Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:56:22 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1797869@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <gwbraly@gami.com>
Received: from [65.66.11.38] (HELO qbert.gami.com)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b8)
  with ESMTP id 1797842 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:49:55 -0400
Received: by QBERT with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <TTQ1SPP2>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:51:51 -0500
X-Original-Message-ID: <52548863F8A5D411B530005004759A931C2F48@QBERT>
From: George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com>
X-Original-To: "'lml@lancaironline.net'" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Lean of peak with the TSIO-550 LIV-P
X-Original-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:51:51 -0500 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



>>Posted for "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano@everyday.com>:
Was the baffling the Lancair firewall forward kit or home made?

John Herminghaus
LIV-P        I-VVVV  <<



John,

The baffling was (exceptions noted below) essentially identical to all of
the Lancair IV-Ps I have seen, and included all of the same mistakes that
exist in the Columbia baffling.

The primary exceptions were some attempts to "fix it" that were, in fact,
counter productive.  We removed those before I flew it the second time. 

Baffling is "baffling".  It is often obvious and also counter-intuitive - -
sometimes at the same time! <g>

Regards,  George