X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
X-SpamCatcher-Score:   1 [X]
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:34:44 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1747521@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <christopher.zavatson@baesystems.com>
Received: from smtp4.na.baesystems.com ([63.164.202.13] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.4)
  with ESMTP id 1747261 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:49:39 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.164.202.13; envelope-from=christopher.zavatson@baesystems.com
Received: from BLUMS0022.bluelnk.net (blums0022.na.baesystems.com [10.40.96.145])
	by smtp4.na.baesystems.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l09JmJeb007648
	for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:48:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from GLDMS00006.goldlnk.rootlnka.net ([10.44.64.12])
	by smtp1.na.baesystems.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l09JbvUi012460
	for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:38:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gldms10601.goldlnk.rootlnka.net ([10.64.39.18]) by GLDMS00006.goldlnk.rootlnka.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:37:54 -0500
Received: from GLDMS10607.goldlnk.rootlnka.net ([10.64.39.21]) by gldms10601.goldlnk.rootlnka.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:37:51 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Nose strut inspections - all models
X-Original-Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:29:19 -0800
X-Original-Message-ID: <E473CA319B6D514981A06AE6742A1FD826DC69@GLDMS10607.goldlnk.rootlnka.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-1737075@logan.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Nose strut inspections - all models
Thread-Index: AccwkJphi6rDtsyuRjqsNj7gRk4NeADkauQA
From: "Zavatson, Christopher J \(US SSA\)" <christopher.zavatson@baesystems.com>
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2007 19:37:51.0923 (UTC) FILETIME=[A6BDA830:01C73425]

Gene,
<<Maybe we should be drilling a small hole in the fork below the shaft
so we can spot leakage before annual inspection fork removal.>>
This idea was floated some time ago, but I think I'm still partial to
removing the fork for a visual inspection.  With a hole you introduce
the opportunity for water, oil or other crud to enter an otherwise
sterile environment.  Not that it needs to be sterile, but if you are
trying to determine the source of oil contamination it helps to limit
sources. =20
Has anyone tried this?  Perhaps with a small pipe plug that can be
removed with the wheel in place?
Chris





Chris Zavatson
N91CZ
360std
www.N91CZ.com
=20