What’s 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,
I think we should do
more research on the concept of backward flight and the resultant creation of
avgas – 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 – 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
“rich of peak” 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’t had to buy a single sheet!)
From: Lancair Mailing
List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf
Of Tim Jørgensen
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.
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:
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.......