Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.7) with ESMTP id 798702 for rob@logan.com; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:26:08 -0400 Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.161]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71175U5500L550S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:00:34 -0400 Received: from Klusmanp@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id k.38.177e956d (3867) for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:08:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Klusmanp@aol.com Message-ID: <38.177e956d.28584f49@aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:08:25 EDT Subject: Re: 200 HP on a 320 OK? To: lancair.list@olsusa.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> In a message dated 6/6/01 10:39:41 AM EST, MIAMICONCRETE@aol.com writes: << In addition, forward thrust forces between a 180 and 200HP was not my major concern (or should it be my major one?) Torque, asymmetrical thrusts, hard landing forces with added weight of the varr.pitch prop, and CG did come to mind. A 58 lb. vari pitch prop more firewall forward with the ext. mount seems fwd heavy. >> Vic, I believe you are correct in worrying about the added weight of the engine/prop combination. I have a buddy who works stress analysis on the engine mount beams for Cessna business jets (I work wing stress analysis). He tells me that the critical load case for engines/mounts is typically a gust condition. Now these are turbofans rather than pistons, so pistons may have some other critical load case. I can imagine that the torque load at engine startup is fairly high. This may be what sizes the engine mount structure or perhaps it may be the impact load of a hard landing. Who knows. Guessing about this sort of thing is rather dangerous. For example, I know of one airplane where a sharp turn at taxi speeds puts more side load on the landing gear than a crooked touchdown in a crosswind. Certainly not intuative. I would not consider putting more bending load on the "triangular chocks" and engine mounting structure than the stock configuration. I would try to figure out the heaviest stock engine/prop/starter/exhaust/alternator/etc. combination and not exceed this. I would also contact that factory and ask them if there is any structural difference between the 320 and 360 airframe. I would bet there is - same molds with just a few more plies of fabric here and there. Paul Klusman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>