Return-Path: Received: from russian-caravan.cloud9.net ([168.100.1.4]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:28:07 -0400 Received: from oolong.cloud9.net (oolong [168.100.1.5]) by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880CB76303 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:31:02 -0400 (EDT) To: lancair.list@olsusa.com From: kzahner@cloud9.net Reply-To: kzahner@cloud9.net Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:31:02 GMT Subject: Re: 320 Speeds Message-Id: <19990615113102.880CB76303@russian-caravan.cloud9.net> X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I too am considering the choice between a 320 and a 360, and as horrific as it may seem, 7 knots top-end airspeed isn't my primary motivating factor. (I may change my mind, and engine, when I get smoked by another Lancair!) Jim Frantz's point that the climb rate is a mathematical formula makes me wonder why the factory has identical climb rates listed for both the 320 and 360. Isn't there a more significant difference to be had in the choice between a fuel injected engine than there is between the 320 and 360? Kurt Zahner >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML homepage: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html