X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:36:14 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mailgate.tru.ca ([192.146.156.111] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3510019 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:30:36 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=192.146.156.111; envelope-from=dbaleshta@tru.ca Received: from mailgate.tru.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate (Postfix) with SMTP id DB8D9325A1D for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:30:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from Groupwise4.tru.ca (groupwise4.tru.ca [192.146.156.118]) by mailgate.tru.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59EB32484A for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:30:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from TRUDOM4-MTA by Groupwise4.tru.ca with Novell_GroupWise; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:30:00 -0800 X-Original-Message-Id: <49A04821020000B300028154@Groupwise4.tru.ca> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0.3 X-Original-Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:29:53 -0800 From: "Doug Baleshta" X-Original-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: forward hinge canopy bid thickness LN360 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.330647, Antispam-Engine: 2.6.1.350677, Antispam-Data: 2009.2.22.21924 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='BODY_SIZE_1600_1699 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, WEIRD_PORT 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __CD 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FRAUD_419_BODY_WEBMAIL 0, __FRAUD_419_WEBMAIL 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __STOCK_PHRASE_7 0' Thanks Scott. Doug >>> 02/21/09 5:50 AM >>> Doug, =20 Not exactly a problem of thickness, but one of stiffness. The original=20= specification was not adequate and I added a bar of 1/4" foam and many = additional=20 layers of unidirectional carbon to provide stiffness across the center = of=20 the canopy between the hinge attachments. I had problems with the gas = springs=20 squeezing the canopy edges inboard and causing the center to bend (and = lift)=20 slightly. Bi-directional with only add weight as it is the unidirectional= =20 running from side to side that will add to the needed stiffness. =20 =20 Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) In a message dated 2/20/2009 12:51:20 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 dbaleshta@tru.ca writes: =20 Hi folks, the forward hinge canopy calls for up to 18 bid of unidirectiona= l =20 carbon fiber. I measured the thickness and according to the plans it = should=20 be around .140". The only unidirectional fiber I've found measures in = at=20 .023, or about 7 bid. Has anyone else come across this and what did you = do? =20 Did any of you use bi-directional CF with any problems? Thanks Doug -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm= l =20 **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 = easy=20 steps!=20 (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=3D= http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmp= gID %3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)