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 imr-da01.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.143] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6007349 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:54:09 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.143; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.10]) by imr-da01.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 5DE941C0000ED for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:53:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mtd002a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mtd002.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.235.197]) by mtaomg-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 2985FE000085 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:53:34 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com Full-name: Sky2high X-Original-Message-ID: <3543c.6d945db9.3e21f1ed@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:53:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3543c.6d945db9.3e21f1ed_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 168 X-Originating-IP: [67.175.156.123] x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:471476512:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d290a50f097ee000c --part1_3543c.6d945db9.3e21f1ed_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tim, =20 Au contrair mon ami! =20 Speaking merely for the lowly wee-tailed 320, namely mine, the MTOW was=20 raised to 1800 pounds (I will look for the Lancair News article that was = =20 printed late last century) with the landing weight remaining at 1685 - the = =20 weight the landing gear was designed to handle. That change was not limit= ed to=20 fat-tailed MKIIs. =20 While 1800 was the weight I used on my airworthy certificate, I have flown = =20 it at an estimated 1960.13 lbs where the AP altitude hold went through=20 gentle sinusoidal waves of no more than 42.65 feet until 10.21 gallons of = fuel=20 was burned off. At my 1200 lbs empty wt, that leaves 600 lbs of load that= =20 could be used by 43 gals fuel (about 260 lbs), me at 200, a spare tire, O2= =20 tank, tools and tow bar along with luggage totaling a placarded max of 60= =20 lbs easily leaves a margin for an 80 lb right-seatee. I usually require = a=20 heavier occupant to bring along helium filled balloons if the flight is so= =20 heavily loaded (a side benefit is breathing in some gas and then talking= =20 to ATC). =20 My CG is biased forward and my W&B calls for at least 150 lbs total in the= =20 available seats for flights with no baggage, a full header tank and where= =20 the wings are empty.=20 =20 Note that backward flight is difficult to maintain with a nose heavy =20 condition although that might be useful for tilt-canopy egress whilst in s= uch =20 flight (watch out for the prop). =20 Paul will have to make up his own mind based on these nuances. My mind=20 only allows for positive views of all Lancairs - even if I did not build i= t. =20 Grayhawk N92EX =20 =20 In a message dated 1/11/2013 8:43:11 A.M. Central Standard Time, =20 tj@yacht-pool.dk writes: I am disappointed in your response. It is jaded in many ways with=20 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= =20 places. I hereby give my heartfelt apologies to anyone who might have been= =20 offended by these thoughtless accusations. =20 From here it reads like you are in need of more information and flying=20 experience in both the 235 and the 320/360. =20 Yes, certainly. After reading your reply, I obviously felt compelled to do= =20 some research and come back with an unjaded and factually accurate=20 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=20 also read my actual notes from my actual conversation with Lancair (Ross),= =20 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= =20 was and never will be raised. =20 Lancair 320/360 MKI (small tail), max. take off weight 1685 lbs. Max.=20 landing weight 1685 lbs. =20 Lancair 320/360 MKII (Dundee tail), max. take off weight was initially=20 1685 lbs. but this was, by the factory, later raised to 1790 lbs. with 168= 5=20 lbs. left as max. landing weight, though. =20 I am utterly sorry about last days wrong, jaded and irresponsible=20 statements. It won=B4t happen again. Never. Sorry. =20 The now corrected numbers obviously pose some factually correct and=20 unjaded challenges for my friendly but slightly depressed 235/320 friend: =20 =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 =20 required 45 min. reserve, he should try the obvious first. If, for some=20 unimaginable reason, his wife is not able to shed the 90 pounds, things ge= t slightly=20 more un-obvious:=20 =20 He could fly backwards for 1.15 minutes, burning -1 lbs. of fuel. This=20 might not be his best option, the visibility is rather poor, which=20 dramatically increases the risk of a tail first head-on collision. He woul= d also have=20 to buy a new propeller with opposite twist. Hmmm... Expensive, but surely= =20 doable........ =20 If, for some reason, he is inclined towards forward flight, he will have a= =20 43.85 min. operation time, wife included but without luggage and reserve = =20 fuel. =20 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 h= im=20 back into hindflight.=20 =20 He could, and now for better reason than ever, ditch the bitch and end up= =20 with a nice single seater with a 2.52 hrs. operation time, still=20 maintaining a 45 min. reserve but without luggage. This could be the prefe= rable=20 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= =20 "no thanks". I might be tempted to encourage his mum in law to go,=20 though........ Be a true experimenter, you know......... =20 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 opinio= n=20 is: =20 Back in the 80=B4s, Lance stated an empty weight of 800 lbs. I believe we= =20 can all laugh at that joke. You might be able to find a 950 lbs. 235/235. I have not heard of any, but= =20 they might be around. That will give you 450 lbs. of payload, unless you= =20 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 no= t =20 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 =20 dollar bills, it will exceed gross weight....... =20 When your machine is up and flying with significantly more hours than just= =20 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 h= as been a=20 235 owner/flyer (and that applies to every other model too), then that=20 person may be speaking out of turn. =20 You are so right. Some Lancair stick time will probably take my mathematic= =20 skills to a new level. I, for one, would appreciate that change; 2 + 2 has= =20 been 4 for way too long! =20 Now, Gary, this message is clearly meant as a joke. The numbers are=20 correct, but I happen to like jokes. Sorry, I just can=B4t help it. I do n= ot have=20 anything against 235 owners, their planes or their wives, nor do I wish to= =20 contribute to any kind of bad rap to these. I would also like to state, th= at=20 no animals were harmed during the writing of this message, nor will they= =20 be until the message is sent. =20 The thing is, Paul Besing asked a question on LML. He asked about the=20 pro=B4s and con=B4s regarding the differences between a 235 and a 320 and = the money=20 involved. Paul is entitled to some answers from people who have been here,= =20 there or in both places. I have built a 360MKIIOB and I have overseen the= =20 building of a 235/320 and done the w&b too. I have made paperwork for both= =20 and I have talked to Lancair about both. I also have an opinion about both= ,=20 which obliges me to give the man an honest answer. I am well aware, that answering this kind of questions sometimes renders= =20 you unpopular, but choosing not to answer at all would be downright selfis= h=20 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= =20 publish some numbers for your particular 235. You also claim, that the gross weight was actually raised to 1500 lbs. at= =20 some point. Now, if you are able to document this, many people would be=20 significantly less depressed. I know at least one....... =20 Cheers Tim Jorgensen =20 --part1_3543c.6d945db9.3e21f1ed_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tim,
 
Au contrair mon ami!
 
Speaking merely for the lowly wee-tailed 320, namely mine, the MT= OW=20 was raised to 1800 pounds (I will look for the Lancair News article that wa= s=20 printed late last century) with the landing weight remaining at 1685 - the= =20 weight the landing gear was designed to handle.  That change was not= =20 limited to fat-tailed MKIIs.
 
While 1800 was the weight I used on my airworthy certificate, I have f= lown=20 it at an estimated 1960.13 lbs where the AP altitude hold went=20 through gentle sinusoidal waves of no more than 42.65 feet until = 10.21=20 gallons of fuel was burned off.  At my 1200 lbs empty wt,=20 that leaves 600 lbs of load that could be used by 43 gals fuel (a= bout=20 260 lbs), me at 200, a spare tire, O2 tank, tools and tow bar along wi= th=20 luggage totaling a placarded max of 60 lbs easily leaves&nbs= p;a=20 margin for an 80 lb right-seatee.   I usually require a heavier= =20 occupant to bring along helium filled balloons if the flight is so heavily= =20 loaded (a side benefit is breathing in some gas and then talking to=20 ATC).
 
My CG is biased forward and my W&B calls for at least 15= 0 lbs=20 total in the available seats for flights with no baggage, a full= =20 header tank and where the wings are empty. 
 
Note that backward flight is difficult to maintain with a nose heavy= =20 condition although that might be useful for tilt-canopy egress whilst = in=20 such  flight (watch out for the prop).
 
Paul will have to make up his own mind based on these nuances.  M= y=20 mind only allows for positive views of all Lancairs - even if I did not bui= ld=20 it.
 
Grayhawk
N92EX
 
In a message dated 1/11/2013 8:43:11 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 tj@yacht-pool.dk writes:
=
I am disappointed in your response.  It is jaded in many wa= ys=20 with mis-information to give the 235 a bad rap and to justify only t= he=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 wa= s=20 factually wrong in several places. I hereby give my heartfelt apologies t= o=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 obvio= usly=20 felt compelled to do some research and come back with an unjaded and fact= ually=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. weig= hts=20 for the various LNC2 models.
 
The factually correct and unjaded numbers= =20 are:
 
Lancair 235, max. take off & landing weight i= s 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 r= aised=20 to 1790 lbs. with 1685 lbs. left as max. landing weight,=20 though.
 
I am utterly sorry about last days wrong,=20 jaded and irresponsible statements. It won=B4t happen again. Never.= =20 Sorry.
 
The now corrected numbers obviously pose som= e=20 factually correct and unjaded challenges for my friendly but slightly=20 depressed 235/320 friend:
 
Gross wt.        &n= bsp;=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=20 lbs.
 
Luggage and fuel for flight planning max.&nb= sp;-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 collis= ion.=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 reserv= e=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 for= cing=20 him back into hindflight. 
 
He could, and now for better reason than ever, di= tch 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.=20 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, un= less=20 you want to experiment with the firm weight limit set by the factory. I w= ould=20 not do that, but opinions may vary. Can you live with those numbers? Is t= he=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 t= o=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), t= hen=20 that person may be speaking out of turn.
 
You are so right. Some Lancair stick time will pr= obably=20 take my mathematic skills to a new level. I, for one, would apprecia= te=20 that change; 2 + 2 has been 4 for way too long!
 
Now, Gary, this message is clearly meant as a jok= e. 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&nbs= p;LML.=20 He asked about the pro=B4s and con=B4s regarding the difference= s 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 buil= t a=20 360MKIIOB and I have overseen the building of a 235/320 and done the w&am= p;b=20 too. I have made paperwork for both and I have talked to Lancair about bo= th. I=20 also have an opinion about both, which obliges me to give the man an hone= st=20 answer.
I am well aware, that answering this kind of=20 questions sometimes renders you unpopular, but choosing no= t 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 actuall= y=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
 
--part1_3543c.6d945db9.3e21f1ed_boundary--