X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:50:58 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com ([173.254.64.10] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with SMTP id 6004985 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:25:28 -0500 Received-SPF: neutral receiver=logan.com; client-ip=173.254.64.10; envelope-from=danny@n107sd.com Received: (qmail 17963 invoked by uid 0); 10 Jan 2013 17:24:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO host295.hostmonster.com) (66.147.240.95) by oproxy11.bluehost.com with SMTP; 10 Jan 2013 17:24:52 -0000 Received: from [98.233.210.64] (port=3865 helo=DannyLaptop) by host295.hostmonster.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1TtLs3-0006be-Jh for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:24:51 -0700 From: "Danny" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] 235 vs 320 differences X-Original-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:24:44 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <00dc01cdef57$622ea630$268bf290$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac3vVCH6PGlbJ5OVRz2b+Ks5ycMZagAAvYFg Content-Language: en-us X-Identified-User: {3234:host295.hostmonster.com:wunderwe:n107sd.com} {sentby:smtp auth 98.233.210.64 authed with danny@n107sd.com} When searching for a 320/360, I strongly recommend checking the W&B = sheet closely and running a few calculations on how you plan to load it. I searched for 9 months before I found an acceptable 360. Danny LNC2-360 N 38=B0 43' 25.7" W 77=B0 30' 38.6" Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. -----Original Message----- From: Howard Hamer [mailto:hamer@theunion.net]=20 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:01 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] 235 vs 320 differences 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 -- For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html