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´t 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:
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.
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.
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´s, 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´t 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´s and con´s 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