|
|
|
Bill,
Recently there have been many canards on this list - Oh, maybe you meant
aircraft with canards. I challenge your statement that they are more
efficient. However, they do operate well in the ETE as long as the canard
remains clean as a smutty canard causes loss of lift on that crucial
wingy-thingy. Only Klaus has an efficient canard aircraft although you may
have to find out how much power he wrings out his engine and what that funny
skinny prop is doing. BTW, they are good airplanes that avoid main wing
stalls and just mush on down.
Grayhawk
In a message dated 1/12/2013 12:18:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,
super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com writes:
In this discussion I’m surprised that Canards haven’t been
mentioned. It’s well known they’re more efficient- surely that’s due to the
fact that they were designed from the ground up to fly backwards.
Also, given the fact that there’s a reversal of the Coriolis
effect between the two hemispheres why hasn’t there been a discussion of ETE-
Equitorial Transition Effect? That’s the warping of the space/time continuum
as you approach the Equator and then experience the reversal during passage.
This is distinct from ETA- Everyone’s Talking Australian, a spatial and
temporal dissonance caused by situations such as:
What’s a Goanna- is that what’s eating my Marmite (a cute, fuzzy
marsupial).
Is it polite to play your Didgeridoo in public or it only for consenting
adults?
You get the idea... Cheers- Bill Wade
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:40 AM
Subject: [LML] Fw: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice
LNC2
As a Yankee resident in Australia, I can confirm that
Dominic speaks the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I myself am the recipient of a grant from Prime Minister
Julia Gillard's Labor Government that is paying for research to use
cattle farts (methane, potent global warming gas and primary constituent
of natural gas which is, of course natural when it comes from cows, but
I digress) as an alternate fuel for use in aircraft.
If I can make it work, sport aviators will be granted permission to
fly forwards again. So far so good. Lightness of fuel makes
for dramatic baggage increase while staying within the W and B
restrictions of my Lancair IV.
The current challenge is not the methane collection and
routing via hose (a very, very long hose) to my airplane.
Rather it is getting regulatory approval for Phase 1 test flights.
My submission to the relevant authorities (CASA, EPA, NRDC, Animal
Anti-Defamation league, State EPA, local town council, Sheep and Cattle
Growers Association - the only supporters as they get paid for the
fuel) was 2523 pages long, and I am still waiting, waiting,
waiting....
Yankee innovation will no doubt prevail, and I will have the
Australian sport aircraft fleet in the air soon. Wait for the
press release.
Fearless Fred
PS : no electric airplanes are allowed nearby when
fully fueled, for obvious reasons.
-------Original Message-------
Date: 12/01/2013
8:03:45 AM
Subject: [LML] Re:
Purchase Advice LNC2
Well, flying backwards in Australia is not a lotta fun.
This has been government policy since 2007.
In fact not only must aviators fly backwards to help save and/or
create fuel, but cars must also be driven backwards, or if incapable,
not be driven at all.
This has the beneficial effect of shutting down all refineries in
Australia. (according to the Govt.)
This now requires all Lancair owners to determine if their aircraft
is 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 efficient.
But because they are not flying backwards, they are less
efficient.
This is the point to give up!
Cheers
Dominic V. Crain
Phone 03-94161881
Mobile 0412-359320
VH-CZJ
You guys are too damn
funny. I love it,
seriously. Keep em
comin.
Danny
LNC2-360
N 38° 43'
25.7"
W 77° 30'
38.6"
Nothing is foolproof to
a sufficiently talented fool.
Tim,
I
think we should do more research on the concept of backward flight and
the resultant creation of avgas this might be the solution to our
problems when lead is removed from avgas. There are a couple of
interesting issues:
1) When
you fly backwards in Denmark you get back liters of fuel in the US
gallons. Come to the US to do your backwards flying since gallons
are bigger than liters!
2) If
you fly backwards in Australia the optical isomers are reversed.
Instead of D-Octane you get L-Octane. (Organic chemistry
joke)
3) If
you fly backward rich of peak you get more gas and your engine runs
cooler!
Please
fax me some more paper so I can complete my calculations.
(Since I started getting people to fax me paper, I havent had to buy a
single sheet!)
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:
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.......
|
|
|