Return-Path: Received: from pacs04.infoave.net ([165.166.0.14]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 07:10:05 -0400 Received: from citcom.net.citcom.net ("port 1124"@[206.74.232.164]) by InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.1-12 #23426) with SMTP id <01JD73JY6B08AB3CML@InfoAve.Net> for lancair.list@olsusa.com; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 07:13:12 EDT Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 07:09:46 -0400 From: John Cooper Subject: Nose wheel shimmy In-reply-to: <01BEC4E7.0C4C77A0.ed@testelectronics.com> To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Message-id: <3.0.5.32.19990705070946.0080eba0@mail.citcom.net> X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> For Ed Armstrong-- Great explanation, Thanks. Two ideas for reducing the mass of the nosewheel: 1. Machine the rim sidewalls a little bit. The rim-halves on mine still have the bosses where the hubcaps on the mains are supposed to screw in. These could be machined off, and the sidewalls possibly thinned a little bit on a lathe. 2. Magnesium Rims. On stiffness of the structure: I've always thought the bearings and journals where the nose-gear leg attaches to the engine mount were too small in diameter. What are they .250 or .312? Personally, I believe these small bearings are responsible for much of the flexability in the system. I would go to .500 dia. if I were designing these bearing points. Would be an easy retrofit, too. Just my .02cents worth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML homepage: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html