Return-Path: Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.36]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 23:20:22 -0400 Received: from ckrouse_ra.spk.hp.com ([12.73.161.42]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19991015032428.KWGQ12280@ckrouse_ra.spk.hp.com> for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 03:24:28 +0000 Message-ID: <003201bf16bb$3d2e4080$2aa1490c@ckrouse_ra.spk.hp.com> Reply-To: "Curtis Krouse" From: "Curtis Krouse" To: Subject: Re: LNC 2 SB 050-0999 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:13:18 -0700 X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Why chisel out the existing phenolic at all? Could a person do a little of both suggestions here and keep the existing phenolic block in, but knotch it back so that you can also install the full card in front of the existing block and bond the full card to the new face of the existing block and the bottom spar? It would be a good template for drilling the new hole.....are there any problems with that?....I know nothing of mechanical engineering...but it seems to make good sense to me. Curtis Krouse N753K >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html