Message-ID: <367D2811.FB6EA0F7@tstonramp.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 08:38:56 -0800
From: Hal Woodruff <woodruff@tstonramp.com>
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Subject: 360 Engine Mount -- The long and short of it
References: <19981220053424.AAA24141@truman.olsusa.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Rob,

I changed from the short engine mount to the long in mid-construction
like you're contemplating.  The new engine mount slipped into the holes
previously drilled for the short mount without any modification.  For
this I was thankful.

I also got the long cowling.  I think if I were doing it again I would
stick with the cowling that came with the kit and add length myself with
a BID layup.  You need to determine this yourself after seeing the price
for the new cowling.

To answer your weight and balance questions you need to get a copy of
someones weight and balance for a configuration like yours.  eg.  outer
fuel bays dry, header tank installed, etc.

Then, modify the weight and balance to your proposed configuration.
You'll be able to estimate the effect of moving the batteries, hydr.
power pack, and engine forward.  If someone suggested that the longer
engine mount did not change the CG, its because they moved something
else aft.

I eliminated the header tank, and moved the power pack to behind the
passenger seat.  My batteries went to the aft side of the firewall.
After all said and done, my CG ended up at the forward limit with me
(180#'s) in the pilots seat and no fuel or baggage. It flies great and
is not unstable when flying mid to forward CG's.  I haven't yet loaded
it to an aft CG configuration so I can't say yet how it might act.  I've
got the small tail.

Hal  360HW