X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:54:19 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.66] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0) with ESMTP id 5970374 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:53:04 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.66; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=TID0ktwlJQ/8gh+gt0uiZ4MNFZ2F5gWCSlLgCTqYtCpXU20AZMEvI8H/YMquqst8; h=Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [64.223.162.34] (helo=[192.168.1.24]) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ToEow-0004pF-0v for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:52:30 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Subject: Re: [LML] Gross Weight Question From: Colyn Case In-Reply-To: X-Original-Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:52:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Message-Id: <2CBCABCC-FAF2-412D-B864-14FF6247C472@earthlink.net> References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940e16167dfb898eb0aeb1565425093d8d5350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 64.223.162.34 Legally you can set the gross weight where you want. Legally you can be prosecuted for flying the airplane above that gross = weight. As far as technically, I don't know the answer but here are some things = to consider: - fuel in the wings does not stress the spar as much as weight in the = fuselage. - one aspect of weight limitation is climb performance. The turbo has = more climb performance. - aft CG limit - the Lancair company guidance on the IV was revised upward after an = internal study. I don't know how or if that relates to the ES On Dec 26, 2012, at 12:57 PM, George Wehrung wrote: Question: How can the ES-P have a higher gross weight of 3550 lbs. than = the ES of 3200 lbs? =20 Are they not built on the same fuselage and wing? I know the = Turbo-charged version of the IO550 weighs more and they also utilized = the outboard wing lockers to take the fuel capacity up from 95 to 105 = gallons which will increase the overall weight of the aircraft when = filed to capacity. Am I wrong in assuming that both models use the same wing and wing spar? = Or am I being conservative in using Lancair's published brochure weights = of 3200 lbs for our ES? By the way, does anyone have any flight test data for stall speeds on = their ES? Thanks for the help and clarification as I am revising my POH. George -- For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html