X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:36:23 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail.bbsyd.dk ([89.184.128.195] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6011145 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:29:44 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=89.184.128.195; envelope-from=tj@yacht-pool.dk Received: from TIM (unknown [95.154.58.204]) by mail.bbsyd.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 4091E3B8037 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:29:08 +0100 (CET) X-Original-Message-ID: From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Tim_J=F8rgensen?= X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:29:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_014B_01CDF26B.FBC8DD80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_014B_01CDF26B.FBC8DD80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gary, I stand pleasantly corrected regarding the 235 gross weight!=20 Thank you VERY much for submitting the page from Lancair Mail, it was = highly needed! I have had the unpleasant job of making load plans for a 1010 lb. 235, a = 220 lb. pilot and a 1400 lb. gross weight. This certainly makes things = easier, thank you once again!=20 Is there anyone left out there who does not know that the 235 gross = weight was increased to 1500 lbs over 14yrs ago? Yes, and some of them work at the factory. This information hardly falls = in the category "news", the problem seems to be, that the info is so old = it has been forgotten. I think it might be a good idea to save the page = submitted by Gary in the archives, there are still a few 235 builders = out there who might benefit from it. The info about the 1790 lb. gross applying to the 320/360 MkII only, = also comes from the factory.=20 After reading your information, all of the 235's out there ought to be = grounded as unsafe. Aviation safety is in reverse proportion to degree of overload. I said: "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 live with the weight limitations, a 235/320 is not a bad = choice either. If you can find something as nice as Randy=B4s, it = doesn=B4t get any better! 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=B4t like the concept of buying an aircraft and deliberately taking = it beyond factory recommendations every time I fly." That means: If you weigh 250 lb. and your wife/boyfriend/buddy weighs another 250 = lb., you might not want a Lancair 235. Please take that into = consideration. If you weigh considerably less, a Lancair 235 is a VERY = nice aircraft and there are VERY well built 235=B4s around. If some readers are able to take offense by that, there is little I can = do for them. Now, this message is not going to end without a joke. In order to = maintain peace om LML, I=B4ll take it out on the germans this time. Here = is a favourite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DgmOTpIVxji8 Regards Tim Jorgensen ------=_NextPart_000_014B_01CDF26B.FBC8DD80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gary, I stand pleasantly corrected regarding the = 235 gross=20 weight!
 
Thank you VERY much for submitting the page from = Lancair=20 Mail, it was highly needed!
I have had the unpleasant job of making load = plans for a=20 1010 lb. 235, a 220 lb. pilot and a 1400 lb. gross weight. This = certainly=20 makes things easier, thank you once again! 
 
Is there anyone left out there who does not = know that=20 the 235 gross weight was increased to 1500 lbs over 14yrs=20 ago?

Yes, and some of them work at the factory. This=20 information hardly falls in the category "news", the problem seems = to be,=20 that the info is so old it has been forgotten. I think = it might be a=20 good idea to save the page submitted by Gary in the archives, there are = still a=20 few 235 builders out there who might benefit from it.
The info about the 1790 lb. gross applying to = the 320/360=20 MkII only, also comes from the factory.
 
After reading your information, all of = the 235's=20 out there ought to be grounded as unsafe.
 
Aviation safety is in reverse proportion to = degree of=20 overload. I said:
 
"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 = feller and=20 you want some "cheap" fun, a 235/235 could very well be the thing for = you. If=20 you can live with the weight limitations, a 235/320 is not a bad choice = either.=20 If you can find something as nice as Randy=B4s, it doesn=B4t get any=20 better!
 
If you want (or weigh) a little more on a = relatively=20 comparable budget, you should find yourself a nice 320/360.
I am a fat guy, so I would pay 20k ekstra for a = nice=20 320/360 any day. I don=B4t like the concept of = buying an=20 aircraft and deliberately taking it beyond factory recommendations every = time I=20 fly."
 
That means:
If you weigh 250 lb. and your wife/boyfriend/buddy weighs another = 250 lb.,=20 you might not want a Lancair 235. Please take that into consideration. = If you=20 weigh considerably less, a Lancair 235 is a VERY nice aircraft and there = are=20 VERY well built 235=B4s around.
 
If some readers are able to take offense by that, there = is little I=20 can do for them.
 
Now, this message is not going to end without a joke. In order to = maintain=20 peace om LML, I=B4ll take it out on the germans this time. Here is a = favourite: http://www.youtube.= com/watch?v=3DgmOTpIVxji8
 
Regards
Tim Jorgensen
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_014B_01CDF26B.FBC8DD80--