Return-Path: Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com ([198.81.17.7]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:12:33 -0500 Received: from RWolf99@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 8GVGa24262 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:11:23 -0500 (EST) From: RWolf99@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:11:23 EST To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Subject: Long vs Short Engine Mounts X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> To all - Thanks for the advice on changing engine mounts. Consensus seems to be unanimous in favor of the change, although there are many of you out there that are very happy with the short mounts. I spoke to a friend of mine who has recently completed a firewall forward restoration of a Pitts Special. His reaction was "you can get 3 inches more room for only $500? Don't think twice, just do it!" He didn't care that flying qualities were improved -- he thought the extra space alone was worth far more than the cost. When I told him that the factory not only knew about and approved the long mount, but that they actually developed it, he berated me for even considering not switching. (For info, right now I have nothing attached forward of the firewall except the mount, and have done no cowling work at all.) I'm calling Vern today to order a new mount. It's my Christmas present to myself... - Rob Wolf