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 elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.62] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6006835 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:41:44 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.62; envelope-from=panelmaker@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=tCFFqdQsma5ud88Ba4ZlhMs+WnYqqWsMomiwVBhuATUOHzT6tvPc0eNIEIDPAEuW; h=Received:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:Thread-Index:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [209.173.71.64] (helo=COMPUTER1) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1TtibN-0004FD-6l for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:41:09 -0500 From: "Jim Nordin" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: Subject: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:41:15 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <60CF251A7E97448ABBBCD446C93E4AF3@COMPUTER1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0063_01CDEFF0.90BD3180" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Ac3wIY/B2ZeeX5fFTO6O1K15ejnYZAAAJXdA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-ELNK-Trace: bdfc62829fd2a80cc8ad50643b1069f8239a348a220c2609a5271f7564b36372e3cc99ebdb7f0435a7ce0e8f8d31aa3f350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 209.173.71.64 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01CDEFF0.90BD3180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What=92s the difference in dextrorotary octane gasoline to levorotary = octane gasoline. Does one make the prop turn the other way? In AUS it might be = OK.=20 Jim =20 _____ =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Douglas Brunner Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:31 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 =20 Tim, =20 I think we should do more research on the concept of backward flight and = the resultant creation of avgas =96 this might be the solution to our = problems when lead is removed from avgas. There are a couple of interesting = issues: =20 1) When you fly backwards in Denmark you get back liters of fuel = =96 in the US gallons. Come to the US to do your backwards flying since = gallons are bigger than liters! 2) If you fly backwards in Australia the optical isomers are = reversed. Instead of D-Octane you get L-Octane. (Organic chemistry joke) 3) If you fly backward =93rich of peak=94 you get more gas and your = engine runs cooler! =20 Please fax me some more paper so I can complete my calculations. = (Since I started getting people to fax me paper, I haven=92t had to buy a single sheet!) =20 =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Tim J=F8rgensen Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:43 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 =20 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. =20 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. =20 From here it reads like you are in need of more information and flying experience in both the 235 and the 320/360. =20 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. =20 The factually correct and unjaded numbers are: =20 Lancair 235, max. take off & landing weight is 1400 lbs. This number = never was and never will be raised. =20 Lancair 320/360 MKI (small tail), max. take off weight 1685 lbs. Max. landing weight 1685 lbs. =20 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. =20 I am utterly sorry about last days wrong, jaded and irresponsible statements. It won=B4t happen again. Never. Sorry. =20 The now corrected numbers obviously pose some factually correct and = unjaded challenges for my friendly but slightly depressed 235/320 friend: =20 Gross wt. 1400 lbs. Empty wt. 1010 lbs. Pilot wt. 220 lbs. 45 min. fuel reserve 39 lbs. Wife (small model) 132 lbs. =20 Luggage and fuel for flight planning max. -1 lbs. =20 His factually correct and unjaded options are: =20 Hmmmm, this is really not getting easier....... Okay: =20 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 =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........ =20 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. =20 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 =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 =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......... =20 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: =20 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. =20 If you want to throw 15k in a 235/320, write a check! If you use 100 = dollar bills, it will exceed gross weight....... =20 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. =20 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! =20 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. =20 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. =20 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....... =20 Cheers Tim Jorgensen =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01CDEFF0.90BD3180 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What=92s the difference in = dextrorotary octane gasoline to levorotary octane gasoline. Does one make the prop = turn the other way? In AUS it might be OK.

Jim

 

From: = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Douglas Brunner
Sent: Friday, January 11, = 2013 11:31 AM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: = Purchase Advice LNC2

 

Tim,<= /font>

 

I think we = should do more research on the concept of backward flight and the resultant = creation of avgas =96 this might be the solution to our problems when lead is = removed from avgas.  There are a couple of interesting issues:

 

1)      When you = fly backwards in Denmark you get back liters of fuel =96 in the US = gallons.  Come to the US to do your backwards flying since gallons are bigger than liters!

2)      If you fly = backwards in Australia the optical isomers are reversed.  Instead of D-Octane = you get L-Octane.  (Organic chemistry joke)

3)      If you fly = backward =93rich of peak=94 you get more gas and your engine runs = cooler!

 

Please fax = me some more paper so I can complete my calculations.   (Since I = started getting people to fax me paper, I haven=92t had to buy a single = sheet!)

 

 

From: = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tim J=F8rgensen
Sent: Friday, January 11, = 2013 9:43 AM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: = Purchase Advice LNC2

 

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.

 <= /font>

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.

 <= /font>

From here it = reads like you are in need of more information and flying experience in both = the 235 and the 320/360.

 <= /font>

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.

 <= /font>

The factually = correct and unjaded numbers are:

 <= /font>

Lancair 235, max. take off & = landing weight is 1400 lbs. This number never was and never will be = raised.

 <= /font>

Lancair 320/360 MKI (small tail), max. take off weight 1685 lbs. Max. landing weight 1685 = lbs.

 <= /font>

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.

 <= /font>

I am utterly sorry about last = days wrong, jaded and irresponsible statements. It won=B4t happen again. = Never. Sorry.

 <= /font>

The now corrected = numbers obviously pose some factually correct and unjaded challenges for my friendly but = slightly depressed 235/320 friend:

 <= /font>

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=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.

 <= /font>

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!

 <= /font>

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.

 <= /font>

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.

 <= /font>

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.......

 <= /font>

Cheers

Tim Jorgensen

 <= /font>

------=_NextPart_000_0063_01CDEFF0.90BD3180--