X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:31:33 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail15.tpgi.com.au ([203.12.160.61] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6035757 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:27:23 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.12.160.61; envelope-from=domcrain@tpg.com.au X-TPG-Junk-Status: Message not scanned X-TPG-Antivirus: Passed X-TPG-Abuse: host=60-241-193-89.static.tpgi.com.au; ip=60.241.193.89; date=Wed, 30 Jan 2013 08:26:47 +1100 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (60-241-193-89.static.tpgi.com.au [60.241.193.89]) by mail15.tpgi.com.au (envelope-from domcrain@tpg.com.au) (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r0TLQFBI009846 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 08:26:47 +1100 From: "Dominic V. Crain" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2FE8B88B-B063-41AA-8BF8-889522DEC513" X-Original-Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: [LML] L360 lancing weight limit X-Original-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 08:26:15 +1100 References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) --Apple-Mail=_2FE8B88B-B063-41AA-8BF8-889522DEC513 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Um=85.Rob=85Um=85Move to the East=85problem solved. Cheers Dom Dominic V. Crain domcrain@tpg.com.au Phone 03-94161881 Mobile 0412-359320 On 30/01/2013, at 2:55 AM, Stevens Family = wrote: > I have a query harking back to the recent discussion on maximum = weights that folks are using for their L320/360=92s. > =20 > Following on from that thread, I am interested to know what landing = weight limits folks are using for the LN360, especially those who are = increasing take-off weights above the factory limits. With a take-off = weight around 1900lbs, the published landing weight limit of 1685lbs = requires a flight time of about 4 hours before you can land. That = particularly becomes difficult here in Australia where the destination = field requires an alternate, and there is no suitable alternate nearby = (a common occurrence down here). That is, you require a lot of alternate = fuel in the tanks over the destination because of the great distance to = the alternate. This extra fuel often will put you over 1685lbs at the = destination (unless of course you kick the wife out to accommodate the = extra fuel!). > =20 > Does anyone know what is the structural or performance factor that = most limits landing weight? Is there anyone out there who has landed = above the factory limit on a regular basis, and if so, by how much, and = has this created any problems? > =20 > As always, I appreciate the help that I get whenever I put a query on = the list. > =20 > Regards, > =20 > Rob Stevens > Perth, > Western Australia. > =20 > =20 --Apple-Mail=_2FE8B88B-B063-41AA-8BF8-889522DEC513 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Um=85.Rob=85Um=85Move to the = East=85problem = solved.

Cheers

Dom
<= br>

Dominic V. Crain
Phon= e 03-94161881
Mobile 0412-359320

On 30/01/2013, at 2:55 AM, Stevens Family <stevens5@swiftdsl.com.au> = wrote:

I have a query = harking back to the recent discussion on maximum weights that folks are = using for their L320/360=92s.
Following on from = that thread, I am interested to know what landing weight limits folks = are using for the LN360, especially those who are increasing take-off = weights above the factory limits. With a take-off weight around 1900lbs, = the published landing weight limit of 1685lbs requires a flight time of = about 4 hours before you can land. That particularly becomes difficult = here in Australia where the destination field requires an alternate, and = there is no suitable alternate nearby (a common occurrence down here). = That is, you require a lot of alternate fuel in the tanks over the = destination because of the great distance to the alternate. This extra = fuel often will put you over 1685lbs at the destination (unless of = course you kick the wife out to accommodate the extra = fuel!).
Does anyone know = what is the structural or performance factor that most limits landing = weight? Is there anyone out there who has landed above the factory limit = on a regular basis, and if so, by how much, and has this created any = problems?
As always, I = appreciate the help that I get whenever I put a query on the = list.
 
Regards,
Rob = Stevens
Western = Australia.