Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:01:23 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-6004897@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=173.195.187.37; envelope-from=hamer@theunion.net
From: Howard Hamer <hamer@theunion.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: 235 vs 320 differences
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)

A friend purchased a flying early 320 and soon remarked to me about how =
squirrely it flew. I told him that my 235 didn't have any of the bad =
characteristics he was describing. When we examined the CG in our =
individual airplanes we found his CG was much further aft than mine in =
my 235. He added a nine pound dampener to the end of the crank and that =
moved the CG forward and the aircraft flew much better, but he still was =
not happy with its flying characteristics. As I recall fairly early in =
the 320 production Lancair started offering an extended engine mount and =
longer cowl to address the CG problem.

Rusty=