X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [67.8.183.183] (account marv@lancaironline.net)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 5.0.7)
  with HTTP id 964460 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:35:09 -0500
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] static wicks
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.0.7
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:35:09 -0500
Message-ID: <web-964460@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <43E17A9B.60708@ustek.com>
References: <list-963040@logan.com>
 <43E17A9B.60708@ustek.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for N301ES <lancair@ustek.com>:

  Joseph Neustein, MD wrote:
  
> I reviewed the archives on static wick discussion and could find  
> nothing since January 2005.  I would be most interested to hear how  
> it is working out with those who elected not to install static wicks  
> (especially in the carbon fuselage since I am building an ES-P) or  
> from builders who feel strongly that they are a necessity.
  
  
  Joe,
  
  
  I plan on 8 wicks of the screw-in barrel sort.  The other design screws into
a tab that is affixed to the bottom surface.  It would be easier to replace
but would also be clearly visible - to someone on a creeper, or perhaps to
Hamid's FAA spotter at the airport who is looking for high speed overhead
approaches  ;-)
  
  Robert M. Simon,  ES-P N301ES