X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:42:58 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail.bbsyd.dk ([89.184.128.195] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6006302 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:39:08 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=89.184.128.195; envelope-from=tj@yacht-pool.dk Received: from TIM (unknown [95.154.58.204]) by mail.bbsyd.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id C30853B9105 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:38:32 +0100 (CET) X-Original-Message-ID: <7F2424A8CE594ED89C6E1DDE4B1CBBF8@TIM> From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Tim_J=F8rgensen?= X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:38:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0099_01CDF009.55EE87C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0099_01CDF009.55EE87C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. You are right, Gary. I am disappionted in my response too. It was written off the top of my head and was factually wrong in several = places. I hereby give my heartfelt apologies to anyone who might have = been offended by these thoughtless accusations. From here it reads like you are in need of more information and flying = experience in both the 235 and the 320/360. Yes, certainly. After reading your reply, I obviously felt compelled to = do some research and come back with an unjaded and factually accurate = statement, in order to correct my mistakes once and for all. I have dug out the actual w&b sheet for the 235/320 in question. I have = also read my actual notes from my actual conversation with Lancair = (Ross), regarding factory recommended max. weights for the various LNC2 = models. The factually correct and unjaded numbers are: Lancair 235, max. take off & landing weight is 1400 lbs. This number = never was and never will be raised. Lancair 320/360 MKI (small tail), max. take off weight 1685 lbs. Max. = landing weight 1685 lbs. Lancair 320/360 MKII (Dundee tail), max. take off weight was initially = 1685 lbs. but this was, by the factory, later raised to 1790 lbs. with = 1685 lbs. left as max. landing weight, though. I am utterly sorry about last days wrong, jaded and irresponsible = statements. It won=B4t happen again. Never. Sorry. The now corrected numbers obviously pose some factually correct and = unjaded challenges for my friendly but slightly depressed 235/320 = friend: Gross wt. 1400 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. -1 lbs. His factually correct and unjaded options are: Hmmmm, this is really not getting easier....... Okay: If he wants to maintain the 1.7 hour operation time and the legally = required 45 min. reserve, he should try the obvious first. If, for some = unimaginable reason, his wife is not able to shed the 90 pounds, things = get slightly more un-obvious:=20 He could fly backwards for 1.15 minutes, burning -1 lbs. of fuel. This = might not be his best option, the visibility is rather poor, which = dramatically increases the risk of a tail first head-on collision. He = would also have to buy a new propeller with opposite twist. Hmmm... = Expensive, but surely doable........ If, for some reason, he is inclined towards forward flight, he will have = a 43.85 min. operation time, wife included but without luggage and = reserve fuel. If he decides to get a real wife (132 lbs. seems rather unreal for a = wife), it will cut deeply into this operation time, perhaps even forcing = him back into hindflight.=20 He could, and now for better reason than ever, ditch the bitch and end = up with a nice single seater with a 2.52 hrs. operation time, still = maintaining a 45 min. reserve but without luggage. This could be the = preferable option. As a side effect, warm food might await his return.=20 Invite me for a ride (or his mum in law) and get a polite though = heartfelt "no thanks". I might be tempted to encourage his mum in law to = go, though........ Be a true experimenter, you know......... Well, that pretty much sums up the correct and unjaded numbers issue for = this particular 235/320. My new honest, unjaded, numbers only based = opinion is: Back in the 80=B4s, Lance stated an empty weight of 800 lbs. I believe = we can all laugh at that joke. You might be able to find a 950 lbs. 235/235. I have not heard of any, = but they might be around. That will give you 450 lbs. of payload, unless = you want to experiment with the firm weight limit set by the factory. I = would not do that, but opinions may vary. Can you live with those = numbers? Is the aircraft well built? If so, go ahead. It is a nice = aircraft, but it will not turn into a 320/360, no matter how much money = you throw after it. If you want to throw 15k in a 235/320, write a check! If you use 100 = dollar bills, it will exceed gross weight....... 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. You are so right. Some Lancair stick time will probably take my = mathematic skills to a new level. I, for one, would appreciate that = change; 2 + 2 has been 4 for way too long! Now, Gary, this message is clearly meant as a joke. The numbers are = correct, but I happen to like jokes. Sorry, I just can=B4t help it. I do = not have anything against 235 owners, their planes or their wives, nor = do I wish to contribute to any kind of bad rap to these. I would also = like to state, that no animals were harmed during the writing of this = message, nor will they be until the message is sent. The thing is, Paul Besing asked a question on LML. He asked about the = pro=B4s and con=B4s regarding the differences between a 235 and a 320 = and the money involved. Paul is entitled to some answers from people who = have been here, there or in both places. I have built a 360MKIIOB and I = have overseen the building of a 235/320 and done the w&b too. I have = made paperwork for both and I have talked to Lancair about both. I also = have an opinion about both, which obliges me to give the man an honest = answer. I am well aware, that answering this kind of questions sometimes renders = you unpopular, but choosing not to answer at all would be downright = selfish and rude. I will pick unpopular over selfish and rude any = second. If you wish to contribute to the debate, it would be helpful if you = would publish some numbers for your particular 235. You also claim, that the gross weight was actually raised to 1500 lbs. = at some point. Now, if you are able to document this, many people would = be significantly less depressed. I know at least one....... Cheers Tim Jorgensen ------=_NextPart_000_0099_01CDF009.55EE87C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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.
 
You are right, Gary. I = am=20 disappionted in my response too.
It was written off the top of my head = and was=20 factually wrong in several places. I hereby give my heartfelt apologies = to=20 anyone who might have been offended by these thoughtless=20 accusations.
 
From here it reads like you are in need of more information and = flying=20 experience in both the 235 and the 320/360.
 
Yes, certainly. After reading your reply, I = obviously felt=20 compelled to do some research and come back with an unjaded and = factually=20 accurate statement, in order to correct my mistakes once and for=20 all.
I have dug out the actual w&b sheet for = the=20 235/320 in question. I have also read my actual notes from my = actual=20 conversation with Lancair (Ross), regarding factory recommended max. = weights for=20 the various LNC2 models.
 
The factually correct and unjaded = numbers=20 are:
 
Lancair 235, max. take off & landing weight = is 1400=20 lbs. This number never was and never will be = raised.
 
Lancair 320/360 MKI (small tail), max. take = off=20 weight 1685 lbs. Max. landing weight 1685 lbs.
 
Lancair 320/360 MKII (Dundee tail), max. take = off weight=20 was initially 1685 lbs. but this was, by the factory, later = raised=20 to 1790 lbs. with 1685 lbs. left as max. landing weight,=20 though.
 
I am utterly sorry about last days wrong,=20 jaded and irresponsible statements. It won=B4t happen again. Never. = Sorry.
 
The now corrected numbers obviously pose = some=20 factually correct and unjaded challenges for my friendly but slightly = depressed=20 235/320 friend:
 
Gross wt.      =    =20             1400 = lbs.
Empty wt.        =20             1010 = lbs.
Pilot wt.     =     =20             =     220=20 lbs.
45 min. fuel reserve   =20        39 lbs.
Wife (small=20 model)           132=20 lbs.
 
Luggage and fuel for flight planning = max. -1=20 lbs.
 
His factually correct and unjaded options=20 are:
 
Hmmmm, this is really not getting easier....... Okay:
 
If he wants to maintain the 1.7 hour operation time and the legally = required 45 min. reserve, he should try the obvious first. If, = for=20 some unimaginable reason, his wife is not able to shed = the 90=20 pounds, things get slightly more un-obvious: 
 
He could fly backwards for 1.15 minutes, burning = -1 lbs.=20 of fuel. This might not be his best option, the visibility is rather = poor, which=20 dramatically increases the risk of a tail first head-on collision. = He would=20 also have to buy a new propeller with opposite twist. Hmmm... = Expensive,=20 but surely doable........
 
If, for some reason, he is inclined towards forward flight, he will = have a=20 43.85 min. operation time, wife included but without luggage and reserve = fuel.
 
If he decides to get a real wife (132 lbs. seems rather unreal for = a=20 wife), it will cut deeply into this operation time, perhaps even = forcing=20 him back into hindflight. 
 
He could, and now for better reason than ever, = ditch the=20 bitch and end up with a nice single seater with a 2.52 = hrs. operation=20 time, still maintaining a 45 min. reserve but without luggage. This = could be the=20 preferable option. As a side effect, warm food might await his=20 return. 
 
Invite me for a ride (or his mum in law) and get = a polite=20 though heartfelt "no thanks". I might be tempted to encourage his = mum in=20 law to go, though........ Be a true experimenter, you = know.........
 
Well, that pretty much sums up the correct and unjaded numbers = issue for=20 this particular 235/320. My new honest, unjaded, numbers only based = opinion=20 is:
 
Back in the 80=B4s, Lance stated an empty weight of 800 lbs.=20 I believe we can all laugh at that joke.
You might be able to find a 950 lbs. 235/235. I have not heard = of any,=20 but they might be around. That will give you 450 lbs. of payload, unless = you=20 want to experiment with the firm weight limit set by the factory. I = would not do=20 that, but opinions may vary. Can you live with those numbers? Is the = aircraft=20 well built? If so, go ahead. It is a nice aircraft, but it will not turn = into a=20 320/360, no matter how much money you throw after it.
 
If you want to throw 15k in a 235/320, write a check! If you use = 100 dollar=20 bills, it will exceed gross weight.......
 
When your machine is up and flying with significantly more = hours than=20 just the required test flight period, then I believe you will come = to=20 understand more about them...well the 360 anyway.  Unless someone = is, or=20 has been a 235 owner/flyer (and that applies to every other model too), = then=20 that person may be speaking out of turn.
 
You are so right. Some Lancair stick time will = probably=20 take my mathematic skills to a new level. I, for one, would = appreciate that=20 change; 2 + 2 has been 4 for way too long!
 
Now, Gary, this message is clearly meant as a = joke. The=20 numbers are correct, but I happen to like jokes. Sorry, I just = can=B4t help=20 it. I do not have anything against 235 owners, their planes = or their=20 wives, nor do I wish to contribute to any kind of bad rap to these. = I would also like to state, that no animals were harmed = during the=20 writing of this message, nor will they be until the message is=20 sent.
 
The thing is, Paul Besing asked a question = on LML. He=20 asked about the pro=B4s and con=B4s regarding the differences = between a=20 235 and a 320 and the money involved. Paul is entitled to some answers=20 from people who have been here, there or in both places. I have = built a=20 360MKIIOB and I have overseen the building of a 235/320 and done the = w&b=20 too. I have made paperwork for both and I have talked to Lancair about = both. I=20 also have an opinion about both, which obliges me to give the man an = honest=20 answer.
I am well aware, that answering this kind of=20 questions sometimes renders you unpopular, but choosing = not to=20 answer at all would be downright selfish and rude. I will pick unpopular = over=20 selfish and rude any second.
 
If you wish to contribute to the debate, it = would be=20 helpful if you would publish some numbers for your particular = 235.
You also claim, that the gross weight was = actually raised=20 to 1500 lbs. at some point. Now, if you are able to document this, many = people=20 would be significantly less depressed. I know at least=20 one.......
 
Cheers
Tim Jorgensen
 
------=_NextPart_000_0099_01CDF009.55EE87C0--