X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:07:17 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm21-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.94.236.31] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6003823 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:05:28 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.94.236.31; envelope-from=earleschroeder@yahoo.com Received: from [66.94.237.198] by nm21.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Jan 2013 01:04:55 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.99] by tm9.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Jan 2013 01:04:55 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1004.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Jan 2013 01:04:55 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 656348.78863.bm@omp1004.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 69459 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Jan 2013 01:04:55 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=evpssTHcf8ESEuCtCyFABmqbz6lWr90O3N1hm9J1sQxQQjxnVoVbH+ABR56MViqUHXEnt+DZiRtJn/235whOxDeA0yNv4UHaud3qSLqYxVLobmbxlsL3b6i3x3KUmoMkCZTAoTMv/oSrtchGWRNzRH/wKYRqZj1Re7bZVon+5jE=; X-YMail-OSG: Ow.iGwYVM1liItcBXQnGlapoNYF9FvUNeg0V_cwGP0KvGyg VDe37BDex.3MeqnHnFKw44WrLcDFacuaLq2FmTcBVp9bz7Z7H_MPK0LDV45i ..sUJLQ2uvxzN.AjBY6A8ZRVdTb4M3oXXk6CiHE7VNRyBsxbvUJCsglfes.i ZSpOYlv9KerzxLJavydWYPQ1zx6pHbUJeBxVJEHhQ19hVwsCMZiFNLTXtypz TYBWyDCQfY8C7bLZPaAYu9dvzyTTfSJxMKOjTM5_2mH_Z_1MdImWMokDt0WG AZzXvBNoy1DjUaLje3J55hYH37FyMbdtXW3PBGhpsmdFh4fGTmVa1.67axnd oZLpVKlxuYpnkjyJavv5RYuvRojH9kxEcYJjm9R1HIKOF1QWwlbv.zbu8czk KFyRzLbXxEyIg1bZgvtCuFJJ89_n0CO2T3GfeJc0zksduD6doYWB3eTuUSHc X8pyi3MZiMFkztcQOoLLyg3W.AN4gfQIWMmYOiVB4tUbJc8JDBgAvbhvszO8 sbnPBtaPzCNzni8TMmSU7OXnbkuq_csRLELEu_BFex3wnke55bjOSVM4_gn6 9dydKcUoyDwUQHMAsXz8scRZk5WuZScKSlR76oZftrb8- Received: from [75.16.229.9] by web184305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:04:55 PST X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 001.001,SGVsbG8gVGltIGZyb20gYW5vdGhlciBoYXBweSAyMzUvMzIwIGJ1aWxkZXIvZmx5ZXIuCgpNb3N0IG9mIGhhdmUgaGFkIHRoZSBvcHBvcnR1bml0eSB0byBpbmNvcnBvcmF0ZSB0aGUgMzIwIGZlYXR1cmVzIGluIG91ciAKYWlyY3JhZnQuICBCdXlpbmcgYSAyMzUgdGhhdCB3YXMgYnVpbHQgcGVyIHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBwbGFucyB3b3VsZCBwcm9iYWJseSBiZSAKY29uc2lkZXJhYmx5ICdkaWZmZXJlbnQnIHRoYW4gbW9zdCAyMzUvMzIwcyBmbHlpbmcgdG9kYXkuICAKCgpBIGZyaWVuZCBoYWQgYW4gZWFybHkBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/718 YahooMailWebService/0.8.130.494 References: X-Original-Message-ID: <1357779895.66559.YahooMailRC@web184305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:04:55 -0800 (PST) From: Earl Schroeder Reply-To: Earl Schroeder Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1870516026-629041471-1357779895=:66559" --1870516026-629041471-1357779895=:66559 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Tim from another happy 235/320 builder/flyer.=0A=0AMost of have had t= he opportunity to incorporate the 320 features in our =0Aaircraft. Buying = a 235 that was built per the original plans would probably be =0Aconsiderab= ly 'different' than most 235/320s flying today. =0A=0A=0AA friend had an e= arly 235 and he built it with the 0-235, flap hinged on top =0Askin etc so = he limited his runway selection to only hard surface and long. (He =0Aprev= iously flew military F-101 etc and owned an early model Mooney with many = =0Ahours experience) =0A=0A=0AMy advice would depend on your 'size', home = runway, and type of flying planned. =0AAfter the 235/235 breaks ground it = is very economical to fly and scoots along =0Awith the best of them...=0A= =0A0.02 cents, Earl =0A=0AP.S. Yes, they both look good!=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A__= ______________________________=0AFrom: Gary Edwards = =0ATo: lml@lancaironline.net=0ASent: Wed, January 9, 2013 6:32:45 PM=0ASubj= ect: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2=0A=0A =0ATim,=0A =0AThe 235 airframe gr= oss weight was subsequently (1998) raised to 1,500 lbs. on =0Atake-off and= 1,400 lbs. on landing.=0A =0A...A friend of mine later bought that very sa= me 235 kit and still =0Asuffers........=0A =0AWhat is your friend sufferin= g from?=0A =0AAlong with the 235, I would surmise that there may not be ve= ry many 320's and =0A360's that are not exceeding the factory gross weight= numbers.=0A =0AThe 320/360 is only 1" wider than the 235 airframe. A lit= tle taller yes, but =0Aif you are 6 foot whatever, then maybe you need a L= egacy where there is even =0Amore headroom (and even more fuel capacity). = =0A=0A =0AAlong with Bill's post, I think the 235 is getting a bad rap o= n the forum.=0A =0AI'm with Randy; a 235 with Lyc. 320 is very fine. It k= eeps up with the best of =0Athem and has relatively low fuel burn. Take-o= ff GPH is 11.2, cruise fuel burn =0Ais anywhere you want to make it from 6= to 9 GPH.=0A =0AGary Edwards=0A235/320=0AMedford, Oregon=0A =0A =0A----- O= riginal Message ----- =0A>From: Tim J=F8rgensen =0A>To: lml@lancaironline.n= et =0A>Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:01 AM=0A>Subject: [LML] Re: Pu= rchase Advice LNC2=0A>=0A>=0A>Purchase a 235 , ending at $50k =0A>Enjoy = 160KTAS at 6gph. =0A>=0A>Now, considering $70k on a good 320/360 =0A>en= joy 190KTAS at 9gph, and a bit more room and better climb.=0A>=0A>My que= stion is, to most of you is $20k worth the room, performance, yet =0A>hi= gher fuel flow?=0A> =0A>Don=B4t forget:=0A>Gross weight 235 =3D 1490 lbs.= =0A>Gross weight 320/360 MKI =3D 1640 lbs.=0A>Fross weight 320/360 MKII =3D= 1790 lbs.=0A> =0A>These numbers might be the most important reason to = find a good 320/360 =0AMKII.=0A> =0A>I considered a 235 vs. a 320/360 kit b= ack in 2003. The price difference was =0A>some USD 5.000,-. =0A>=0A>Don = Gordon talked me out of the 235 kit when I visited his hangar, and I am = =0A>glad he did (thank you Don !!!)=0A> =0A>A friend of mine later bought t= hat very same 235 kit and still =0A>suffers........=0A> =0A>Anyway, I st= arted building the 360MKII in 2003. Back then, a good 9 years and =0A>30= -some pounds ago, I realized that the 1490 lbs. gross weight would not d= o. =0A>I now realize that I should have bought a Legacy for the extra pa= yload. - Or =0A>maybe an AN-2......=0A> =0A>Anyway, the 320/360MKII is well= worth the extra 20k in my opinion. In fact it =0A>is probably better th= an the Legacy because of the Lycoming engine. It also =0A>looks better. = Ooh, and don=B4t forget that you are going to want a MKII model =0A>beca= use of the bigger tail. The big tail is not nearly as dangerous as the smal= l =0A>tail, especially if you plan on doing spins. It also looks better.= =0A> =0A>Tim Jorgensen=0A>360MKIIOBFB / 99%=0A> =0A> =0A> --1870516026-629041471-1357779895=:66559 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Tim from another happy 235/320 builder/f= lyer.

Most of have had the opportunity to incorporate the 320 featur= es in our aircraft.  Buying a 235 that was built per the original plan= s would probably be considerably 'different' than most 235/320s flying toda= y. 

A friend had an early 235 and he built it with the 0-235, = flap hinged on top skin etc so he limited his runway selection to only hard= surface and long.  (He previously flew military F-101 etc and owned a= n early model Mooney with many hours experience) 

My advice wo= uld depend on your 'size', home runway, and type of flying planned.  A= fter the 235/235 breaks ground it is very economical to fly and scoots alon= g with the best of them...

0.02 cents,  Earl

P.S.&= nbsp; Yes, they both look good!

From: Gary Edwards <gary21sn@hotmail.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Wed, January 9, 2013 6= :32:45 PM
Subject: [LML= ] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2

=0A=0A=0A =0A =0A= =0A=0A=0A
=0A
Tim,
=0A
 
=0A
The = 235 airframe gross weight was subsequently (1998) raised to 1,500 lbs. =0Ao= n take-off and 1,400 lbs. on landing.
=0A
 
=0A
...A friend of mine later bought that very same 235 = =0Akit and still suffers........
=0A
 
=0A
What is your f= riend suffering from?
=0A
 = ;
=0A
Along with the 235, I would surmise tha= t there may not be =0Avery many 320's and 360's that are not exceeding=  the factory gross =0Aweight numbers.
=0A
 
= =0A
The 320/360 is only 1" wider than the 235 airf= rame.  =0AA little taller yes, but if you are 6 foot whatever, then ma= ybe you need a =0ALegacy where there is even more headroom (and even m= ore fuel =0Acapacity).  
=0A
 
=0AAlong with Bill's post, I think the 235 is getting a = bad =0Arap on the forum.
=0A
 
=0A
I'm with Randy; a 235 with Lyc. 320 is very =0Afine.  = It keeps up with the best of them and has relatively low fuel =0Aburn.=   Take-off GPH is 11.2, cruise fuel burn is anywhere you want to make = =0Ait from 6 to 9 GPH.
=0A
 
=0A
Gary Edwards
=0A
235/320
=0A
Medford, Oregon
=0A
=  
=0A
 
=0A
=0A
----- Original Message -----
=0A =0A =0A
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:01 =0A AM
= =0A
Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Adv= ice =0A LNC2
=0A

=0A
Purchase a 235 , ending at $50k =0A
=0A Enjoy 160KTAS at 6gph. 

N= ow, =0A considering $70k on a good 320/360
=0A
enjoy 190KTAS at 9gph, and a bit more room= =0A and better climb.

My question is, to most of you is $20k worth= the =0A room, performance, yet higher fuel flow?
=0A  
=0A
Don=B4t forget:
=0A
Gross weight 235 =3D 1490 lbs.
=0A Gross weight 320/360 MKI =3D 1640 lbs.
=0A
Fross weight 320/360 M= KII =3D 1790 =0Albs.
=0A
=  
=0A
These numbers = might be the most important =0A reason to find a good 320/360 MKII.
=0A
 
=0A=
I considered a 235 vs. a 320/360 kit= back in =0A 2003. The price difference was some USD 5.000,-. =
=0A
Don Gordon talked me out of= the 235 kit when I =0A visited his hangar, and I am glad he did (thank yo= u Don !!!)
=0A
&nb= sp;
=0A
A friend of mine later b= ought that very same 235 =0A kit and still suffers........
=0A=
 
=0A
Anyway, I started building the 360MKII in 2003. = =0A Back then, a good 9 years and 30-some pounds ago, I realized that the = 1490 =0A lbs. gross weight would not do. I now realize that I should have = bought a =0A Legacy for the extra payload. - Or maybe an AN-2......
=0A
 
=0A=
Anyway, the 320/360MKII is well wort= h the extra =0A 20k in my opinion. In fact it is probably better than the = Legacy because of =0A the Lycoming engine. It also looks better. Ooh, and = don=B4t forget that you are =0A going to want a MKII model because of the = bigger tail. The big tail is no= t nearly as dangerous as the small tail, =0A especially if you plan on doi= ng spins. It also looks better.
=0A
 
=0A
Tim Jorgensen
=0A
360MK= IIOBFB / 99%
=0A
&= nbsp;
=0A
 
=0A
=  
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A --1870516026-629041471-1357779895=:66559--