X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:46:54 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms173017pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.17] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c2a) with ESMTP id 4825369 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:54:14 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.17; envelope-from=rpharis@verizon.net Received: from WS1 ([unknown] [71.116.103.77]) by vms173017.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LFK002RF5D0CT50@vms173017.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:53:29 -0600 (CST) From: "Rod Pharis" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-reply-to: Subject: RE: [LML] 320/360 Redesigned over center drag link 250 hr update X-Original-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:53:24 -0800 X-Original-Message-id: <008d01cbbc3b$0a8c4b90$1fa4e2b0$@net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008E_01CBBBF7.FC690B90" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-index: Acu7xkSoqzdKhiRxTBW6CgQWeUQaSgAdKqoA Content-language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01CBBBF7.FC690B90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Do these fit the Legacy? From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of randy snarr Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:57 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] 320/360 Redesigned over center drag link 250 hr update For those of you that have the new over center link we built a few years ago with the bushing and steel sleeve, here is a 250 hour update on my airplane. I had my airplane up on jacks whilst rebuilding the hydraulic cylinders. I checked for play where the nose gear drag link connects to the oleo strut. ( the previous problem area) Mine had a very slight amount. Not enough to replace anything but I wanted to pull it apart and inspect it and report my findings to those of you that have these. It looks like the updated part we made is working very well. The pre oiled brass bushing had worn (slightly) as planned. I pressed in a new bushing, inserted the steel sleeve and the link is as tight as it was when it was new! Time to replace was about 20 minutes and at a cost of $.63 for the standard size bushing... I still have a few of these links if anyone else wants one.. Please contact me off line.. Attached is a pic of the part when I was doing the bushing replacement. Best, Randy Snarr N694RS 235/320 "Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible" -Simon Newcomb, 1902 --- On Thu, 1/20/11, rwolf99@aol.com wrote: From: rwolf99@aol.com Subject: [LML] Lithium Batteries and New Ideas To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 2:18 PM Michael wrote: <> No offense is taken. No argument is intended. Just a clarification. My motivation was simply to point out that there is a significant risk that needs to be researched and mitigated by anyone who wants to make their own battery pack from new lithium battery cells. I thought the original poster of the idea might be unaware of this particular risk. I think I qualified my statement by saying that modern lithium batteries were outside of my area of expertise, and that while the risk/benefit of building my own battery was not favorable for me, it might be for him. That's all. I suppose I came across as a wet blanket, but the downside risk is considerable in this particular case. He may be a professional battery engineer (or have a friend who is), knows that it will take a huge amount of effort to get it right, but be willing to do it anyway. (Then he can sell his idea to a battery manufacturer and we'll all be buying his product, eh? Capitalism at it's best!) I'm doing some things on my Lancair that may make another person squeamish. We all are. But they are different things for each of us, partly based on our own level of comfort but also based on our own experience and knowledge. That's the beauty of the experimental movement. We can do what we each think is safe. But I welcome anyone who says "this idea of yours may be dangerous, please check it out and make sure it's safe". That's all I was trying to do. I was also trying to express a legal disclaimer like Brent Regan's "I am an idiot, I know nothing", which in Brent's case most of us don't believe anyway. - Rob Wolf ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01CBBBF7.FC690B90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Do these fit the = Legacy?

 

From: Lancair Mailing List = [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of randy = snarr
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:57 AM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] 320/360 Redesigned over = center drag link 250 hr update

 

For = those of you that have the new over center link we built a few years ago = with the bushing and steel sleeve, here is a 250 hour update on my = airplane.

I had my airplane up on jacks whilst rebuilding the = hydraulic cylinders. I checked for play where the nose gear drag link = connects to the oleo strut. ( the previous problem area) Mine had a very = slight amount. Not enough to replace anything but I wanted to pull it = apart and inspect it and report my findings to those of you that have = these. It looks like the updated part we made is working very well. The = pre oiled brass bushing had worn (slightly) as planned. I pressed in a = new bushing, inserted the steel sleeve and the link is as tight as it = was when it was new!  Time to replace was about 20 minutes and at a = cost of $.63 for the standard size bushing...

I still have a few = of these links if anyone else wants one..
Please contact me off = line..
Attached is a pic of the part when I was doing the bushing = replacement.

Best,
Randy = Snarr
N694RS
235/320

"Flight by machines heavier = than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly = impossible"
-Simon Newcomb, 1902

--- On Thu, = 1/20/11, rwolf99@aol.com <rwolf99@aol.com> = wrote:


From: rwolf99@aol.com = <rwolf99@aol.com>
Subject: [LML] Lithium Batteries and New = Ideas
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, = 2:18 PM

M= ichael wrote:

&= nbsp;

&= lt;<I do not want to start an argument,  but it is frustrating = for people to say they don't like ideas based on out-of-date or = incomplete data.   I am building an experimental aircraft to = test and learn new things, for the pure joy of experimenting.  = Please don't try to stifle experimentation without doing your = research.>>

N= o offense is taken.  No argument is intended.  Just a = clarification.

&= nbsp;

M= y motivation was simply to point out that there is a significant risk = that needs to be researched and mitigated by anyone who wants to make = their own battery pack from new lithium battery cells.  I thought = the original poster of the idea might be unaware of this particular = risk.  I think I qualified my statement by saying that modern = lithium batteries were outside of my area of expertise, and that while = the risk/benefit of building my own battery was not favorable for = me, it might be for him.  That's all.  I suppose I came across = as a wet blanket, but the downside risk is considerable in this = particular case.  He may be a professional battery engineer (or = have a friend who is), knows that it will take a huge amount of effort = to get it right, but be willing to do it anyway.  (Then he can sell = his idea to a battery manufacturer and we'll all be buying his product, = eh?  Capitalism at it's best!)

&= nbsp;

I= 'm doing some things on my Lancair that may make another person = squeamish.  We all are.  But they are different things for = each of us, partly based on our own level of comfort but also based on = our own experience and knowledge.  That's the beauty of the = experimental movement.  We can do what we each think is safe.  = But I welcome anyone who says "this idea of yours may be dangerous, = please check it out and make sure it's safe".  That's all I = was trying to do.

&= nbsp;

I= was also trying to express a legal disclaimer like Brent Regan's = "I am an idiot, I know nothing", which in Brent's case = most of us don't believe anyway.

&= nbsp;

-= Rob Wolf

&= nbsp;

 

------=_NextPart_000_008E_01CBBBF7.FC690B90--