X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:03:45 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m28.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.9] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2466121 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:53:40 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.9; envelope-from=RicArgente@cs.com Received: from RicArgente@cs.com by imo-m28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id q.cf0.20515719 (49396); Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:52:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from LIBML3LK560 (ool-44c59f40.dyn.optonline.net [68.197.159.64]) by ciaaol-d08.mail.aol.com (v120.9) with ESMTP id MAILCIAAOLD086-c0f44736fb223e3; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:52:50 -0400 From: "Rick Argente" X-Original-To: "'Bryan Wullner'" X-Original-Cc: References: Subject: RE: Permanant Header Tank X-Original-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:52:50 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0037_01C82437.DB967110" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcgkYLcFS2GzRp4BS+izq8Mk5eEsgAAACOeQ In-Reply-To: Disposition-Notification-To: "Rick Argente" X-AOL-IP: 68.197.159.64 X-Spam-Flag: NO ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C82437.DB967110 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Big mistake to bond header tank permanently! It is very tempting to do so but don't do it. One of the great features of the Lancair 235/320/360 is the access it provides when the header tank is removed. Access to avionics, firewall, rudder pedals, brakes, etc. IHMO, you will be very sorry if you do this. FYI, I remove the header tank at least once a year for the annual inspection. However, I have removed it in between annuals for other various reasons (new avionics, leaky header tank, firewall installation, etc. Rick Argente N360ZR _____ From: Bryan Wullner [mailto:sbej@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:50 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Permanant Header Tank Anyone have good reasoning as to why I shouldn't permanantly bond my header tank on? I tried the hinge method and the fit with the cowling was terrible so I had to take the entire thing apart today. Now Im thinking it may be a whole lot easier to install and finish by bonding the tank on for good. My brake systems are all easily accesible even with it on. I cant think of any reason I would ever remove it after the thing is flying. Anybody have a good argument against this? Thanks. ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C82437.DB967110 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Big mistake to bond header tank permanently!&n= bsp; It is=20 very tempting to do so  but don't do it.  One of the great feature= s of=20 the Lancair 235/320/360 is the access it provides when the header=20= tank=20 is removed.  Access to avionics, firewall, rudder pedals, brakes,=20 etc.  IHMO, you will be very sorry if you do this.
 
FYI, I remove the header tank at least once a=20= year for the=20 annual inspection.  However, I have removed it in between annuals for o= ther=20 various reasons (new avionics, leaky header tank, firewall installation, etc= .=20
 
Rick Argente
N360ZR 
 

From: Bryan Wullner [mailto:sbej@verizon= .net]=20
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:50 AM
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Permanant Header=20 Tank

Anyone have good reasoning as to why I shou= ldn't=20 permanantly bond my header tank on?  I tried the hinge method and the f= it=20 with the cowling was terrible so I had to take the entire thing apart today.= Now=20 Im thinking it may be a whole lot easier to install and finish by bonding th= e=20 tank on for good.  My brake systems are all easily accesible = even=20 with it on. I cant think of any reason I would ever remove it after the thin= g is=20 flying. Anybody have a good argument against this?
 
Thanks. 
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C82437.DB967110--