X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:03:16 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from a.mail.sonic.net ([64.142.16.245] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6007367 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:33:00 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.142.16.245; envelope-from=superdmp@sonic.net Received: from Burner (rrcs-71-43-149-195.se.biz.rr.com [71.43.149.195]) by a.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r0BNWNPg026583 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:32:23 -0800 From: "David M. Powell CRFA" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:32:18 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <0E005764555E4985AF249F29000D85E5@Burner> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006C_01CDF029.FC9FAA20" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 thread-index: Ac3wIXWHFC0RksrTT0KlSloWxNcDkgAMiWIg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18263 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01CDF029.FC9FAA20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think the 235 is a good plane for 1 or 2 people. I'm not sure I'd = plan to fly into a 3,000 foot runway during the summer at high altitude with max weight, but that aside; it's one of the most economical airplanes on the market. The cost to buy a 235 is comparable to a Cessna 2/4, and the = fuel economy to fly it is unreal! If your looking for a fun airplane to fly = on a budget, a 235 should be on the shortlist. =20 _____ =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Jim Guldi Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:31 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 How about this: People starting out don't have as much money and want to fly. I live at a flyin community and watch the fly off Sat mornings.=20 More than 50% have only one occupent. Would this not be an Honorable use = of a 235? There seems to be a need to say negative things about 235s On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Tim J=F8rgensen = wrote: 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 --=20 "There are no traffic jams along the extra mile" - Roger Staubach ..jim guldi CFI No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6025 - Release Date: = 01/11/13 ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01CDF029.FC9FAA20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think the 235 is a good plane for 1 or 2 = people.  I'm=20 not sure I'd plan to fly into a 3,000 foot runway during the summer at = high=20 altitude with max weight, but that aside; it's one of the most = economical=20 airplanes on the market.  The cost to buy a 235 is comparable to a = Cessna=20 2/4, and the fuel economy to fly it is unreal!  If your looking for = a fun=20 airplane to fly on a budget, a 235 should be on the=20 shortlist.
 

From: Lancair Mailing List=20 [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jim = Guldi
Sent:=20 Friday, January 11, 2013 12:31 PM
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice=20 LNC2

How about this: People starting out don't have as much money = and want=20 to fly. I live at a flyin community and watch the fly off Sat mornings.

More than 50% have only one occupent. Would this not be an = Honorable use of=20 a 235? There seems to be a need to say negative things about = 235s

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Tim = J=F8rgensen <tj@yacht-pool.dk> wrote:
I am disappointed in your response.  It is jaded in many = ways=20 with mis-information to give the 235 a bad rap and to justify = only the=20 320/360.
 
You are right, Gary. I am=20 disappionted in my response too.
It was written off the top of my head = and was=20 factually wrong in several places. I hereby give my heartfelt = apologies to=20 anyone who might have been offended by these thoughtless=20 accusations.
 
From here it reads like you are in need of more information = and=20 flying experience in both the 235 and the 320/360.
 
Yes, certainly. After reading your reply, I = obviously=20 felt compelled to do some research and come back with an unjaded and = factually=20 accurate statement, in order to correct my mistakes once and for=20 all.
I have dug out the actual w&b sheet = for the=20 235/320 in question. I have also read my actual notes from my = actual=20 conversation with Lancair (Ross), regarding factory recommended max. = weights=20 for the various LNC2 models.
 
The factually correct and unjaded = numbers=20 are:
 
Lancair 235, max. take off & landing = weight is 1400=20 lbs. This number never was and never will be = raised.
 
Lancair 320/360 MKI (small tail), = max. take off=20 weight 1685 lbs. Max. landing weight 1685 lbs.
 
Lancair 320/360 MKII (Dundee tail), max. take = off weight=20 was initially 1685 lbs. but this was, by the = factory, later raised=20 to 1790 lbs. with 1685 lbs. left as max. landing weight,=20 though.
 
I am utterly sorry about last days wrong, = jaded and irresponsible statements. It won=B4t happen again. = Never.=20 Sorry.
 
The now corrected numbers obviously pose = some=20 factually correct and unjaded challenges for my friendly but slightly=20 depressed 235/320 friend:
 
Gross wt.      =    =20             1400=20 lbs.
Empty wt.     =    =20             1010=20 lbs.
Pilot wt.    =20             =20         220 lbs.
45 min. fuel reserve   =20        39 lbs.
Wife (small=20 model)           132 = lbs.
 
Luggage and fuel for flight planning = max. -1=20 lbs.
 
His factually correct and unjaded options=20 are:
 
Hmmmm, this is really not getting easier....... Okay:
 
If he wants to maintain the 1.7 hour operation time and the = legally=20 required 45 min. reserve, he should try the obvious first. = If, for=20 some unimaginable reason, his wife is not able to shed = the 90=20 pounds, things get slightly more un-obvious: 
 
He could fly backwards for 1.15 minutes, = burning -1 lbs.=20 of fuel. This might not be his best option, the visibility is rather = poor,=20 which dramatically increases the risk of a tail first head-on = collision.=20 He would also have to buy a new propeller with opposite = twist. Hmmm...=20 Expensive, but surely doable........
 
If, for some reason, he is inclined towards forward flight, he = will have=20 a 43.85 min. operation time, wife included but without luggage and = reserve=20 fuel.
 
If he decides to get a real wife (132 lbs. seems rather unreal = for a=20 wife), it will cut deeply into this operation time, perhaps even = forcing=20 him back into hindflight. 
 
He could, and now for better reason than ever, = ditch the=20 bitch and end up with a nice single seater with a 2.52=20 hrs. operation time, still maintaining a 45 min. reserve but = without=20 luggage. This could be the preferable option. As a side effect, warm=20 food might await his return. 
 
Invite me for a ride (or his mum in law) and = get a=20 polite though heartfelt "no thanks". I might be tempted to = encourage his=20 mum in law to go, though........ Be a true experimenter, you=20 know.........
 
Well, that pretty much sums up the correct and unjaded numbers = issue for=20 this particular 235/320. My new honest, unjaded, numbers only = based=20 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=20 any, but they might be around. That will give you 450 lbs. of payload, = unless=20 you want to experiment with the firm weight limit set by the factory. = I would=20 not do that, but opinions may vary. Can you live with those numbers? = Is the=20 aircraft well built? If so, go ahead. It is a nice aircraft, but it = will not=20 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=20 dollar bills, it will exceed gross weight.......
 
When your machine is up and flying with significantly more = hours than=20 just the required test flight period, then I believe you will = come to=20 understand more about them...well the 360 anyway.  Unless someone = is, or=20 has been a 235 owner/flyer (and that applies to every other model = too), then=20 that person may be speaking out of turn.
 
You are so right. Some Lancair stick time will = probably=20 take my mathematic skills to a new level. I, for one, would = appreciate=20 that change; 2 + 2 has been 4 for way too long!
 
Now, Gary, this message is clearly meant as a = joke. The=20 numbers are correct, but I happen to like jokes. Sorry, I just = can=B4t help=20 it. I do not have anything against 235 owners, their planes = or their=20 wives, nor do I wish to contribute to any kind of bad rap to = these.=20 I would also like to state, that no animals were harmed = during the=20 writing of this message, nor will they be until the message is=20 sent.
 
The thing is, Paul Besing asked a question = on LML.=20 He asked about the pro=B4s and con=B4s regarding the = differences between=20 a 235 and a 320 and the money involved. Paul is entitled to some = answers=20 from people who have been here, there or in both places. I have = built a=20 360MKIIOB and I have overseen the building of a 235/320 and done the = w&b=20 too. I have made paperwork for both and I have talked to Lancair about = both. I=20 also have an opinion about both, which obliges me to give the man an = honest=20 answer.
I am well aware, that answering this kind of=20 questions sometimes renders you unpopular, but choosing = not to=20 answer at all would be downright selfish and rude. I will pick = unpopular over=20 selfish and rude any second.
 
If you wish to contribute to the debate, it = would be=20 helpful if you would publish some numbers for your particular=20 235.
You also claim, that the gross weight was = actually=20 raised to 1500 lbs. at some point. Now, if you are able to document = this, many=20 people would be significantly less depressed. I know at least=20 one.......
 
Cheers
Tim Jorgensen
 



--

"There are no traffic jams along the extra mile" - Roger=20 Staubach



..jim guldi CFI


No virus found in this=20 message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / = Virus=20 Database: 2637/6025 - Release Date: 01/11/13

------=_NextPart_000_006C_01CDF029.FC9FAA20--