Message-ID: <001e01be9635$e34474a0$9fc295cf@bill>
From: "William T Bartlett" <wtbart@olympus.net>
To: <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
References: <19990504045307.AAA18550@truman.olsusa.com>
Subject: Re: Brake Lining: Cleveland or Matco
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 06:55:14 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Word of caution. My first set of Matcos lasted about 80 hrs., but I let
them wear a little too much and on a landing the piston hung and with the
light weight, in ground effect, my tire was cut through the cord. This
left an impressive trail of smoke (no I didn't have my foot on the
brake).  The expected swerve didn't happen because the brake disk is so
near the diameter of the tire that the plane rode fine on it. Rudder held
direction 'till a low speed. I had owned a Yankee and made a no-go gage
that would tell me when the lining was worn to the rivets, and since the
lining was the  same I used the same system for the Matco. On the Matco
the piston will cock and hang sometimes (well at least once) if you let the
lining wear that far. I am now using a much cheaper (but exotic)
aftermarket lining that has 120 hrs. on it and shows little wear. The outfit
advertises in trade a plane, but I have forgotten their name. I have
gotten better with brakes and don't use them unless I'm below 20 K
because it is so easy to lock them and get a flat spot on the tire.

Bill N7WB
>
> The Cleveland brake pads seem to work a little better.  They seem to exhibit
> less brake fade.  How they'll wear is still an open question.  I can't
> comment on the chipping problem that you have.
>
> Hal


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML homepage:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html