To those asking why going to an MT prop might move the cg forward. It
depends on what you're replacing.

My LNC2 (early 235) started life with a fixed pitch wood prop with various
heavy chunks (battery, hydro pump, etc.) arranged to get an acceptable
weight and balance/cg set-up.

The wood prop was subsequently replaced a with an electric C/S MT and the
airplane has also gone a bit nose heavy. The reason is simple: the wood prop
and spinner probably weighed in around 17 - 18 pounds and the MT more like
27 - 30 (maybe more, I've forgotton the exact numbers). Granted, the
composite blades on the MT are light weight but the hub is HEAVY (in
comparison, that is). As I said, I don't know exactly what the hub weighs
but it looks like it was designed for a 300 HP engine. I love German
engineers - they build things to last (a few pounds more than absolutely
needed, but hey! who's counting)? (My wife's '82 Mercedes 240 Diesel has
260,000 miles on it and it still hums right along, so if my MT hub is a bit
stout, I can live with it)!

Only problem noted: Had to beef up the pitch-trim springs just a bit to keep
from running out of nose-up trim during slow flight (landing phase). Never
run out of elevator authority, just couldn't trim out the stick pressure in
the pattern. There were no discernable negative effects on other flight
regimes from the noseward shift in cg.

Dan Schaefer
LNC2 (Early 235)