X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:46:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from oproxy13-pub.unifiedlayer.com ([69.89.16.30] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with SMTP id 6007182 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:50:23 -0500 Received-SPF: neutral receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.89.16.30; envelope-from=danny@n107sd.com Received: (qmail 11585 invoked by uid 0); 11 Jan 2013 20:49:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO host295.hostmonster.com) (66.147.240.95) by oproxy13.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 11 Jan 2013 20:49:46 -0000 Received: from [98.233.210.64] (port=3774 helo=DannyLaptop) by host295.hostmonster.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1TtlXs-00043R-8x for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:49:46 -0700 From: "Danny" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:49:42 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <008501cdf03d$2f2d9480$8d88bd80$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0086_01CDF013.46578C80" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac3wIXt9cFxRNtCfSTKB1zu2OmyEBwAG5+KA Content-Language: en-us X-Identified-User: {3234:host295.hostmonster.com:wunderwe:n107sd.com} {sentby:smtp auth 98.233.210.64 authed with danny@n107sd.com} This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0086_01CDF013.46578C80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You guys are too damn funny. I love it, seriously. Keep em comin. =20 Danny LNC2-360 N 38=B0 43' 25.7" W 77=B0 30' 38.6" Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. =20 From: Douglas Brunner [mailto:douglasbrunner@earthlink.net]=20 Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:31 PM 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_0086_01CDF013.46578C80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You guys are too damn funny.=A0 I love it, seriously.=A0 Keep em = comin.

 

Danny

=

LNC2-360<= /p>

N 38=B0 43' = 25.7"

W 77=B0 30' = 38.6"

Nothing is foolproof to a = sufficiently talented fool.

 

From: Douglas Brunner = [mailto:douglasbrunner@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 = 12:31 PM
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 = 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.

 

Y= ou are right, Gary. I am disappionted in my response = too.

I= t 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.

 

Y= es, 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.

 

T= he factually correct and unjaded numbers = are:

 

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

 

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

 

L= ancair 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.

 

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

 

G= ross wt.              =         1400 = lbs.

E= mpty wt.             =         1010 = lbs.

P= ilot wt.          =             =     220 lbs.

4= 5 min. fuel reserve    =        39 = lbs.

W= ife (small = model)           132 = lbs.

&= nbsp;

L= uggage and fuel for flight planning max. -1 = lbs.

&= nbsp;

H= is factually correct and unjaded options = are:

&= nbsp;

H= mmmm, this is really not getting easier....... = Okay:

&= nbsp;

I= f 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: 

&= nbsp;

H= e 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........

&= nbsp;

I= f, 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.

&= nbsp;

I= f 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. 

&= nbsp;

H= e 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. 

&= nbsp;

I= nvite 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.........

&= nbsp;

W= ell, 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:

&= nbsp;

B= ack in the 80=B4s, Lance stated an empty weight of 800 lbs. = I believe we can all laugh at that = joke.

Y= ou 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.

&= nbsp;

I= f you want to throw 15k in a 235/320, write a check! If you use 100 = dollar bills, it will exceed gross = weight.......

&= nbsp;

W= hen 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.<= o:p>

 

Y= ou 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!

 

N= ow, 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.

 

T= he 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.

 

I= f you wish to contribute to the debate, it would be helpful if you would = publish some numbers for your particular 235.

Y= ou 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.......

 

C= heers

T= im Jorgensen

 

------=_NextPart_000_0086_01CDF013.46578C80--