Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:55:59 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.4.8.41] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2569254 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:50:01 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:50:00 -0700 Received: from 67.1.57.90 by law9-oe52.law9.hotmail.com with DAV; Sat, 06 Sep 2003 00:50:00 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [67.1.57.90] X-Originating-Email: [gary21sn@hotmail.com] From: "Gary Edwards" X-Original-To: "LML" Subject: Lancair 235/180 X-Original-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:45:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C373D5.78E35AE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 8.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V8.50.0017.1202 Seal-Send-Time: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:45:18 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Sep 2003 00:50:00.0935 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD4F9770:01C37410] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C373D5.78E35AE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>A good friend of mine recently bought an unstarted 235 kit. He has now been offered a fairly good deal on a 180 hp engine, but is uncertain = if 180 hp is a healthy decision for a 235. Q: Has anyone put 180 hp in a 235 and been able to walk away from = it??? I concur with Jim N. regarding a 360 in a 235 airframe. Lots of issues = to tackle. =20 The engine mount is probably the same as a 320, so no problem there. = But physical size of the engine fitting in the cowl would require major = surgery to both top and bottom cowls. The extra weight would be difficult to overcome, especially with a CS = prop. It would probably require the battery to be located way back in = the tailcone. Then there would be the structural issue of heavy weight = at both extreme ends of the fuselage. A short prop would have to be used which may negate the whole idea of = installing the big engine. I have a 64 inch prop on the 320, and with = the nose strut pumped up slightly, I have about 8 inches of ground = clearance. So, maybe a 66 inch might be the max length, which isn't = very long in CS prop terms. Pump the strut up more and then there is = angle of attack issues with the wing. So then longer main legs might be = required. The dominos could just keep going. Gary Edwards LNC2 N21SN 235/320 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C373D5.78E35AE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>>A good friend of mine recently bought an unstarted 235 kit. = He has=20 now
    been offered a fairly good deal on a 180 hp = engine,=20 but is uncertain if
   180 hp is a healthy decision for a=20 235.

   Q: Has anyone put 180 hp in a 235 and been able = to walk=20 away from it???

I concur with Jim N. regarding a 360 in a 235 airframe. Lots = of=20 issues to tackle.

The engine mount is probably the same as a 320, so no problem = there. =20 But physical size of the engine fitting in the cowl would require major = surgery=20 to both top and bottom cowls.

The extra weight would be difficult to overcome, especially with a = CS=20 prop. It would probably require the battery to be located way back = in the=20 tailcone. Then there would be the structural issue of heavy weight = at both=20 extreme ends of the fuselage.

A short prop would have to be used which may negate the whole = idea of=20 installing the big engine. I have a 64 inch prop on the 320, and = with the=20 nose strut pumped up slightly, I have about 8 inches of ground = clearance. =20 So, maybe a 66 inch might be the max length, which isn't very long in CS = prop=20 terms. Pump the strut up more and then there is angle of attack=20 issues with the wing. So then longer main legs might be=20 required. The dominos could just keep going.

Gary Edwards

LNC2 N21SN

235/320

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C373D5.78E35AE0--