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 mail5.tpgi.com.au ([203.12.160.101] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6007283 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:07:40 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.12.160.101; envelope-from=domcrain@tpg.com.au X-TPG-Junk-Status: Message not scanned X-TPG-Antivirus: Passed X-TPG-Abuse: host=60-241-193-89.static.tpgi.com.au; ip=60.241.193.89; date=Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:07:01 +1100 Received: from [192.168.0.5] (60-241-193-89.static.tpgi.com.au [60.241.193.89]) by mail5.tpgi.com.au (envelope-from domcrain@tpg.com.au) (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r0BM6Tha017489 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:07:01 +1100 From: "Dominic V. Crain" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E3C0317B-A92C-4E9D-88EE-8FCEC69AFD40" X-Original-Message-Id: <12F3081D-5794-46EA-A761-846FEBF44DE9@tpg.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:06:29 +1100 References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) --Apple-Mail=_E3C0317B-A92C-4E9D-88EE-8FCEC69AFD40 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Well, flying backwards in Australia is not a lotta fun. This has been government policy since 2007. In fact not only must aviators fly backwards to help save and/or create = fuel, but cars must also be driven backwards, or if incapable, not be = driven at all. This has the beneficial effect of shutting down all refineries in = Australia. (according to the Govt.) This now requires all Lancair owners to determine if their aircraft is = more or less efficient than previously thought. As they are all left languishing in the hangars, this remains a moot = point. Being in the hangar, it is clear they use no fuel, so they are = considered efficient. But because they are not flying backwards, they are less efficient. This is the point to give up! Cheers Dominic V. Crain domcrain@tpg.com.au Phone 03-94161881 Mobile 0412-359320 VH-CZJ On 12/01/2013, at 8:46 AM, "Danny" wrote: > 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 > =46rom 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 --Apple-Mail=_E3C0317B-A92C-4E9D-88EE-8FCEC69AFD40 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Well, flying backwards in = Australia is not a lotta fun.
This has been government policy since = 2007.
In fact not only must aviators fly backwards to help = save and/or create fuel, but cars must also be driven backwards, or if = incapable, not be driven at all.
This has the beneficial = effect of shutting down all refineries in Australia. (according to the = Govt.)
This now requires all Lancair owners to determine if = their aircraft is more or less efficient than previously = thought.
As they are all left languishing in the hangars, this = remains a moot point.
Being in the hangar, it is clear they = use no fuel, so they are considered efficient.
But because = they are not flying backwards, they are less efficient.
This = is the point to give up!
Cheers

Dominic V. Crain
Phon= e 03-94161881
Mobile 0412-359320

VH-CZJ

On 12/01/2013, at 8:46 AM, "Danny" <danny@n107sd.com> = wrote:

You guys are too damn = funny.  I love it, = seriously.  Keep em = comin.
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 =96 this might be the solution to our problems when lead is = removed from avgas.  There are a couple of interesting = issues:
 
1) <= /font>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) <= /font>If you fly backwards in Australia the optical = isomers are reversed.  Instead of D-Octane you get L-Octane.  = (Organic chemistry joke)
 <= /font>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
 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.
=46rom = 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=B4t 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: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.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=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.
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.
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.......
Cheers
Tim = Jorgensen