X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:35:17 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6006974 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:32:01 -0500 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.125.82.41; envelope-from=bob@bmackey.com Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id ds1so51135wgb.4 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:31:23 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:x-originating-ip:date:x-google-sender-auth :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=uV5rTfpHxWvAUYWm3BVd9hynSHAOhl3ezSa44t8ZH1k=; b=BPMkCruSEFlDihdUqrXZSQ7ZN5VG1VCxr5aBgcN6mWduJHRrJqIEzNbyOo7aY/w8TV WShFbiPp5Lg3PCXYNoyK0PA+saE/SL2ag/VUIBrb49/FhCmeShwOss0RBKhAGH31slmU oLx6WkHfYaBHWR1ZCISXNrpAhjK9fBZQIuVMgY/Xws2F3WyDY7gJIM4RJJuDqYFLuTlu ORfaaVNZutKQeXdpkrq87qfjRVfmunieQdcAFzjOEx0xjZL8PLL5LHCqrrif4n1BfF+I c/z/TFJ8MKhCwasScdXvoxeXCXhrIMdnGgt4j8i6cNzAUwJZqtm/jnaVk4CqztQdC/WN A+Xg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.235.100 with SMTP id ul4mr123014222wjc.7.1357929083004; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:31:23 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Sender: bob@bmackey.com Received: by 10.194.31.10 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:31:22 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [76.191.211.168] X-Original-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:31:22 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hdhhUQDCRlW8BHbCcHfEBgJpDdg X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 From: bob mackey X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e014941889f665b04d30780a6 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkx6WuOKhtalGEO0r4YL8Mekqw16eO4klCu122vZyYn3e4mVgiBgJHrYSRTpyb57hlP+q9q --089e014941889f665b04d30780a6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Tim: you bring up some clear concerns about the 235/320 airframe. Id like to explain how these numerical limitations are usually addressed. Here in the USA, the decision of the maximum gross weight is left to the builder who first acquires an airworthiness certificate, and the individual examiner from the FAA. Most 235/320 have been approved with 1500 lb gross weight. Mine is 1030 lbs empty and 1500 max. Most 220 lb pilots, as in your example, will find the 235 cockpit snug. Their weight may increase their chances of death, and not just from stall-spin accidents. Fortunately for me, I weigh 130 lbs and fit very comfortably in the 235. This permits me to fly with a 220 lb wife or friend. Again I am fortunate to have a more moderately sized sweetheart. She doesnt cook much, so she maybas well go with me. When I travel with her, we can put 80 lbs of luggage in the back. That is the max luggage regardless of fuel load, due to aft CG limitations. More on that later. Sometimes I carry heavier passengers. My aircraft does not have aileron trim, but I can pump fuel out of the right wing to balance the loads and fly straight. To discourage carrying heavier passengers, I have also trimmed the seatbelt. The lap belt is just long enough for the maximum 220 lb passenger. If they can't fasten the seatbelt they can't fly with me. This is the "ditch the bitch" option you so eloquently described. This airframe's fuel is carried in the dreaded header tank (11 gal), and both wing leading edges (11 gal +11 gal). Hence all of the fuel is at or front of the CG. As the fuel burns off, the CG moves aft. It is my intention to be able to safely land after exhausting, losing, or spilling all of the fuel, so I always load such that an empty fuel load results in a safe CG location. During flight testing, I discovered that the longitudinal pitch stability disappeared when loaded to the factory-suggested aft CG limit. I revised this aircraft's operating handbook to move the aft CG limit forward 0.5". And that causes the 80 lb limit in the baggage area. This airframe differs from the factory 235 design in a few ways: Lycoming O-235-A2Bx engine. X is for high-compression (9.5:1) pistons Cowl differs to match engine, round inlets. Ventral fin about 5" high, with added rudder area below the horizontal tail Flap fences fill the gap between the flap and fuselage fairing - I'm told that without the fence, some 235s have had problems with flap vibrations. Oleo nose strut and Debongers on main gear. --089e014941889f665b04d30780a6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tim: you bring up some clear concerns about the 235/320 airfram= e. Id like to explain how these numerical limitations are usually addressed= . Here in the USA, the decision of the maximum gross weight is left to the = builder who first acquires an airworthiness certificate, and the individual= examiner from the FAA. Most 235/320 have been approved with 1500 lb gross = weight. Mine is 1030 lbs empty and 1500 max.

Most 220 lb pilots, as in your exam= ple, will find the 235 cockpit snug. Their weight may increase their chance= s of death, and not just from stall-spin accidents. Fortunately for me, I w= eigh 130 lbs and fit very comfortably in the 235. This permits me to fly wi= th a 220 lb wife or friend. Again I am fortunate to have a more moderately = sized sweetheart. She doesnt cook much, so she maybas well go with me.=A0Wh= en I travel with her, we can put 80 lbs of luggage in the back. That is the= max luggage regardless of fuel load, due to aft CG limitations. =A0More on= that later.=A0

Sometimes I carry heavier passengers. = My aircraft does not have aileron trim, but I can pump fuel out of the righ= t wing to balance the loads and fly straight. To discourage carrying heavie= r passengers, I have also trimmed the seatbelt. The lap belt is just long e= nough for the maximum 220 lb passenger. If they can't fasten the=A0seat= belt they can't fly with me. This is the "ditch the bitch" op= tion you so eloquently described.

This airframe's fuel is carried in= the dreaded header tank (11 gal), and both wing leading edges (11 gal +11 = gal). Hence all of the fuel is at or front of the CG. As the fuel burns off= , the CG moves aft. It is my intention to be able to safely land after exha= usting, losing, or spilling all=A0of the fuel, so I always load such that a= n empty fuel load results in a safe CG location. During flight testing, I d= iscovered that the longitudinal pitch stability disappeared when loaded to = the factory-suggested aft CG limit. I revised this aircraft's operating= handbook to move the aft CG limit forward 0.5". And that causes the 8= 0 lb limit in the baggage area.=A0

This airframe differs from the factory= 235 design in a few ways:
Lycoming O-235-A2Bx engine. X is for high-compression (9.5= :1)=A0pistons=A0=A0
Cowl differs to match engine, round inlets.<= /div>
Ventral fin about 5" high, with added rudder area bel= ow the horizontal tail
Flap fences fill the gap between the flap and fuselage fai= ring - I'm told that without the fence, some 235s have had problems wit= h flap vibrations.
Oleo nose strut and Debongers on main gear.<= /div>

--089e014941889f665b04d30780a6--