X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 14:14:56 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [107.14.166.225] (HELO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTP id 6848328 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:36:25 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=107.14.166.225; envelope-from=Wolfgang@MiCom.net X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [74.218.201.50] ([74.218.201.50:1321] helo=lobo) by cdptpa-oedge03 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.0.35861 r(Momo-dev:tip)) with ESMTP id AE/33-10911-7A81C535; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:35:51 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <39ED4C4DCAC9420FA07625419D52E0CB@lobo> From: "Wolfgang" X-Original-To: "Chris Zavatson" , References: Subject: Re: Gear Down...INOP X-Original-Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:35:48 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0053_01CF616D.94984390" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512 X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.142:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0053_01CF616D.94984390 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chris, You sure base a lot of conclusions on one photo.=20 Lorn does not agree with you. (his photo) I do not agree with you.=20 And contrary to your innuendos, I have observed and researched a lot = more than you know. . . . including my own set of test of control forces and longitudinal = stability on the LNC2. And you fail to acknowledge that the pressure could be from the gear = being forced back up in the landing. I detect that you check all possibilities when you want to support = yourself but are not as diligent otherwise. If you are such an evangelist about the pump, why haven't you made any = progress with Lancair ? ?=20 Instead you keep trying to pick on me because you don't like my = position. The only unfortunate thing here is that you still don't want to let it = go and let others make their own conclusions after presenting your = position. Wolfgang ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Chris Zavatson=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 1:47 PM Subject: Gear Down...INOP Chris, Why don't we just agree to disagree. I believe in redundancy and it = looks like you don't.=20 The pressure pulse you're talking about will subside (glad you agree) = and as it does, because the cylinder is only partially extended, the = cylinder will continues to extend, the low switch will close again, and = enable the pump to continue . . . No, the damage has NOT been done. The only way the switch will stay open (the pressure stays high) is if = there is a physical obstruction preventing the from moving down any = further (like when it is full down). Learn to live with the fact that you're not the only one that knows a = thing or two about airplanes. Wolfgang =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Wolfgang, It is unfortunate that you do not have a Lancair and cannot go out and = observe what we are discussing. The extension failure has been observed = by many. The pressure interaction is clearly visible if one has = pressure gauges installed in the panel. It caught your friend Lorn = Olsen off guard and he had a gear up landing because of it. Damage was = definitely done. The photo he posted of his pressure gauges after the = landing very clearly showed the state of the hydraulics during this = failure mode. And no obstruction had to magically appear in his lines = to get it there. Your module will not catch this failure mode. One = switch is open, one is closed, yet the gear is only partially extended. Advocating not correcting a known problem is dangerous. Attempting to = use a patch to correct a problem is not redundancy. When the patch = cannot detect a known failure mode it provides a falls sense of = security. http://www.n91cz.net/Hydraulics/Lancair%20Hydraulics.pdf Chris Zavatson N91CZ 360std www.N91CZ.net ------=_NextPart_000_0053_01CF616D.94984390 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Chris,
 
You sure base a lot of conclusions on = one photo.=20
Lorn does not agree with you. (his=20 photo)
I do not agree with you.
And contrary to your innuendos, I have = observed and=20 researched a lot more than you know.
. . . including my own set of test of = control=20 forces and longitudinal stability on the LNC2.
And you fail to acknowledge that the = pressure could=20 be from the gear being forced back up in the landing.
I detect that you check all = possibilities when you=20 want to support yourself but are not as diligent otherwise.
 
If you are such an evangelist about the = pump, why=20 haven't you made any progress with Lancair ? ?
Instead you keep trying to pick on = me=20 because you don't like my position.
 
The only unfortunate thing here is that = you still=20 don't want to let it go and let others make their own conclusions after=20 presenting your position.
 
Wolfgang
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Chris=20 Zavatson
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 = 1:47=20 PM
Subject: Gear Down...INOP

Chris,
 
Why don't we just agree to disagree. = I believe in=20 redundancy and it looks like you don't.
 
The pressure pulse you're talking = about will=20 subside (glad you agree) and as it does, because the cylinder is only=20 partially extended, the cylinder will continues to extend, the = low switch=20 will close again, and enable the pump to continue . . . No, the damage has NOT been done.
 
The only way the switch will stay = open (the=20 pressure stays high) is if there is a physical obstruction preventing = the from=20 moving down any further (like when it is full down).
 
Learn to live with the fact that = you're not the=20 only one that knows a thing or two about airplanes.
 
Wolfgang
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D
Wolfgang,
It is = unfortunate=20 that you do not have a Lancair and cannot go out and observe what we = are=20 discussing. The extension failure has been observed by many.  The pressure interaction is = clearly=20 visible if one has pressure gauges installed in the panel.  It caught your friend Lorn = Olsen off=20 guard and he had a gear up landing because of it.  Damage was definitely = done.  The photo he posted of his = pressure=20 gauges after the landing very clearly showed the state of the = hydraulics=20 during this failure mode.  And no obstruction had to magically = appear in=20 his lines to get it there.  = Your=20 module will not catch this failure mode. =20 One switch is open, one is closed, yet the gear is only = partially=20 extended.
Advocating=20 not correcting a known problem is dangerous.  Attempting to use a patch to = correct a=20 problem is not redundancy. When the patch cannot detect a known = failure mode=20 it provides a falls sense of security.

http://= www.n91cz.net/Hydraulics/Lancair%20Hydraulics.pdf
=
Chris=20 Zavatson
N91CZ
360std
www.N91CZ.net
------=_NextPart_000_0053_01CF616D.94984390--