Brent.

I fly an early small horiz. stabilizer 235 (completed and first flown in 1993) with a Lyc. 0-235-L2C (with helicopter pistons for about an extra 10 HP). I installed the early nose gear oleo strut before first flight and have never had a centering problem. In fact, it has required almost no service other than adding a bit of Nitrogen on occasion. The main problem, today, will likely be availability.

Setting aside all that about the difficulty of cramming a 360 under the cowl of a 235 airframe (no small consideration), I completely agree with those on the list who make the point about a CG problem if you bolt a 360 and an appropriate CS prop on the nose of a 235. It is doubtful if you could keep the CG from going too far forward without adding so much aft weight that you'd end up over the 235's max gross weight with enough fuel to be useful and a couple of FAA "standard" 170 pounders aboard. Also, if the nose strut for a 360 is any longer than the 235's, you could have trouble getting it in the 235's wheel-well on retraction. Additionally, though I have no knowlege to back this up, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the structure of the 360 airframe (and perhaps the 320) was beefed up some over the 235 - like increased graphite lay-up schedules for the spars, more fuselage stiffness forward of the tail, etc., to take the higher loads that are incurred from everything associated with bigger and more powerful engines.

The following is my experience with additional weight up front on a 235 airframe, FWIW.

The first few years, I flew with a fixed pitch wooden prop and the initial weight and balance calculations showed the CG range to be as required. I wasn't happy with the take-off performance with the agressively pitched prop for an airplane with the Lancair's speed range (the prop was pitched for cruise - around 76 inch pitch). To remedy this, I installed a MT electric CS prop, which, tho lighter than a metal CS prop it nonetheless has a very robust hub/pitch change drive mechanism, with a total prop weight, if I remember, of around 27 - 30 lbs. A re-check of the W&B showed a significant CG forward shift due to the additional 20 to 25 lbs up front. This is with the battery already behind the cockpit rear bulkhead per the early plans. Though it's still within acceptable W&B parameters, I did have to change the pitch trim spring (elevator "bungee" spring) to one with a higher spring rate. With no baggage and a full header tank, I'm close to the limit of elevator authority for landing flare so even more weight up front might be impossible to counteract. I also decreased the pay load by that 20 - 25 lbs plus another pound or so for the controller.

While not the speedster that the 320's and 360's are, I still reliably cover the ground at 165 knots at 9,500 to 10,000 feet while burning a grand total of about 6.7 GPH. In these days of $5 (and up) per gallon of 100LL, the 235 makes more sense to me than ever.

While I tend to agree with that old saw that there's no substitute for more HP in an airplane, I also believe that there are limits for every airframe. Maybe that's just the old, retired engineer here talking - but be careful, you could end up with an airplane that will go like hell - once!

Dan Schaefer
Early LNC2   N235SP
About 1000 hours so far.



--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 5.6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 403 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message