X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:46:31 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web81509.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with SMTP id 2573566 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:20:45 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.199.149; envelope-from=kneadedpleasures@sbcglobal.net Received: (qmail 16730 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Dec 2007 20:20:05 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=AUjh1qz0RPyBIA/Kesx6Py+PKMhBk2WX/ka2YNljORSAJV7Y53mW6zOMnG+43VWZR00m2jYwIaudDxHnWDTFPTrYcNLgMy5n7djF2Z0zIGyKMYee6O+vVjJLDks4c4WSsnEjy+duUQ7i9RyYXbqDhH0W4fpauIp4kzfnIe2VUzE=; X-YMail-OSG: uKtsHJIVM1mhsWk6F6SiXkKJ.XcIBPNDXJ.rIL8M9xfm6Ha33LhcRv6ReD7Ro9FuPHR4Ww-- Received: from [71.145.175.111] by web81509.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:20:05 PST X-Original-Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 12:20:05 -0800 (PST) From: kneaded pleasures Subject: Needing performance information on the Lancair 200 and 235 X-Original-To: List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-895167990-1197231605=:15904" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Original-Message-ID: <437442.15904.qm@web81509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --0-895167990-1197231605=:15904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Many thanks to each of the respondents who answered my questions regarding performance of the Lancair 200. I again flew that aircraft with more satisfactory results than the first flight. The real problem (as most of you surmised) was the pilot, not the aircraft. In my defense though, the engine was so underpowered relative to my 0360 that it felt like it was broken. On this most recent flight, the climb and airspeed were both more acceptable (700 ft/min. and 150 mph respectively). A misfiring right magneto tested well on the ground but failed when pushed to maximum. When misfiring, there was a noticeable drop in airspeed so that the true potential of this aircraft is yet to be revealed. The combined wisdom and experience of the users of this LML is a rich resource that I am most grateful to have. Greg Nelson --0-895167990-1197231605=:15904 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Many thanks to each of the respondents who answered my questions regarding performance of the Lancair 200.  I again flew that aircraft with more satisfactory results than the first flight.  The real problem (as most of you surmised) was the pilot, not the aircraft.  In my defense though, the engine was so underpowered relative to my 0360 that it felt like it was broken.  On this most recent flight, the climb and airspeed were both more acceptable (700 ft/min. and 150 mph respectively). A misfiring right magneto tested well on the ground but failed when pushed to maximum.  When misfiring, there was a noticeable drop in airspeed so that the true potential of this aircraft is yet to be revealed.
 
The combined wisdom and experience of the users of this LML is a rich resource that I am most grateful to have.   Greg Nelson
--0-895167990-1197231605=:15904--