Return-Path: Received: from marvkaye.olsusa.com ([205.245.9.77]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:45:00 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990614124911.00a8e8c0@olsusa.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:49:11 -0400 To: lancair.list@olsusa.com From: Marvin Kaye Subject: Re: 320 vs. 360? In-Reply-To: <3764895E.69E92310@eai.com> X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Posted for "Kurt Zahner" : Dan: Good question. For example, the Lancair literature claims typical 75% cruise of 225mph for the 320 and 235mph for the 360: not much of a difference, especially when considering the lesser fuel flow for the 320. Also, the usable load of the 320 is 50 lbs more than the 360--645 lbs for the 320 vs. 595 lbs for the 360. With 43 gallons of fuel (249 lbs), a 210-lb pilot (just a random number!), 50 lbs of equipment/luggage (oxygen, flight bag, etc.)--that leaves just 86 lbs for a passenger in the 360 and 136 in the 320. I've heard that some builders have certificated their gross weight higher than that in the Lancair literature. Yes, you could leave some fuel behind (but who wants to take off and fly around with any less than 30 gallons), or only date models and leave your same-size flying buddies behind. Now there's a good idea! Also, any input on retrofitting the Mark II tail? Kurt Zahner >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML homepage: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html