X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:17:48 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma04.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6008682 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:39:44 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.42; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-da05.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-da05.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.141]) by imr-ma04.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 4EDAA1C000098 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:39:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mtd002a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mtd002.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.235.197]) by mtaomg-da05.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id F0CD1E000081 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:39:09 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com Full-name: Sky2high X-Original-Message-ID: <3ed17.4613a93a.3e22c17d@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:39:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3ed17.4613a93a.3e22c17d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 168 X-Originating-IP: [67.175.156.123] x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:486190144:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d338d50f1677d1897 --part1_3ed17.4613a93a.3e22c17d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable OK, so I added ten pouinds - it was info from last century........... =20 See=20 _http://www.lancair.com/media/builderupdates/235-320-360/Non-PDF-Docs/Weigh= tIncrease320-360.pdf_=20 (http://www.lancair.com/media/builderupdates/235-320-360/Non-PDF-Docs/Weigh= tIncrease320-360.pdf)=20 =20 Grayhawk =20 =20 In a message dated 1/12/2013 6:41:02 A.M. Central Standard Time, =20 dwills@glbelt.com writes: =20 I believe it is on their website under support.=20 dwills=20 =20 =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of =20 Sky2high@aol.com Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 7:03 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 =20 Tim, =20 =20 Au contrair mon ami! =20 =20 Speaking merely for the lowly wee-tailed 320, namely mine, the MTOW was=20 raised to 1800 pounds (I will look for the Lancair News article that was= =20 printed late last century) with the landing weight remaining at 1685 - the= =20 weight the landing gear was designed to handle. That change was not limit= ed to=20 fat-tailed MKIIs. =20 =20 While 1800 was the weight I used on my airworthy certificate, I have flown= =20 it at an estimated 1960.13 lbs where the AP altitude hold went through=20 gentle sinusoidal waves of no more than 42.65 feet until 10.21 gallons of= =20 fuel was burned off. At my 1200 lbs empty wt, that leaves 600 lbs of load= =20 that could be used by 43 gals fuel (about 260 lbs), me at 200, a spare tir= e,=20 O2 tank, tools and tow bar along with luggage totaling a placarded max of = 60=20 lbs easily leaves a margin for an 80 lb right-seatee. I usually require a= =20 heavier occupant to bring along helium filled balloons if the flight is so= =20 heavily loaded (a side benefit is breathing in some gas and then talking= =20 to ATC). =20 =20 My CG is biased forward and my W&B calls for at least 150 lbs total in =20 the available seats for flights with no baggage, a full header tank and wh= ere=20 the wings are empty.=20 =20 =20 Note that backward flight is difficult to maintain with a nose heavy=20 condition although that might be useful for tilt-canopy egress whilst in s= uch =20 flight (watch out for the prop). =20 =20 Paul will have to make up his own mind based on these nuances. My mind=20 only allows for positive views of all Lancairs - even if I did not build = it. =20 =20 Grayhawk =20 N92EX =20 =20 =20 In a message dated 1/11/2013 8:43:11 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 _tj@yacht-pool.dk_ (mailto:tj@yacht-pool.dk) writes: =20 I am disappointed in your response. It is jaded in many ways with =20 mis-information to give the 235 a bad rap and to justify only the 320/360. =20 =20 You are right, Gary. I am disappionted in my response too. =20 It was written off the top of my head and was factually wrong in several = =20 places. I hereby give my heartfelt apologies to anyone who might have been = =20 offended by these thoughtless accusations. =20 =20 From here it reads like you are in need of more information and flying=20 experience in both the 235 and the 320/360. =20 =20 Yes, certainly. After reading your reply, I obviously felt compelled to do= =20 some research and come back with an unjaded and factually accurate=20 statement, in order to correct my mistakes once and for all. =20 I have dug out the actual w&b sheet for the 235/320 in question. I have= =20 also read my actual notes from my actual conversation with Lancair (Ross),= =20 regarding factory recommended max. weights for the various LNC2 models. =20 =20 The factually correct and unjaded numbers are: =20 =20 Lancair 235, max. take off & landing weight is 1400 lbs. This number never= =20 was and never will be raised. =20 =20 Lancair 320/360 MKI (small tail), max. take off weight 1685 lbs. Max.=20 landing weight 1685 lbs. =20 =20 Lancair 320/360 MKII (Dundee tail), max. take off weight was initially=20 1685 lbs. but this was, by the factory, later raised to 1790 lbs. with 168= 5 =20 lbs. left as max. landing weight, though. =20 =20 I am utterly sorry about last days wrong, jaded and irresponsible =20 statements. It won=B4t happen again. Never. Sorry. =20 =20 The now corrected numbers obviously pose some factually correct and=20 unjaded challenges for my friendly but slightly depressed 235/320 friend: =20 =20 =20 Gross wt. 1400 lbs. =20 Empty wt. 1010 lbs. =20 Pilot wt. 220 lbs. =20 45 min. fuel reserve 39 lbs. =20 Wife (small model) 132 lbs. =20 =20 Luggage and fuel for flight planning max. -1 lbs. =20 =20 His factually correct and unjaded options are: =20 =20 Hmmmm, this is really not getting easier....... Okay: =20 =20 If he wants to maintain the 1.7 hour operation time and the legally=20 required 45 min. reserve, he should try the obvious first. If, for some= =20 unimaginable reason, his wife is not able to shed the 90 pounds, things ge= t=20 slightly more un-obvious:=20 =20 =20 He could fly backwards for 1.15 minutes, burning -1 lbs. of fuel. This=20 might not be his best option, the visibility is rather poor, which=20 dramatically increases the risk of a tail first head-on collision. He woul= d also have=20 to buy a new propeller with opposite twist. Hmmm... Expensive, but surely= =20 doable........ =20 =20 If, for some reason, he is inclined towards forward flight, he will have a= =20 43.85 min. operation time, wife included but without luggage and reserve = =20 fuel. =20 =20 If he decides to get a real wife (132 lbs. seems rather unreal for a =20 wife), it will cut deeply into this operation time, perhaps even forcing h= im=20 back into hindflight.=20 =20 =20 He could, and now for better reason than ever, ditch the bitch and end up = =20 with a nice single seater with a 2.52 hrs. operation time, still =20 maintaining a 45 min. reserve but without luggage. This could be the prefe= rable=20 option. As a side effect, warm food might await his return.=20 =20 =20 Invite me for a ride (or his mum in law) and get a polite though heartfelt= =20 "no thanks". I might be tempted to encourage his mum in law to go, =20 though........ Be a true experimenter, you know......... =20 =20 Well, that pretty much sums up the correct and unjaded numbers issue for= =20 this particular 235/320. My new honest, unjaded, numbers only based opinio= n =20 is: =20 =20 Back in the 80=B4s, Lance stated an empty weight of 800 lbs. I believe we = =20 can all laugh at that joke. =20 You might be able to find a 950 lbs. 235/235. I have not heard of any, but= =20 they might be around. That will give you 450 lbs. of payload, unless you = =20 want to experiment with the firm weight limit set by the factory. I would = =20 not do that, but opinions may vary. Can you live with those numbers? Is the= =20 aircraft well built? If so, go ahead. It is a nice aircraft, but it will no= t=20 turn into a 320/360, no matter how much money you throw after it. =20 =20 If you want to throw 15k in a 235/320, write a check! If you use 100=20 dollar bills, it will exceed gross weight....... =20 =20 When your machine is up and flying with significantly more hours than just= =20 the required test flight period, then I believe you will come to =20 understand more about them...well the 360 anyway. Unless someone is, or h= as been a=20 235 owner/flyer (and that applies to every other model too), then that=20 person may be speaking out of turn. =20 =20 You are so right. Some Lancair stick time will probably take my mathematic= =20 skills to a new level. I, for one, would appreciate that change; 2 + 2 =20 has been 4 for way too long! =20 =20 Now, Gary, this message is clearly meant as a joke. The numbers are=20 correct, but I happen to like jokes. Sorry, I just can=B4t help it. I do n= ot have =20 anything against 235 owners, their planes or their wives, nor do I wish to= =20 contribute to any kind of bad rap to these. I would also like to state,=20 that no animals were harmed during the writing of this message, nor will t= hey=20 be until the message is sent. =20 =20 The thing is, Paul Besing asked a question on LML. He asked about the =20 pro=B4s and con=B4s regarding the differences between a 235 and a 320 and = the=20 money involved. Paul is entitled to some answers from people who have been= =20 here, there or in both places. I have built a 360MKIIOB and I have oversee= n the=20 building of a 235/320 and done the w&b too. I have made paperwork for both= =20 and I have talked to Lancair about both. I also have an opinion about=20 both, which obliges me to give the man an honest answer. =20 I am well aware, that answering this kind of questions sometimes renders= =20 you unpopular, but choosing not to answer at all would be downright selfis= h=20 and rude. I will pick unpopular over selfish and rude any second. =20 =20 If you wish to contribute to the debate, it would be helpful if you would = =20 publish some numbers for your particular 235. =20 You also claim, that the gross weight was actually raised to 1500 lbs. at= =20 some point. Now, if you are able to document this, many people would be = =20 significantly less depressed. I know at least one....... =20 =20 Cheers =20 Tim Jorgensen =20 --part1_3ed17.4613a93a.3e22c17d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
OK, so I added ten pouinds - it was info from last=20 century...........
 
See http://www.lancair.com/media/builderupdates/23= 5-320-360/Non-PDF-Docs/WeightIncrease320-360.pdf
 
Grayhawk
 
In a message dated 1/12/2013 6:41:02 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 dwills@glbelt.com writes:
=

I=20 believe it is on their website under support.

 

dwills

 

From: Lancair Ma= iling=20 List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of=20 Sky2high@aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 7:03=20 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Purch= ase=20 Advice LNC2

 

tj@yacht-pool.dk=20 writes:

I=20 am disappointed in your response.  It is jaded in many ways with= =20 mis-information to give the 235 a bad rap and to justify only the= =20 320/360.

 

You=20 are right, Gary. I am disappionted in my response=20 too.

It=20 was written off the top of my head and was factually wrong in seve= ral=20 places. I hereby give my heartfelt apologies to anyone who might have b= een=20 offended by these thoughtless accusations.

 

From=20 here it reads like you are in need of more information and flying exper= ience=20 in both the 235 and the 320/360.

 

Yes,=20 certainly. After reading your reply, I obviously felt compelled to do s= ome=20 research and come back with an unjaded and factually accurate statement= , in=20 order to correct my mistakes once and for=20 all.

I=20 have dug out the actual w&b sheet for the 235/320 in question.= I=20 have also read my actual notes from my actual conversation with La= ncair=20 (Ross), regarding factory recommended max. weights for the various LNC2= =20 models.

 

The=20 factually correct and unjaded numbers are:

 

Lancair=20 235, max. take off & landing weight is 1400 lbs. This number n= ever=20 was and never will be raised.

 

Lancair=20 320/360 MKI (small tail), max. take off weight 1685 lbs. Max. land= ing=20 weight 1685 lbs.

 

Lancair=20 320/360 MKII (Dundee tail), max. take off weight was initially 1685 lbs= . but=20 this was, by the factory, later raised to 1790 lbs. with 16= 85=20 lbs. left as max. landing weight, though.

 

I=20 am utterly sorry about last days wrong, jaded and irresponsib= le=20 statements. It won=B4t happen again. Never. Sorry.

 

The=20 now corrected numbers obviously pose some factually correct and un= jaded=20 challenges for my friendly but slightly depressed 235/320=20 friend:

 

Gross=20 wt.             =20         1400 lbs.

Empty=20 wt.            =20         1010 lbs.

Pilot=20 wt.             = =20             220=20 lbs.

45=20 min. fuel reserve          = ; 39=20 lbs.

Wife=20 (small model)         &nbs= p;=20 132 lbs.

 

Luggage and=20 fuel for flight planning max. -1 lbs.

 

His=20 factually correct and unjaded options are:

 

Hmmmm,=20 this is really not getting easier.......=20 Okay:

 

If=20 he wants to maintain the 1.7 hour operation time and the legally requir= ed 45=20 min. reserve, he should try the obvious first. If, for=20 some unimaginable reason, his wife is not able to shed the&nb= sp;90=20 pounds, things get slightly more=20 un-obvious: 

 

He=20 could fly backwards for 1.15 minutes, burning -1 lbs. of fuel. This mig= ht=20 not be his best option, the visibility is rather poor, which dramatical= ly=20 increases the risk of a tail first head-on collision. He would als= o=20 have to buy a new propeller with opposite twist. Hmmm... Expensive= , but=20 surely doable........

 

If,=20 for some reason, he is inclined towards forward flight, he will have a = 43.85=20 min. operation time, wife included but without luggage and reserve=20 fuel.

 

If=20 he decides to get a real wife (132 lbs. seems rather unreal for a=20 wife), it will cut deeply into this operation time, perhaps even= =20 forcing him back=20 into hindflight. 

 

He=20 could, and now for better reason than ever, ditch the bitch and en= d up=20 with a nice single seater with a 2.52 hrs. operation time, still= =20 maintaining a 45 min. reserve but without luggage. This could be the=20 preferable option. As a side effect, warm food might await his=20 return. 

 

Invite=20 me for a ride (or his mum in law) and get a polite though heartfelt "no= =20 thanks". I might be tempted to encourage his mum in law to go,=20 though........ Be a true experimenter, you=20 know.........

 

Well,=20 that pretty much sums up the correct and unjaded numbers issue for this= =20 particular 235/320. My new honest, unjaded, numbers only based opi= nion=20 is:

 

Back=20 in the 80=B4s, Lance stated an empty weight of 800 lbs. I bel= ieve we=20 can all laugh at that joke.

You=20 might be able to find a 950 lbs. 235/235. I have not heard of any,= but=20 they might be around. That will give you 450 lbs. of payload, unless yo= u=20 want to experiment with the firm weight limit set by the factory. I wou= ld=20 not do that, but opinions may vary. Can you live with those numbers? Is= the=20 aircraft well built? If so, go ahead. It is a nice aircraft, but it wil= l not=20 turn into a 320/360, no matter how much money you throw after=20 it.

 

If=20 you want to throw 15k in a 235/320, write a check! If you use 100 dolla= r=20 bills, it will exceed gross weight.......

 

When=20 your machine is up and flying with significantly more hours than just= =20 the required test flight period, then I believe you will come to= =20 understand more about them...well the 360 anyway.  Unless someone = is,=20 or has been a 235 owner/flyer (and that applies to every other model to= o),=20 then that person may be speaking out of turn.

 

You=20 are so right. Some Lancair stick time will probably take my mathematic= =20 skills to a new level. I, for one, would appreciate that change; 2= + 2=20 has been 4 for way too long!

 

Now,=20 Gary, this message is clearly meant as a joke. The numbers are correct,= but=20 I happen to like jokes. Sorry, I just can=B4t help it. I do not ha= ve=20 anything against 235 owners, their planes or their wives, nor= do I=20 wish to contribute to any kind of bad rap to these. I would a= lso=20 like to state, that no animals were harmed during the writing of t= his=20 message, nor will they be until the message is=20 sent.

 

The=20 thing is, Paul Besing asked a question on LML. He asked about= the=20 pro=B4s and con=B4s regarding the differences between a 235 and a = 320 and=20 the money involved. Paul is entitled to some answers from people w= ho=20 have been here, there or in both places. I have built a 360MKIIOB and I= have=20 overseen the building of a 235/320 and done the w&b too. I have mad= e=20 paperwork for both and I have talked to Lancair about both. I also have= an=20 opinion about both, which obliges me to give the man an honest=20 answer.

I=20 am well aware, that answering this kind of=20 questions sometimes renders you unpopular, but choosing = not=20 to answer at all would be downright selfish and rude. I will pick unpop= ular=20 over selfish and rude any second.

 

If=20 you wish to contribute to the debate, it would be helpful if you would= =20 publish some numbers for your particular 235.

You=20 also claim, that the gross weight was actually raised to 1500 lbs. at s= ome=20 point. Now, if you are able to document this, many people would be= =20 significantly less depressed. I know at least=20 one.......

 

Cheers

Tim=20 Jorgensen

 

 --part1_3ed17.4613a93a.3e22c17d_boundary--