X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:21:52 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from misav07.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.20.171] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with ESMTP id 2285096 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:10:25 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=142.165.20.171; envelope-from=hjjohnson@sasktel.net Received: from bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.72.22]) by misav07 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:09:46 -0600 Received: from sasktel.net ([192.168.234.97]) by bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca (SaskTel eMessaging Service) with ESMTP id <0JND0038ZD8A67G0@bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca> for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:09:46 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.234.24] (Forwarded-For: [71.17.120.171]) by cgmail1.sasknet.sk.ca (mshttpd); Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:09:46 -0600 X-Original-Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:09:46 -0600 From: H & J Johnson Subject: Re: [LML] Carbon fiber 360 kit? X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-id: <4aba4d06448.46d0d2da@sasktel.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Sun Java(tm) System Messenger Express 6.1 HotFix 0.20 (built Feb 27 2006) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal

I believe one Kevlar 320 [or 360] was made back in the day the benifit's didn't add up for the final a/c... it did [still is??] fly..

Some of the last 360s where made from Carbon, but this was just before they came out w/ the Legacy, once it was on the

market.. they quit all 360 production.. for obvious reasons.. I don't know how many were built but a few.. you see them for

sale now and again..

Jarrett Johnson

235/320 55% not carbon [for sale]

> A fellow pilot and Lancair IV kit owner (partial kit) ask for
> confirmation that a carbon fiber 360 kit was available in the past.
>
> Does anyone remember this to be a fact? Or is he just confused?
>
> Thanks, Earl
>
>