's= and 360's that are not exceeding the factory gross weight numbers. =20 =20 =20 The 320/360 is only 1" wider than the 235 airframe. A little taller yes,= but if you are 6 foot whatever, then maybe you need a Legacy where there= is even more headroom (and even more fuel capacity). =20 =20 =20 =20 Along with Bill's post, I think the 235 is getting a bad rap on the forum= . =20 =20 =20 I'm with Randy; a 235 with Lyc. 320 is very fine. It keeps up with the b= est of them and has relatively low fuel burn. Take-off GPH is 11.2, crui= se fuel burn is anywhere you want to make it from 6 to 9 GPH. =20 =20 =20 Gary Edwards =20 235/320 =20 Medford, Oregon =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 =20 From: Tim J=C3=B8rgensen=20 =20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 =20 Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:01 AM =20 Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 =20 =20 Purchase a 235 , ending at $50k =20 =20 Enjoy 160KTAS at 6gph. =20 Now, considering $70k on a good 320/360=20 =20 enjoy 190KTAS at 9gph, and a bit more room and better climb. My question is, to most of you is $20k worth the room, performance, yet= higher fuel flow? =20 =20 =20 Don=C2=B4t forget: =20 Gross weight 235 =3D 1490 lbs. =20 Gross weight 320/360 MKI =3D 1640 lbs. =20 Fross weight 320/360 MKII =3D 1790 lbs. =20 =20 =20 These numbers might be the most important reason to find a good 320/360= MKII. =20 =20 =20 I considered a 235 vs. a 320/360 kit back in 2003. The price difference= was some USD 5.000,-.=20 =20 Don Gordon talked me out of the 235 kit when I visited his hangar, and = I am glad he did (thank you Don !!!) =20 =20 =20 A friend of mine later bought that very same 235 kit and still suffers.= ....... =20 =20 =20 Anyway, I started building the 360MKII in 2003. Back then, a good 9 yea= rs and 30-some pounds ago, I realized that the 1490 lbs. gross weight w= ould not do. I now realize that I should have bought a Legacy for the e= xtra payload. - Or maybe an AN-2...... =20 =20 =20 Anyway, the 320/360MKII is well worth the extra 20k in my opinion. In f= act it is probably better than the Legacy because of the Lycoming engin= e. It also looks better. Ooh, and don=C2=B4t forget that you are going = to want a MKII model because of the bigger tail. The big tail is not nearly= as dangerous as the small tail, especially if you plan on doing spins.= It also looks better. =20 =20 =20 Tim Jorgensen =20 360MKIIOBFB / 99% =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ----------MB_8CFBD6CD4E3D2A3_2294_75A4_webmailstg-d01.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Tim,

You are hilarious! Come to Oshkosh and be a stand up comic at LOBO's d= inner!

Jeff


-----= Original Message-----
From: Tim J=C3=B8rgensen <tj@yacht-pool.dk>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, Jan 10, 2013 7:17 am
Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2

What is your friend suffering from?
 
Bill Harrelson pretty much summed it up, but here goes.......
 
The 320/360 is slightly larger than the 235. The cabin is wider and qu= ite a=20 bit higher. I am 6' 1" and can not get into my friends=C2=B4 235. Other 235= =C2=B4s might=20 be built differently, I dunno.
 
The 320/360 empennage is 8" longer, probably giving the rudder and ele= vator=20 a bit more authority.
 
The 320/360 has an oleo nose gear strut. These were at some point avai= lable=20 as a retrofit for the 235, but it was a USD 2.500,- or so option.
 
The 320/360 flaps are hinged at the bottom wing skin and the flaps are= =20 faired in with the fillets in the reflexed position for reduced drag.
 
Many (most?) 320/360 have the adjustable rudder pedal option.
 
Many 320/360 have long range tanks.
 
Many 320/360 have fwd. hinged canopy (yes, also a few 235=C2=B4s).
 
Some 320/360 have outback gear (beefed up mlg. and 5" wheels).
 
Some 320/360 have the larger MKII tail, which improves handling, safet= y and=20 cg range (flame suit on!)
 
Some / many / more 320/360 have constant speed props for improved=20 performance and added expense.....
 
Last, but not least, we have the numbers issue: 
 
My friends=C2=B4 numbers are:
 
L235/320, fixed pitch prop, equipped for VFR day. Long range tanks (no= , I=20 dunno why either).
 
Gross wt.        &n= bsp;=20             1490 lbs.
 
Empty wt.        = =20             1010 lbs.
Pilot wt.       &nb= sp; =20                = 220=20 lbs.
45 min. fuel reserve   =20        39 lbs.
Wife (small=20 model)           132=20 lbs.
 
Luggage and fuel for flight planning max.&nb= sp;89=20 lbs.
 
His options are:
 
Leave with wife but without luggage and plan= for a=20 1.7 hour flight, maintaining 45 min. reserve fuel (required=20 here).
 
Ditch the bitch and fly 4.22 hrs. away, stil= l=20 maintaining 45 min. reserve but without luggage.
 
Invite me for a ride (or his mum in law) and fly = for 11=20 minutes without reserve. Don=C2=B4t land (= max. landing=20 wt. 1400 lbs.).
 
Be a true experimenter. Ignore all factory=20 recommendations; they dunno what they are talking about anyway. Shove in 50= lbs.=20 of luggage. Bring a medium sized friend, let=C2=B4s say 180 lbs., and fill = them long=20 range tanks to the caps. Take off with all of those 1774 lbs. and= =20 practice some deep stalls. You gotta know your aircraft, right? Come i= n for=20 a low pass, leave with the mandatory victory roll and come back for some sh= ort=20 field practice. Atta boy, go show=C2=B4em; that=C2=B4s the spirit!
 
 
I guess the bottom line is: you pays yer=20 money........
There is nothing wrong with a 235, in fact it is = a VERY=20 nice plane, it just has different specifications. If you are a skinny felle= r and=20 you want some "cheap" fun, a 235/235 could very well be the thing = ;for=20 you. If you can live with the weight limitations, a 235/320 is not a bad ch= oce=20 either. If you can find something as nice as Randy=C2=B4s, it doesn=C2=B4t = get any=20 better!
 
If you want (or weigh) a little more on a relativ= ely=20 comparable budget, you should find yourself a nice 320/360.
I am a fat guy, so I would pay 20k ekst= ra for a=20 nice 320/360 any day. I don=C2=B4t like th= e concept of=20 buying an aircraft and deliberately taking it beyond factory=20 recommendations every time I fly. <= /div>
 
But, then again, I am a sissy. I even take t= he shells=20 out of my shotgun before pointing it at anyone. Would you believe that?=20 Tssshhh............
 
Regards
Tim Jorgensen
360MKIIOBFB / 99%
 
=20
----- Original Message -----
=20
= From:=20 Ga= ry=20 Edwards
=20 =20
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:3= 2=20 AM
=20
Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice= =20 LNC2
=20

=20
=20
Tim,
=20
 
=20
The 235 airframe gross weight was subsequently (1998) raised to 1,500= =20 lbs. on take-off and 1,400 lbs. on landing.
=20
 
=20
...A friend of mine later bought that very sa= me 235=20 kit and still suffers........
=20
 
=20
 
=20
Along with the 235, I would surmise that there ma= y not=20 be very many 320's and 360's that are not exceeding the factory= =20 gross weight numbers.
=20
 
=20
The 320/360 is only 1" wider than the 235=20 airframe.  A little taller yes, but if you are 6 foot whatever, then= =20 maybe you need a Legacy where there is even more headroom (and even = more=20 fuel capacity).  
=20
 
=20
Along with Bill's post, I think the 235 is gettin= g a bad=20 rap on the forum.
=20
 
=20
I'm with Randy; a 235 with Lyc. 320 is very= =20 fine.  It keeps up with the best of them and has relatively low= fuel=20 burn.  Take-off GPH is 11.2, cruise fuel burn is anywhere you want t= o=20 make it from 6 to 9 GPH.
=20
 
=20
Gary Edwards
=20
235/320
=20
Medford, Oregon
=20
 
=20
 
=20
----- Original Message ----- =20 =20
To: lml@lancaironline.net <= /div> =20
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:0= 1=20 AM
=20
Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice= =20 LNC2
=20

=20
Purchase a 235 , ending at $50k=20
=20
Enjoy 160KTAS at 6gph. 

Now,=20 considering $70k on a good 320/360
=20
enjoy 190KTAS at 9gph, and a bit m= ore room=20 and better climb.

My question is, to most of you is $20k worth the=20 room, performance, yet higher fuel flow?
=20
 
=20
Don=C2=B4t forget:
=20
Gross weight 235 =3D 1490 lbs.<= /div> =20
Gross weight 320/360 MKI =3D 1640=20 lbs.
=20
Fross weight 320/360 MKII =3D 1790=20 lbs.
=20
 
=20
These numbers might be the most i= mportant=20 reason to find a good 320/360 MKII.
=20
 
=20
I considered a 235 vs. a 320/360 kit b= ack in=20 2003. The price difference was some USD 5.000,-.
=20
Don Gordon talked me out of the 235 ki= t when I=20 visited his hangar, and I am glad he did (thank you Don !!!) =20
 
=20
A friend of mine later bought that ver= y same=20 235 kit and still suffers........
=20
 
=20
Anyway, I started building the 360MKII= in 2003.=20 Back then, a good 9 years and 30-some pounds ago, I realized that the 1= 490=20 lbs. gross weight would not do. I now realize that I should have bought= a=20 Legacy for the extra payload. - Or maybe an AN-2...... =20
 
=20
Anyway, the 320/360MKII is well worth = the extra=20 20k in my opinion. In fact it is probably better than the Legacy becaus= e of=20 the Lycoming engine. It also looks better. Ooh, and don=C2=B4t forget t= hat you=20 are going to want a MKII model because of the bigger tail. The big tail is not nearly as dangerous as = the small=20 tail, especially if you plan on doing spins. It also looks=20 better.
=20
 
=20
Tim Jorgensen
=20
360MKIIOBFB / 99%
=20
 
=20
 
=20
 
----------MB_8CFBD6CD4E3D2A3_2294_75A4_webmailstg-d01.sysops.aol.com--