Return-Path: <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
Received: from [144.54.3.2] (HELO picker.com)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.3)
  with ESMTP id 735288 for lancair.list@logan.com; Sat, 07 Apr 2001 23:26:05 -0400
Received: from <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
  by picker.com (CommuniGate Pro RULES 3.3b1)
  with RULES id 3670064; Sat, 07 Apr 2001 23:26:02 -0400
X-Autogenerated: Mirror
X-Mirrored-by: <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
Received: from [144.54.37.11] (HELO ct.picker.com)
  by picker.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3b1)
  with ESMTP id 3670063 for rob@med.marconi.com; Sat, 07 Apr 2001 23:26:01 -0400
Received: from picker.com (central.picker.com [144.54.3.2])
	by ct.picker.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA04928
	for <rob>; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:26:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified)
  by picker.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3b1)
  with ESMTP id 3670062 for rob@ct.picker.com; Sat, 07 Apr 2001 23:25:59 -0400
Received: from sphmgaae.compuserve.com ([149.174.177.154])
          by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223
          ID# 0-71175U5500L550S0V35) with ESMTP id com
          for <lancair.list@olsusa.com>; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:19:59 -0400
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
	by sphmgaae.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) id XAA01143
	for lancair.list@olsusa.com; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:25:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 00:20:15 -0500
From: Marvin Kaye <74740.231@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: LNC2 C of G limits
Sender: Marvin Kaye <74740.231@compuserve.com>
To: "lancair.list@olsusa.com" <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
Message-ID: <200104072223_MC2-CBB2-AB7C@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
My whole point in suggesting the front or aft face of the firewall as the
datum was simply to insure that we don't compare the CG numbers from a 320
with a short mount to a 360 with the longer mount and expect them to be the
same.  Seems to me the distance from the firewall to the back of the
spinner on a short mount installation is about 34", the same distance on a
long mount is about 36.5".  Consequently, if someone with a long mount says
that their CG range (from 11% to 29% of MAC) goes from 80" to 88" aft of
the datum (I'm sorry, I don't have any real numbers handy so these are for
example purposes only, please don't expect them to work on any real world
CG problem) and then someone with a short mount applies them to their
aircraft they will have their CG 2.5" too far aft... not a good situation. 
Needless to say, every LNC2 is going to have a different actual CG based on
all the variables involved, but the numbers from 11% to 29% of MAC will be
the same from aircraft to aircraft provided the variable distance of the
engine installation is removed from the equation.  The distance from the
firewall (fore or aft face, your choice) to the 11% and 29% MAC position is
immune to the engine mount variable, and this is all I was trying to
address.

Please remember what prompted my original response... someone asked what
the FS numbers are for the 11% and 29% MAC locations on the LNC2.  If the
measuring method doesn't remove all the distance variables between the two
aircraft any response will be virtually meaningless.  I hope this clears up
any confusion over what I was trying to say.  Thanks....

   <Marv>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>