X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:07:16 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms173001pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.1] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6096280 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:50:59 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.1; envelope-from=n5zq@verizon.net Received: from BillHP ([unknown] [173.72.172.118]) by vms173001.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0MJ7007D72NZ4950@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:50:25 -0600 (CST) X-Original-Message-id: From: "Bill Harrelson" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-reply-to: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: which engine/prop for 360 MKII? X-Original-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:50:25 -0500 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_044D_01CE198F.3E013F90" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3538.513 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3538.513 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_044D_01CE198F.3E013F90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Miro, As you probably know, your airframe was originally designed for the = Lycoming 320 engine series. So many folks have put Lycoming 360s in = these airframes that they are now almost universally knows as Lancair = 360s. There is NO difference in the airframe, it=E2=80=99s still the one = designed for the 320. Don=E2=80=99t discount an O-320 or IO-320 in your = engine choices. I have an O-320 on mine and find that it has plenty of = power, is well balanced and incredibly efficient. The larger, heavier = engines will give you a bit better climb but only a slightly faster = cruise at the cost of at least another gph of fuel. As a matter of fact, = if I could set up the race, I would bet that I would be faster in my 320 = than any 360. (I=E2=80=99d set it up to be a long race and I=E2=80=99d = go non-stop whereas the 360 would need to stop for fuel). There is = nothing wrong with the 360 engines in this airframe. It=E2=80=99s just = that you shouldn=E2=80=99t exclude the 320. Depending on your mission = profile, it could be a better fit.=20 I have an MT two blade prop on mine and am quite satisfied with it. In = general, a 3 blade prop will give you a slightly better static thrust = (slightly shorter t.o. and maybe a little better initial climb) the 2 = blade will be slightly more efficient in cruise giving you a slightly = better TAS and more efficiency. Just a guess, but I think that many = people who choose a 3 blade prop do it just for looks. IMHO = that=E2=80=99s not really a good criteria. Just something else to = consider. Bill Harrelson N5ZQ 320 2,150 hrs N6ZQ IV 200 hrs. ------=_NextPart_000_044D_01CE198F.3E013F90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Miro,
 
As you probably know, your airframe was = originally designed for the Lycoming 320 engine series. So many folks = have put=20 Lycoming 360s in these airframes that they are now almost universally = knows as=20 Lancair 360s. There is NO difference in the airframe, it=E2=80=99s still = the one=20 designed for the 320. Don=E2=80=99t discount an O-320 or IO-320 in your = engine choices.=20 I have an O-320 on mine and find that it has plenty of power, is well = balanced=20 and incredibly efficient. The larger, heavier engines will give you a = bit better=20 climb but only a slightly faster cruise at the cost of at least another = gph of=20 fuel. As a matter of fact, if I could set up the race, I would bet that = I would=20 be faster in my 320 than any 360. (I=E2=80=99d set it up to be a long = race and I=E2=80=99d go=20 non-stop whereas the 360 would need to stop for fuel). There is nothing = wrong=20 with the 360 engines in this airframe. It=E2=80=99s just that you = shouldn=E2=80=99t exclude the=20 320. Depending on your mission profile, it could be a better fit. =
 
I have an MT two blade prop on mine and = am quite=20 satisfied with it. In general, a 3 blade prop will give you a slightly = better=20 static thrust (slightly shorter t.o. and maybe a little better initial = climb)=20 the 2 blade will be slightly more efficient in cruise giving you a = slightly=20 better TAS and more efficiency. Just a guess, but I think that many = people who=20 choose a 3 blade prop do it just for looks. IMHO that=E2=80=99s not = really a good=20 criteria. Just something else to consider.
 
Bill Harrelson
N5ZQ 320 2,150 hrs
N6ZQ  IV 200 hrs.
 
------=_NextPart_000_044D_01CE198F.3E013F90--