I believe it is on their website under support.

 

dwills

 

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

 

Tim,

 

Au contrair mon ami!

 

Speaking merely for the lowly wee-tailed 320, namely mine, the MTOW was raised to 1800 pounds (I will look for the Lancair News article that was printed late last century) with the landing weight remaining at 1685 - the weight the landing gear was designed to handle.  That change was not limited to fat-tailed MKIIs.

 

While 1800 was the weight I used on my airworthy certificate, I have flown it at an estimated 1960.13 lbs where the AP altitude hold went through gentle sinusoidal waves of no more than 42.65 feet until 10.21 gallons of fuel was burned off.  At my 1200 lbs empty wt, that leaves 600 lbs of load that could be used by 43 gals fuel (about 260 lbs), me at 200, a spare tire, O2 tank, tools and tow bar along with luggage totaling a placarded max of 60 lbs easily leaves a margin for an 80 lb right-seatee.   I usually require a heavier occupant to bring along helium filled balloons if the flight is so heavily loaded (a side benefit is breathing in some gas and then talking to ATC).

 

My CG is biased forward and my W&B calls for at least 150 lbs total in the available seats for flights with no baggage, a full header tank and where the wings are empty. 

 

Note that backward flight is difficult to maintain with a nose heavy condition although that might be useful for tilt-canopy egress whilst in such  flight (watch out for the prop).

 

Paul will have to make up his own mind based on these nuances.  My mind only allows for positive views of all Lancairs - even if I did not build it.

 

Grayhawk

N92EX

 

In a message dated 1/11/2013 8:43:11 A.M. Central Standard Time, tj@yacht-pool.dk writes:

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

 

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

It was written off the top of my head and was factually wrong in several places. I hereby give my heartfelt apologies to anyone who might have been offended by these thoughtless accusations.

 

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

 

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

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

 

The factually correct and unjaded numbers are:

 

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

 

Lancair 320/360 MKI (small tail), max. take off weight 1685 lbs. Max. landing weight 1685 lbs.

 

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

 

I am utterly sorry about last days wrong, jaded and irresponsible statements. It won´t happen again. Never. Sorry.

 

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

 

Gross wt.                      1400 lbs.

Empty wt.                     1010 lbs.

Pilot wt.                          220 lbs.

45 min. fuel reserve           39 lbs.

Wife (small model)           132 lbs.

 

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

 

His factually correct and unjaded options are:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Back in the 80´s, Lance stated an empty weight of 800 lbs. I believe we can all laugh at that joke.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Cheers

Tim Jorgensen