Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:50:58 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-6005040@logan.com>
Received-SPF: neutral
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=173.254.64.10; envelope-from=danny@n107sd.com
From: "Danny" <danny@n107sd.com>
References: <list-6004900@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-6004900@logan.com>
Subject: RE: [LML] 235 vs 320 differences
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: Ac3vVCH6PGlbJ5OVRz2b+Ks5ycMZagAAvYFg
Content-Language: en-us

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