X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:25:54 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out2.iinet.net.au ([203.59.1.107] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 3013224 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:45:27 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.59.1.107; envelope-from=ims1@iinet.net.au X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiwBAIzOb0h8qfYe/2dsb2JhbAAIgjkzgWKnLQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,309,1212336000"; d="scan'208,217";a="338638445" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.1.1.5]) ([124.169.246.30]) by outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out2.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 06 Jul 2008 10:44:43 +0800 X-Original-Message-Id: From: Michael Aarons X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-34-781882692 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lancair IV-P long term availability? X-Original-Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:44:43 +0800 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924) --Apple-Mail-34-781882692 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bobby, I use my 360 for cross country, Perth to Melbourne 1700 miles in 8 =20 hours , a bit like L.A. to New York. I TAS between 205 and 210 KTAS on 32~34 litres per hour @ 9500. How much did you think you were going to save in a 320? Fuel is the cheapest part of building and owning a plane. Fuel here is $1.90 a litre. $7.22 a gallon Mike Aarons On 06/07/2008, at 6:19 AM, Bobby Don Wooten wrote: > I am a 360 builder and have found the same thing, Haven=92t had an =20= > issue with hardware. Did have issues with cowling and header tank. =20= > Now I am having an issue with the exhaust. However I contacted =20 > Aviation Exhaust, after speaking with Vetterman=92s (another RV =20 > specialist) and I am making progress now. > My kit number is 52 It was originally purchased in 92, I purchased =20= > it in 2006 after 2 other owners. > > I was wondering how many 360s are still out there that have not been =20= > completed? > > I opted for the 360 in this plane, but sometimes think I may have =20 > made a mistake for what I plan to use the plane for. I plan to make =20= > many cross country flights. I was looking for economy and I am sure =20= > I will get it with the 360, however I do not know if a 320 would =20 > have made more sense. In the upgrade I had to get the extended =20 > mount, which in turn led to extending the cowling, moving the CG etc. > > If the surfaces are straight, true and clean, then the 320 will =20 > cruise at just a little less than the 360 on a lot less fuel, if =20 > what I read is correct. Sometimes I wonder if I needed to do the =20 > KISS thing and just go with a 320 and the basics, and put the money =20= > into optimizing the basics. Any comments --Apple-Mail-34-781882692 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bobby,

I = use my 360 for cross country, Perth to Melbourne 1700 miles in 8 hours , = a bit like L.A. to New York.
I TAS between 205 and 210 KTAS on = 32~34 litres per hour @ 9500.
How much did you think you were = going to save in a 320?
Fuel is the cheapest part of building = and owning a plane.
Fuel here is $1.90 a litre.   $7.22 a = gallon

Mike Aarons

On = 06/07/2008, at 6:19 AM, Bobby Don Wooten wrote:

I am a 360 builder and have = found the same thing,  Haven=92t had an issue with hardware.  = Did have issues with cowling and header tank.  Now I am having an = issue with the exhaust.  However I contacted Aviation Exhaust, = after speaking with Vetterman=92s (another RV specialist) and I am = making progress now.
My kit number is 52 It was = originally purchased in 92,  I purchased it in 2006 after 2 other = owners.
 
I was wondering how many 360s are still out there that = have not been completed?
 
I opted for the 360 in this plane, but sometimes think I = may have made a mistake for what I plan to use the plane for.  I = plan to make many cross country flights.  I was looking for economy = and I am sure I will get it with the  360, however I do not know if = a 320 would have made more sense.  In the upgrade I had to get the = extended mount, which in turn led to extending the cowling, moving the = CG etc.
 
If  the surfaces are straight, true and clean, then = the 320 will cruise at just a little less than the 360 on a lot less = fuel, if what I read is correct.  Sometimes I wonder if I needed to = do the KISS thing and just go with a 320 and the basics, and put the = money into optimizing the basics.  Any = comments

<= /body>= --Apple-Mail-34-781882692--