X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:01:23 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc3-s24.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.99] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6004812 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:34:39 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.99; envelope-from=gary21sn@hotmail.com Received: from BLU172-DS16 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s24.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:34:04 -0800 X-EIP: [8fpXbmWUR/lwFvMMGyC07GSBpJuycHFG] X-Originating-Email: [gary21sn@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: gary21sn@hotmail.com From: "Gary Edwards" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:34:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0039_01CDEF0D.3F64B3F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V10.50.0008.2100 In-Reply-To: Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:34:03 -0800 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2013 16:34:04.0167 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D956170:01CDEF50] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01CDEF0D.3F64B3F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tim, 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. From here it reads like you are in need of more information = and flying experience in both the 235 and the 320/360. 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. Gary E. =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tim J=F8rgensen=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:17 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 What is your friend suffering from? Bill Harrelson pretty much summed it up, but here goes....... The 320/360 is slightly larger than the 235. The cabin is wider and = quite a bit higher. I am 6' 1" and can not get into my friends=B4 235. = Other 235=B4s might be built differently, I dunno. The 320/360 empennage is 8" longer, probably giving the rudder and = elevator a bit more authority. The 320/360 has an oleo nose gear strut. These were at some point = available as a retrofit for the 235, but it was a USD 2.500,- or so = option. The 320/360 flaps are hinged at the bottom wing skin and the flaps are = faired in with the fillets in the reflexed position for reduced drag. Many (most?) 320/360 have the adjustable rudder pedal option. Many 320/360 have long range tanks. Many 320/360 have fwd. hinged canopy (yes, also a few 235=B4s). Some 320/360 have outback gear (beefed up mlg. and 5" wheels). Some 320/360 have the larger MKII tail, which improves handling, = safety and cg range (flame suit on!) Some / many / more 320/360 have constant speed props for improved = performance and added expense..... Last, but not least, we have the numbers issue:=20 My friends=B4 numbers are: L235/320, fixed pitch prop, equipped for VFR day. Long range tanks = (no, I dunno why either). Gross wt. 1490 lbs. Empty wt. 1010 lbs. Pilot wt. 220 lbs. 45 min. fuel reserve 39 lbs. Wife (small model) 132 lbs. Luggage and fuel for flight planning max. 89 lbs. His options are: Leave with wife but without luggage and plan for a 1.7 hour flight, = maintaining 45 min. reserve fuel (required here). Ditch the bitch and fly 4.22 hrs. away, still maintaining 45 min. = reserve but without luggage. Invite me for a ride (or his mum in law) and fly for 11 minutes = without reserve. Don=B4t land (max. landing wt. 1400 lbs.). Be a true experimenter. Ignore all factory recommendations; they dunno = what they are talking about anyway. Shove in 50 lbs. of luggage. Bring a = medium sized friend, let=B4s say 180 lbs., and fill them long range = tanks to the caps. Take off with all of those 1774 lbs. and practice = some deep stalls. You gotta know your aircraft, right? Come in for a low = pass, leave with the mandatory victory roll and come back for some short = field practice. Atta boy, go show=B4em; that=B4s the spirit! I guess the bottom line is: you pays yer money........ 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 = choce 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.=20 But, then again, I am a sissy. I even take the shells out of my = shotgun before pointing it at anyone. Would you believe that? = Tssshhh............ Regards Tim Jorgensen 360MKIIOBFB / 99% ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gary Edwards=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:32 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 Tim, The 235 airframe gross weight was subsequently (1998) raised to = 1,500 lbs. on take-off and 1,400 lbs. on landing. ...A friend of mine later bought that very same 235 kit and still = suffers........ Along with the 235, I would surmise that there may not be very many = 320's and 360's that are not exceeding the factory gross weight numbers. The 320/360 is only 1" wider than the 235 airframe. A little taller = yes, but if you are 6 foot whatever, then maybe you need a Legacy where = there is even more headroom (and even more fuel capacity). =20 Along with Bill's post, I think the 235 is getting a bad rap on the = forum. I'm with Randy; a 235 with Lyc. 320 is very fine. It keeps up with = the best of them and has relatively low fuel burn. Take-off GPH is = 11.2, cruise fuel burn is anywhere you want to make it from 6 to 9 GPH. Gary Edwards 235/320 Medford, Oregon ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tim J=F8rgensen=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:01 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 Purchase a 235 , ending at $50k=20 Enjoy 160KTAS at 6gph. =20 Now, considering $70k on a good 320/360=20 enjoy 190KTAS at 9gph, and a bit more room and better climb. My question is, to most of you is $20k worth the room, = performance, yet higher fuel flow? Don=B4t forget: Gross weight 235 =3D 1490 lbs. Gross weight 320/360 MKI =3D 1640 lbs. Fross weight 320/360 MKII =3D 1790 lbs. These numbers might be the most important reason to find a good = 320/360 MKII. I considered a 235 vs. a 320/360 kit back in 2003. The price = difference was some USD 5.000,-.=20 Don Gordon talked me out of the 235 kit when I visited his hangar, = and I am glad he did (thank you Don !!!) A friend of mine later bought that very same 235 kit and still = suffers........ Anyway, I started building the 360MKII in 2003. Back then, a good = 9 years and 30-some pounds ago, I realized that the 1490 lbs. gross = weight would not do. I now realize that I should have bought a Legacy = for the extra payload. - Or maybe an AN-2...... Anyway, the 320/360MKII is well worth the extra 20k in my opinion. = In fact it is probably better than the Legacy because of the Lycoming = engine. It also looks better. Ooh, and don=B4t forget that you are going = to want a MKII model because of the bigger tail. The big tail is not = nearly as dangerous as the small tail, especially if you plan on doing = spins. It also looks better. Tim Jorgensen 360MKIIOBFB / 99% ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01CDEF0D.3F64B3F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tim,
 
I am disappointed in your response.  It is jaded in many ways = with=20 mis-information to give the 235 a bad rap and to justify only the=20 320/360.  From here it reads like you are in need of more = information and=20 flying experience in both the 235 and the 320/360.  When your = machine is up=20 and flying with significantly more hours than just the required = test flight=20 period, then I believe you will come to understand more about = them...well the=20 360 anyway.  Unless someone is, or has been a 235 owner/flyer (and = that=20 applies to every other model too), then that person may be speaking = out of=20 turn.
 
Gary E.  
 
  
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 10, = 2013 5:17=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase = Advice=20 LNC2

What is your friend suffering=20 from?
 
Bill Harrelson pretty much summed it up, but here = goes.......
 
The 320/360 is slightly larger than the 235. The cabin is wider = and quite=20 a bit higher. I am 6' 1" and can not get into my friends=B4 235. Other = 235=B4s=20 might be built differently, I dunno.
 
The 320/360 empennage is 8" longer, probably giving the rudder = and=20 elevator a bit more authority.
 
The 320/360 has an oleo nose gear strut. These were at some point = available as a retrofit for the 235, but it was a USD 2.500,- or = so=20 option.
 
The 320/360 flaps are hinged at the bottom wing skin and the = flaps are=20 faired in with the fillets in the reflexed position for reduced = drag.
 
Many (most?) 320/360 have the adjustable rudder pedal = option.
 
Many 320/360 have long range tanks.
 
Many 320/360 have fwd. hinged canopy (yes, also a few = 235=B4s).
 
Some 320/360 have outback gear (beefed up mlg. and = 5" wheels).
 
Some 320/360 have the larger MKII tail, which improves handling, = safety=20 and cg range (flame suit on!)
 
Some / many / more 320/360 have constant speed props for improved = performance and added expense.....
 
Last, but not least, we have the numbers issue: 
 
My friends=B4 numbers are:
 
L235/320, fixed pitch prop, equipped for VFR day. Long range = tanks (no, I=20 dunno why either).
 
Gross wt.      =    =20             1490=20 lbs.
 
Empty wt.     =    =20             1010=20 lbs.
Pilot wt.    =20             =20         220 lbs.
45 min. fuel reserve   =20        39 lbs.
Wife (small=20 model)           132 = lbs.
 
Luggage and fuel for flight planning = max. 89=20 lbs.
 
His options are:
 
Leave with wife but without luggage = and plan for a=20 1.7 hour flight, maintaining 45 min. reserve fuel (required=20 here).
 
Ditch the bitch and fly 4.22 hrs. away, = still=20 maintaining 45 min. reserve but without luggage.
 
Invite me for a ride (or his mum in law) and = fly for 11=20 minutes without reserve. Don=B4t land = (max. landing=20 wt. 1400 lbs.).
 
Be a true experimenter. Ignore all factory=20 recommendations; they dunno what they are talking about anyway. Shove = in 50=20 lbs. of luggage. Bring a medium sized friend, let=B4s say 180 lbs., = and fill=20 them long range tanks to the caps. Take off with all of = those 1774=20 lbs. and practice some deep stalls. You gotta know your aircraft, = right?=20 Come in for a low pass, leave with the mandatory victory roll and = come=20 back for some short field practice. Atta boy, go = show=B4em; that=B4s the=20 spirit!
 
 
I guess the bottom line is: you pays yer=20 money........
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=20 and you want some "cheap" fun, a 235/235 could very well be=20 the thing for you. If you can live with the weight = limitations, a=20 235/320 is not a bad choce either. If you can find something as nice = as=20 Randy=B4s, it doesn=B4t get any 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=20 a nice 320/360 any day. I don=B4t like = the concept=20 of buying an aircraft and deliberately taking it beyond factory=20 recommendations every time I fly. 
 
But, then again, I am a sissy. I even = take the=20 shells out of my shotgun before pointing it at anyone. Would you = believe that?=20 Tssshhh............
 
Regards
Tim Jorgensen
360MKIIOBFB / 99%
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Gary=20 Edwards
To: lml@lancaironline.net =
Sent: Thursday, January 10, = 2013 1:32=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase = Advice=20 LNC2

Tim,
 
The 235 airframe gross weight was subsequently (1998) raised to = 1,500=20 lbs. on take-off and 1,400 lbs. on landing.
 
...A friend of mine later bought that = very same=20 235 kit and still suffers........
 
 
Along with the 235, I would surmise that = there may not=20 be very many 320's and 360's that are not exceeding the = factory=20 gross weight numbers.
 
The 320/360 is only 1" wider than the 235=20 airframe.  A little taller yes, but if you are 6 foot whatever, = then=20 maybe you need a Legacy where there is even more headroom (and = even=20 more fuel capacity).  
 
Along with Bill's post, I think the 235 is = getting a=20 bad rap on the forum.
 
I'm with Randy; a 235 with Lyc. 320 is = very=20 fine.  It keeps up with the best of them and = has relatively low=20 fuel burn.  Take-off GPH is 11.2, cruise fuel burn is anywhere = you want=20 to make it from 6 to 9 GPH.
 
Gary Edwards
235/320
Medford, Oregon
 
 
----- Original Message ----- =
From: Tim=20 J=F8rgensen
To: lml@lancaironline.net =
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, = 2013 8:01=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase = Advice=20 LNC2

Purchase a 235 , ending at = $50k=20
Enjoy 160KTAS at 6gph.  =

Now,=20 considering $70k on a good 320/360
enjoy 190KTAS at 9gph, and a = bit more=20 room and better climb.

My question is, to most of you is = $20k worth=20 the room, performance, yet higher fuel flow?
 
Don=B4t forget:
Gross weight 235 =3D 1490 = lbs.
Gross weight 320/360 MKI =3D 1640 = lbs.
Fross weight 320/360 MKII =3D = 1790=20 lbs.
 
These numbers might be = the most=20 important reason to find a good 320/360 MKII.
 
I considered a 235 vs. a 320/360 = kit back in=20 2003. The price difference was some USD 5.000,-. =
Don Gordon talked me out of the = 235 kit when=20 I visited his hangar, and I am glad he did (thank you Don=20 !!!)
 
A friend of mine later bought = that very same=20 235 kit and still suffers........
 
Anyway, I started building the = 360MKII in=20 2003. Back then, a good 9 years and 30-some pounds ago, I realized = that=20 the 1490 lbs. gross weight would not do. I now realize that I = should have=20 bought a Legacy for the extra payload. - Or maybe an=20 AN-2......
 
Anyway, the 320/360MKII is well = worth the=20 extra 20k in my opinion. In fact it is probably better than the = Legacy=20 because of the Lycoming engine. It also looks better. Ooh, and = don=B4t=20 forget that you are going to want a MKII model because of the = bigger tail.=20 The big tail is not nearly = as=20 dangerous as the small tail, especially if you plan on = doing spins.=20 It also looks better.
 
Tim Jorgensen
360MKIIOBFB / 99%
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0039_01CDEF0D.3F64B3F0--