Return-Path: Received: from www.sequoianet.com ([206.242.77.3]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO203-101c) ID# 0-44819U2500L250S0) with ESMTP id AAA28668 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:47:26 -0400 Received: from inet001.cardell.com (INET001.sequoianet.com [207.87.248.2]) by www.sequoianet.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-51638U1000L1000S0) with SMTP id AAA364 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:50:33 -0400 Received: from ccMail by inet001.cardell.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.01) id AA905975495; Wed, 16 Sep 98 15:51:41 -0500 Message-Id: <9809169059.AA905975495@inet001.cardell.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 98 15:45:24 -0500 From: To: Subject: Re:Alternate 360 forward hinge canopy method X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Marvin Kaye asked about carbon fiber build up for the an alternate hinge method using the longerons... I remember a couple of people wanting to go with an alternate method. Have any of you made it work? I ask because I went the standard way and had to finesse the openning clearances on the top of the forward deck. Any method that lowers the pivot point or moves it rearward between the canopy and the forward deck may worsen the interference when the canopy is openned. Please make sure you all have the kinematics worked out before you deviate from the factory approach or you may be in for a nasty surprise. I know a couple of people were concerned about bracketing to the header tank but with everything taken into account it looks plenty safe to me (I have the single lever latching system that seems to grab very well at the back of the canopy). Ed de Chazal, Rochester Michigan