X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:36:00 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.146] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6009169 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:45:57 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.146; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-db01.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-db01.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.199]) by imr-da04.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id E195E1C000055 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:45:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mtb001a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mtb001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.234.193]) by mtaomg-db01.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 96073E000086 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:45:22 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com Full-name: Sky2high X-Original-Message-ID: <5554.15405684.3e230942@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:45:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_5554.15405684.3e230942_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 168 X-Originating-IP: [67.175.156.123] x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 1:2:496891776:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 1 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33c750f1af4233e2 --part1_5554.15405684.3e230942_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Bill, =20 Recently there have been many canards on this list - Oh, maybe you meant = =20 aircraft with canards. I challenge your statement that they are more =20 efficient. However, they do operate well in the ETE as long as the canard = =20 remains clean as a smutty canard causes loss of lift on that crucial =20 wingy-thingy. Only Klaus has an efficient canard aircraft although you may= have to=20 find out how much power he wrings out his engine and what that funny skinn= y=20 prop is doing. BTW, they are good airplanes that avoid main wing stalls a= nd=20 just mush on down. =20 Grayhawk =20 =20 In a message dated 1/12/2013 12:18:16 P.M. Central Standard Time, =20 super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com writes: =20 In this discussion I=E2=80=99m surprised that Canards haven=E2=80=99t been = mentioned. It=E2=80=99 s well known they=E2=80=99re more efficient- surely that=E2=80=99s due to t= he fact that=20 they were designed from the ground up to fly backwards. =20 Also, given the fact that there=E2=80=99s a reversal of the Coriolis eff= ect=20 between the two hemispheres why hasn=E2=80=99t there been a discussion of E= TE- =20 Equitorial Transition Effect? That=E2=80=99s the warping of the space/time = continuum as you=20 approach the Equator and then experience the reversal during passage. This= =20 is distinct from ETA- Everyone=E2=80=99s Talking Australian, a spatial and = =20 temporal dissonance caused by situations such as: =20 What=E2=80=99s a Goanna- is that what=E2=80=99s eating my Marmite (a cute, = fuzzy =20 marsupial). =20 Is it polite to play your Didgeridoo in public or it only for consenting = =20 adults?=20 =20 You get the idea... Cheers- Bill Wade =20 =20 =20 From: _Frederick Moreno_ (mailto:frederickmoreno@bigpond.com) =20 Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:40 AM To: _lml@lancaironline.net_ (mailto:lml@lancaironline.net) =20 Subject: [LML] Fw: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 =20 =20 =20 =20 As a Yankee resident in Australia, I can confirm that Dominic speaks the= =20 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. =20 I myself am the recipient of a grant from Prime Minister Julia Gillard's= =20 Labor Government that is paying for research to use cattle farts (methane,= =20 potent global warming gas and primary constituent of natural gas which is,= =20 of course natural when it comes from cows, but I digress) as an alternate= =20 fuel for use in aircraft. =20 =20 If I can make it work, sport aviators will be granted permission to fly=20 forwards again. So far so good. Lightness of fuel makes for dramatic=20 baggage increase while staying within the W and B restrictions of my Lanca= ir IV. =20 =20 The current challenge is not the methane collection and routing via hose= =20 (a very, very long hose) to my airplane. Rather it is getting regulatory= =20 approval for Phase 1 test flights. My submission to the relevant=20 authorities (CASA, EPA, NRDC, Animal Anti-Defamation league, State EPA, lo= cal town=20 council, Sheep and Cattle Growers Association - the only supporters as the= y=20 get paid for the fuel) was 2523 pages long, and I am still waiting,=20 waiting, waiting.... =20 Yankee innovation will no doubt prevail, and I will have the Australian=20 sport aircraft fleet in the air soon. Wait for the press release.=20 =20 =20 Fearless Fred=20 =20 =20 PS : no electric airplanes are allowed nearby when fully fueled, for=20 obvious reasons. =20 =20 =20 -------Original Message------- =20 =20 From: _Dominic V. Crain_ (mailto:domcrain@tpg.com.au)=20 Date: 12/01/2013 8:03:45 AM To: _lml@lancaironline.net_ (mailto:lml@lancaironline.net)=20 Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 =20 Well, flying backwards in Australia is not a lotta fun. =20 This has been government policy since 2007. In fact not only must aviators fly backwards to help save and/or create=20 fuel, but cars must also be driven backwards, or if incapable, not be driv= en=20 at all. This has the beneficial effect of shutting down all refineries in =20 Australia. (according to the Govt.) This now requires all Lancair owners to determine if their aircraft is=20 more or less efficient than previously thought. As they are all left languishing in the hangars, this remains a moot point= . Being in the hangar, it is clear they use no fuel, so they are considered= =20 efficient. But because they are not flying backwards, they are less efficient. This is the point to give up! Cheers =20 =20 Dominic V. Crain _domcrain@tpg.com.au_ (mailto:domcrain@tpg.com.au)=20 Phone 03-94161881 Mobile 0412-359320 =20 VH-CZJ =20 =20 On 12/01/2013, at 8:46 AM, "Danny" <_danny@n107sd.com_=20 (mailto:danny@n107sd.com) > wrote: =20 =20 =20 =20 You guys are too damn funny. I love it, seriously. Keep em comin. =20 =20 Danny LNC2-360 N 38=C2=B0 43' 25.7" W 77=C2=B0 30' 38.6" Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. =20 =20 =20 From: Douglas Brunner [mailto:douglasbrunner@_earthlink.net_=20 (http://earthlink.net/) ]=20 Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:31 PM To: _lml@lancaironline.net_ (mailto:lml@lancaironline.net)=20 Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 =20 Tim, =20 I think we should do more research on the concept of backward flight and = =20 the resultant creation of avgas =C2=96 this might be the solution to our = =20 problems when lead is removed from avgas. There are a couple of interesti= ng=20 issues: =20 1) When you fly backwards in Denmark you get back liters of fuel =C2= =96 in=20 the US gallons. Come to the US to do your backwards flying since gallons = =20 are bigger than liters! 2) If you fly backwards in Australia the optical isomers are=20 reversed. Instead of D-Octane you get L-Octane. (Organic chemistry joke= ) 3) If you fly backward =C2=93rich of peak=C2=94 you get more gas and = your=20 engine runs cooler! =20 Please fax me some more paper so I can complete my calculations. (Since= =20 I started getting people to fax me paper, I haven=C2=92t had to buy a sing= le=20 sheet!) =20 =20 =20 =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [_mailto:lml@lancaironline.net_=20 (mailto:lml@lancaironline.net) ] On Behalf Of Tim J=C3=B8rgensen Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:43 AM To: _lml@lancaironline.net_ (mailto:lml@lancaironline.net)=20 Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 =20 =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 16= 85=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=C2=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 slightly=20 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=C2=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 th= e =20 aircraft well built? If so, go ahead. It is a nice aircraft, but it will = =20 not 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 has= =20 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=C2=B4t help it. I d= o not 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=C2=B4s and con=C2=B4s regarding the differences between a 235 and a 32= 0 and the money=20 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_5554.15405684.3e230942_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
Bill,
 
Recently there have been many canards on this list - Oh, maybe you mea= nt=20 aircraft with canards.  I challenge your statement that they are more= =20 efficient.  However, they do operate well in the ETE as long as the ca= nard=20 remains clean as a smutty canard causes loss of lift on that crucial=20 wingy-thingy.  Only Klaus has an efficient canard aircraft although yo= u may=20 have to find out how much power he wrings out his engine and what that funn= y=20 skinny prop is doing.  BTW, they are good airplanes that avoid main wi= ng=20 stalls and just mush on down.
 
Grayhawk
 
In a message dated 1/12/2013 12:18:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com writes:
=
  In this discussion I=E2=80=99m surprised that Canards haven= =E2=80=99t been=20 mentioned. It=E2=80=99s well known they=E2=80=99re more efficient- surely= that=E2=80=99s due to the=20 fact that they were designed from the ground up to fly backwards.
 
  Also, given the fact that there=E2=80=99s a reversal of the C= oriolis=20 effect between the two hemispheres why hasn=E2=80=99t there been a discus= sion of ETE-=20 Equitorial Transition Effect? That=E2=80=99s the warping of the space/tim= e continuum=20 as you approach the Equator and then experience the reversal during passa= ge.=20 This is distinct from ETA- Everyone=E2=80=99s Talking Australian, a spati= al and=20 temporal dissonance caused by situations such as:
 
What=E2=80=99s a Goanna- is that what=E2=80=99s eating my Marmite (a= cute, fuzzy=20 marsupial).
 
Is it polite to play your Didgeridoo in public or it only for consen= ting=20 adults?
 
You get the idea...  Cheers- Bill Wade
 
From: Frederick Moreno
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:40 AM
Subject: [LML] Fw: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice=20 LNC2
 
As a Yankee resident in  Australia, I can confirm that&nb= sp;=20 Dominic speaks the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the trut= h.=20
 
I myself am the recipient of a grant  from Prime Minister= =20 Julia Gillard's Labor Government that is paying for research to use= =20 cattle farts (methane, potent global warming gas and primary consti= tuent=20 of natural gas which is, of course natural when it comes from cows,= but=20 I digress) as an alternate fuel for use in aircraft. 
 
If I can make it work, sport aviators will be granted permissi= on to=20 fly forwards again.  So far so good.  Lightness of fuel m= akes=20 for dramatic baggage increase while staying within the W and B=20 restrictions of my Lancair IV. 
 
The current  challenge is not the methane collection and= =20 routing via  hose (a very, very long hose) to my airplane.&nbs= p;=20 Rather it is getting regulatory approval for Phase 1 test flights.&= nbsp;=20 My submission to the relevant authorities (CASA, EPA, NRDC, Animal= =20 Anti-Defamation league, State EPA, local town council, Sheep and Ca= ttle=20 Growers Association - the only supporters as they get paid for the= =20 fuel)  was 2523 pages long, and I am still waiting, waiting,= =20 waiting....
 
Yankee innovation will no doubt prevail, and I will have the= =20 Australian sport aircraft fleet in the air soon.  Wait for the= =20 press release.
 
 
Fearless Fred
 
PS : no electric airplanes are allowed nearby  when=20 fully  fueled, for obvious reasons. 
 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Dominic V. Crain
Date: 12/01/= 2013=20 8:03:45 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LM= L] Re:=20 Purchase Advice LNC2
 
Well, flying backwards in Australia is not a lotta= fun.=20
This has been government policy since 2007.
In fact not only must aviators fly backwards to help save and/= or=20 create fuel, but cars must also be driven backwards, or if incapabl= e,=20 not be driven at all.
This has the beneficial effect of shutting down all refineries= in=20 Australia. (according to the Govt.)
This now requires all Lancair owners to determine if their air= craft=20 is more or less efficient than previously thought.
As they are all left languishing in the hangars, this remains = a=20 moot point.
Being in the hangar, it is clear they use no fuel, so they are= =20 considered efficient.
But because they are not flying backwards, they are less=20 efficient.
This is the point to give up!
Cheers
 
Dominic V. Crain
Phone 03-94161881
Mobile 0412-359320
 
VH-CZJ
 
On 12/01/2013, at 8:46 AM, "Danny" <danny@n107sd.com> wrote:
 
You guys are too = damn=20 funny.  I love it,=20 seriously.  Keep = em=20 comin.
&nb= sp;
Danny<= /SPAN>
LNC2-360
N 38=C2=B0 43'=20 25.7"
W 77=C2=B0 30'=20 38.6"
Nothing is foolpr= oof to=20 a sufficiently talented fool.
&nb= sp;
From: Douglas Brunner=20 [mailto:douglasbrunner@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013= 12:31=20 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
= Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advic= e=20 LNC2
  Tim,   I=20 think we should do more research on the concept of backward flight = and=20 the resultant creation of avgas =C2=96 this might be the solution t= o our=20 problems when lead is removed from avgas.  There are a couple = of=20 interesting issues:   1)      When=20 you fly backwards in Denmark you get back liters of fuel =C2=96 in = the US=20 gallons.  Come to the US to do your backwards flying since gal= lons=20 are bigger than liters! 2)      If=20 you fly backwards in Australia the optical isomers are reversed.&nb= sp;=20 Instead of D-Octane you get L-Octane.  (Organic chemistry=20 joke) 3)      If=20 you fly backward =C2=93rich of peak=C2=94 you get more gas and your= engine runs=20 cooler!   Please=20 fax me some more paper so I can complete my calculations. &nbs= p;=20 (Since I started getting people to fax me paper, I haven=C2=92t had= to buy a=20 single sheet!)    
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net<= /A>] On Behalf Of Tim=20 J=C3=B8rgensen
Sent:=  Friday, January 11, 2013= 9:43=20 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
= Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advic= e=20 LNC2
 
I am=20 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.
 <= o:p>
You are r= ight,=20 Gary. I am disappionted in my response too.
It was wr= itten=20 off the top of my head and was factually wrong in several places. I= =20 hereby give my heartfelt apologies to anyone who might have been=20 offended by these thoughtless accusations.
 <= o:p>
From he= re it=20 reads like you are in need of more information and flying experienc= e in=20 both the 235 and the 320/360.
 <= o:p>
Yes, cert= ainly.=20 After reading your reply, I obviously felt compelled to do some res= earch=20 and come back with an unjaded and factually accurate statement, in = order=20 to correct my mistakes once and for all.
I have du= g out=20 the actual w&b sheet for the 235/320 in question. I have also r= ead=20 my actual notes from my actual conversation with Lancair (Ross),=20 regarding factory recommended max. weights for the various LNC2=20 models.
 <= o:p>
The factu= ally=20 correct and unjaded numbers are:
 <= o:p>
Lancair 2= 35,=20 max. take off & landing weight is 1400 lbs. This number never w= as=20 and never will be raised.
 <= o:p>
Lancair 3= 20/360=20 MKI (small tail), max. take off weight 1685 lbs. Max. landing weigh= t=20 1685 lbs.
 <= o:p>
Lancair 3= 20/360=20 MKII (Dundee tail), max. take off weight was initially 1685 lbs. bu= t=20 this was, by the= =20 factory, later raised to 1790 lbs. with 1685 lbs. left as max.= =20 landing weight, though.=
 <= o:p>
I am utte= rly=20 sorry about last days wrong, jaded and irresponsible statements. It= =20 won=C2=B4t happen again. Never. Sorry.
 <= o:p>
The now= =20 corrected numbers obviously pose some factually correct and unjaded= =20 challenges for my friendly but slightly depressed 235/320=20 friend:
 <= o:p>
Gross=20 wt.          &nbs= p;          =20 1400 lbs.
Empty=20 wt.          &nbs= p;         =20 1010 lbs.
Pilot=20 wt.          &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; =20 220 lbs.
45 min. f= uel=20 reserve          = 39=20 lbs.
Wife (sma= ll=20 model)           = 132=20 lbs.
 
Luggage a= nd fuel=20 for flight planning max. -1 lbs.
 
His factu= ally=20 correct and unjaded options are:
 
Hmmmm, th= is is=20 really not getting easier.......=20 Okay:
 
If he wan= ts to=20 maintain the 1.7 hour operation time and the legally required 45 mi= n.=20 reserve, he should try the obvious first. If, for some unimaginable= =20 reason, his wife is not able to shed the 90 pounds, things get slig= htly=20 more un-obvious:
 
He could = fly=20 backwards for 1.15 minutes, burning -1 lbs. of fuel. This might not= be=20 his best option, the visibility is rather poor, which dramatically= =20 increases the risk of a tail first head-on collision. He would also= have=20 to buy a new propeller with opposite twist. Hmmm... Expensive, but= =20 surely doable........
 
If, for s= ome=20 reason, he is inclined towards forward flight, he will have a 43.85= min.=20 operation time, wife included but without luggage and reserve=20 fuel.
 
If he dec= ides to=20 get a real wife (132 lbs. seems rather unreal for a wife), it will = cut=20 deeply into this operation time, perhaps even forcing him back into= =20 hindflight.
 
He could,= and=20 now for better reason than ever, ditch the bitch and end up with a = nice=20 single seater with a 2.52 hrs. operation time, still maintaining a = 45=20 min. reserve but without luggage. This could be the preferable opti= on.=20 As a side effect, warm food might await his return.=20
 
Invite me= for a=20 ride (or his mum in law) and get a polite though heartfelt "no than= ks".=20 I might be tempted to encourage his mum in law to go, though.......= . Be=20 a true experimenter, you=20 know.........
 
Well, tha= t=20 pretty much sums up the correct and unjaded numbers issue for this= =20 particular 235/320. My new honest, unjaded, numbers only based opin= ion=20 is:
 
Back in t= he=20 80=C2=B4s, Lance stated an empty weight of 800 lbs. I believe we ca= n all=20 laugh at that joke.
You might= be=20 able to find a 950 lbs. 235/235. I have not heard of any, but they = might=20 be around. That will give you 450 lbs. of payload, unless you want = to=20 experiment with the firm weight limit set by the factory. I would n= ot do=20 that, but opinions may vary. Can you live with those numbers? Is th= e=20 aircraft well built? If so, go ahead. It is a nice aircraft, but it= will=20 not turn into a 320/360, no matter how much money you throw after= =20 it.
 
If you wa= nt to=20 throw 15k in a 235/320, write a check! If you use 100 dollar bills,= it=20 will exceed gross weight.......
 
When your= =20 machine is up and flying with significantly more hours than just th= e=20 required test flight period, then I believe you will come to unders= tand=20 more about them...well the 360 anyway.  Unless someone is, or = has=20 been a 235 owner/flyer (and that applies to every other model too),= then=20 that person may be speaking out of turn.
 <= o:p>
You are s= o=20 right. Some Lancair stick time will probably take my mathematic ski= lls=20 to a new level. I, for one, would appreciate that change; 2 + 2 has= been=20 4 for way too long!
 <= o:p>
Now, Gary= , this=20 message is clearly meant as a joke. The numbers are correct, but I= =20 happen to like jokes. Sorry, I just can=C2=B4t help it. I do not ha= ve=20 anything against 235 owners, their planes or their wives, nor do I = wish=20 to contribute to any kind of bad rap to these. I would also like to= =20 state, that no animals were harmed during the writing of this messa= ge,=20 nor will they be until the message is sent.
 <= o:p>
The thing= is,=20 Paul Besing asked a question on LML. He asked about the pro=C2=B4s = and con=C2=B4s=20 regarding the differences between a 235 and a 320 and the money=20 involved. Paul is entitled to some answers from people who have bee= n=20 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= made=20 paperwork for both and I have talked to Lancair about both. I also = have=20 an opinion about both, which obliges me to give the man an honest= =20 answer.
I am well= aware,=20 that answering this kind of questions sometimes renders you unpopul= ar,=20 but choosing not to answer at all would be downright selfish and ru= de. I=20 will pick unpopular over selfish and rude any second.=
 <= o:p>
If you wi= sh to=20 contribute to the debate, it would be helpful if you would publish = some=20 numbers for your particular 235.
You also = claim,=20 that the gross weight was actually raised to 1500 lbs. at some poin= t.=20 Now, if you are able to document this, many people would be=20 significantly less depressed. I know at least=20 one.......
 <= o:p>
Cheers
Tim=20 Jorgensen
 <= o:p>
 
 
 --part1_5554.15405684.3e230942_boundary--