Return-Path: Received: from saltydog.ftc.gov ([164.62.7.8]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:35:14 -0500 Received: from graywolf.ftc.gov (graywolf.ftc.gov [164.62.1.5]) by saltydog.ftc.gov (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA11846 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:39:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from w1257_dobrien (sat4-238.ftc.gov [164.62.25.238]) by graywolf.ftc.gov (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA06831 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:39:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.16.19991115094339.1cbf5ba8@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:43:39 To: lancair.list@olsusa.com From: "Dan O'Brien" Subject: Extended fuel tanks for ES X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I saw Jim Cameron's suggestion that in hindsight he would probably choose not to open the extra bay for the long range tanks on his ES. A key question for me is whether doing so would lower the payload below an acceptable level given the weight of me and my family. If the empty weight of the ES is coming in where the factory advertises (1900 lbs with the IO550), I'm thinking I might still put in the long range tanks (leaving a maximum payload of 760 lbs on takeoff and 560 lbs on landing). If 1900 lbs is way low, I might not extend the tanks. Jim and others with finished ESs, what kind of empty weights are you getting? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>