Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:09:39 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-2456253@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.199.149; envelope-from=kneadedpleasures@sbcglobal.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID;
  b=l+TQrflvK1/Dr9xr9agwn/vSxEAgMwLJOhqU93Th2WxvyKsOOFpelkB/yJp/5okHHdCT+w92aQpz64MOPCQD7qDSZt8pmMfLNfzXzZIYVtGeGUSoQ2qnZNEiHCJgYsnI0H341nGs5/2Ky+xNihcPZhrVpfPO/gAgajRN9XSZ/0k=;
From: kneaded pleasures <kneadedpleasures@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Needing performance information on the Lancair 200 and 235
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-734557420-1194271625=:99155"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

--0-734557420-1194271625=:99155
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

A close friend has a pristine Lancair 200 that he has asked me to fly and then render opinion on the aircraft's performance.  It looks great and has obvious excellent workmanship in its construction.  After a thorough annual condition inspection, I flew it and found that it was seriously lacking in power.  In fact, with just 10 degrees of flaps and gear extended, it never accelerated beyond 60 knots  (though it was simultaneously rising at about 400 ft per minute).  I didn't immediately retract the gear because I was concerned that the plane was flying just above stall.  In the traffic pattern, I retracted the gear and got just 78 knots - still with 10 degrees flap.  I landed uneventfully.  There was no abnormal balance or control of the airplane and, in fact, its construction symmetry is nearly perfect.  Jack test of the landing gear showed completely flush retract of gear and doors - not likely that something was dragging.  This plane has an 0200 engine with 9 to 1
 pistons producing some extra horsepower; perhaps a total of 115.  Its prop is a light weight (27 lbs) cockpit adjustable, electric IVOPROP.
   
  Does performance sound right for such an early version aircraft?  Who has had experience in these underpowered planes?  What performance numbers should we be seeing?  Without more power and speed, I would be reluctant to take on a passenger for flight.   Greg Nelson

--0-734557420-1194271625=:99155
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<DIV>A close friend has a pristine Lancair 200 that he has asked me to fly and&nbsp;then render&nbsp;opinion on the aircraft's performance.&nbsp; It looks great and has obvious excellent workmanship in its construction.&nbsp; After a thorough annual condition inspection, I flew it and found that it was seriously lacking in power.&nbsp; In fact, with just 10 degrees of flaps and gear extended, it never&nbsp;accelerated beyond 60 knots&nbsp; (though it was simultaneously rising at about 400 ft per minute).&nbsp; I didn't immediately retract the gear because I was concerned that the plane was flying just above stall.&nbsp; In the traffic pattern, I retracted the gear and got just 78 knots - still with 10 degrees flap.&nbsp; I landed&nbsp;uneventfully.&nbsp; There was no abnormal balance or control of the airplane and, in fact, its construction symmetry is nearly perfect.&nbsp; Jack test of the landing gear showed completely flush retract of gear and doors - not likely that
 something was dragging.&nbsp; This plane&nbsp;has an&nbsp;0200 engine with 9 to 1 pistons producing some extra horsepower; perhaps a total&nbsp;of 115.&nbsp; Its prop is a light weight (27 lbs) cockpit adjustable, electric IVOPROP.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>Does&nbsp;performance sound right for such an early version aircraft?&nbsp; Who has had experience in these underpowered planes?&nbsp; What performance numbers should we be seeing?&nbsp; Without more power and speed, I would be reluctant to take on a passenger for flight.&nbsp;&nbsp; Greg Nelson</DIV>
--0-734557420-1194271625=:99155--