X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.100] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with ESMTP id 1321354 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:03:43 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.100; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from [192.168.0.253] (cpe-066-057-036-199.nc.res.rr.com [66.57.36.199]) by ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7E32veM005271 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:02:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44DFE7E1.6040709@nc.rr.com> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:02:57 -0400 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-2.1.fc4.nr (X11/20051011) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing: DoorOpenLside.jpg References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Ben Schneider wrote: >A possible solution might be to put restrictors directly on the cylinders. Thus lowering the risk by eliminating the hose as a factor. (would still be a factor, but should not slam shut in the event of a hose break) Just a thought. > > Ben Schneider > > > I was thinking I'd want counter weights on beams that run along the sides of the doors. They'd just stick up in the air. It would balance the load on the main support beam so that it is all compressive load, and in the event of a hydraulic rupture, there'd not be so much destructive weight coming down. -- This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."