X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:14:45 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from omr-d07.mx.aol.com ([205.188.109.204] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTPS id 6491307 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:57:59 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.109.204; envelope-from=n5276j@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.73]) by omr-d07.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 674BC70128D81 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-mld004c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mld004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.122.82]) by mtaomg-mb02.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 2811FE000090 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:57:24 -0400 (EDT) References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Question on Legacy MG Strut In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: steve X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8D088E83953AF3C_1E48_2E9E1_webmail-m151.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 38079-STANDARD Received: from 70.193.194.203 by webmail-m151.sysops.aol.com (64.12.101.140) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:57:23 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8D088E8394566F6-1E48-D1A1@webmail-m151.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [70.193.194.203] X-Original-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:57:24 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d29495244596452ca This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8D088E83953AF3C_1E48_2E9E1_webmail-m151.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Steve, I would think the 320-360 strut would be less complicated then Legacy. Anot= her reason I sent mine in for OH it was a 1989-1990 model sitting around un= used for over 20 years. Given I couldn't get parts and wanted the self cent= ering option I bit the bullet. Now that I have all the updated parts I wil= l disassemble it when the time comes and do as Mike has done. I personally= feel more secure when I have supervised a repair. All design changes shoul= d be easy assessable and available. Is that not why we have repairmen certi= ficates? Lancair does have a right to charge a fee for the parts but it sh= ould be reasonable. There will still be plenty of owners that will prefer = Lancair OH it. Steve Alderman N25SA 360 -----Original Message----- From: Steve Colwell To: lml Sent: Thu, Sep 26, 2013 8:28 am Subject: [LML] Question on Legacy MG Strut I have a ESCO P/N NGO-2000, S/N: 2107 nose gear strut on our Legacy. I don= =E2=80=99t know if it is the same as Mike=E2=80=99s but I hope it is since = it does look simple. The disassembled strut Scott showed us looked more co= mplicated as I recall. Scott=E2=80=99s point was many design changes had b= een made so upgrades, parts and reassembly is critical. =20 Speaking of motorcycles, I am restoring a 1983 BMW R80ST. I would like to = upgrade the forks with something like a Gold Valve mod. (Off list, any adv= ice?) =20 Steve =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of stev= e Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 6:33 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Question on Legacy MG Strut =20 I'm with Mike on this. I should be able to fix my own strut. I did have lan= cair OH it before I first flew, $800 plus shipping and a couple of weeks do= wn time for the 320-360 . I would like the option of choice .Steve maybe ri= ght about many ways to screw it up but so is the rest of the airplane with = far more danger. I built the engine from scratch and is a lot more complica= ted then a strut.=20 =20 Steve Alderman N25SA 360 =20 -----Original Message----- From: marv To: lml Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 12:06 pm Subject: [LML] Re: Question on Legacy MG Strut Posted for Mike Larkin : > Steve, >=20 > Really, have you ever opened one if these up? I have, it's very basic. = A > modern motorcycle strut is much more complicated. The bottom line is I > should be able to buy wear parts from Lancair! I should not be told that > you wont sell me parts you have on hand. >=20 > Attached are some interior photos of a nose strut. I have part numbers a= nd > local suppliers for all the needed wear parts. And I made the special to= ol > used to take the strut apart. Total cost $25. >=20 > Mike Larkin >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Steve Colwell wro= te: >=20 >> I=E2=80=99m with Colyn on this, if Lancair wants to keep Strut repair in= house I >> don=E2=80=99t think it is about revenue on Struts. At the last Lancair = fly-in in >> Redmond a few years ago, Scott Decker who was the strut specialist, walk= ed >> us thru the many running changes that had been made. There are a lot of >> ways to screw up if you do-it-yourself. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Steve Colwell Legacy RG**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] *On Behalf O= f >> *Colyn Case >> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 25, 2013 7:59 AM >> *To:* Lancair Mailing List >> *Subject:* [LML] Re: Undeliverable mail: Re: [LML] Re: Question on Legac= y >> MG Strut**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I'm not sure of all the issues here but I can imagine Lancair needing to >> make tough decisions where to put their resources. In any case, I susp= ect >> more money flows into Lancair from the President than flows out.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Sep 25, 2013, at 7:51 AM, Mike's Gmail wrote:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The funny thing! I use to be able to buy seal kits from Lancair. Now >> that the President of Lancair owns the landing gear company, you no long= er >> can. In my world we call that a monopoly or conflict of interest. Not >> very good for business. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> A hangar mate across the way got so pissed about this he just sold his E= S. >> Said if you can work with the company that made your airplane parts I'm >> selling, and he did!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> Mike Larkin**** >> >> ** ** >> >> 424LL >> >> Sent from my iPhone**** >> >> >> On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Paul Miller wrote:***= * >> >> I found your note on the liability waiver and refusal to provide >> instructions an interesting position by Lancair. I'd like to expand the >> topic and make a few comments about owners being able to maintain their >> aircraft in an airworthy condition. I have personal and group involveme= nt >> in this matter with certified aircraft.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> For decades the alphabet groups and FAA and manufacturers have been >> fighting over the FARs that requires type certificated US aircraft >> manufacturers to make available airworthiness instructions to the "owner= " >> so that the aircraft can be maintained in an airworthy condition at all >> times. This means instructions, parts availability, CRMs and more. Man= y >> manufacturers have gone to extremes to satisfy that requirement.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Some firms like Airbus do not want to disclose proprietary data and have >> purposely not adhered to the FARs in this respect and forced owners to >> overhaul or replace parts at great expense. Those battles continue. >> Conversely, companies like Beech and Cessna have long made the parts and >> data available and Cessna will even cross-reference Cessna part numbers = for >> original part numbers so you can go source the original or generic part >> needed (o-rings, motors, brushes etc). King Air landing gear (for >> example) is arguably more complex than an ESCO strut but the Beech gear = can: >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> a) be exchanged at Beech or**** >> >> b) sent to any shop of your choice qualified in that category or**** >> >> c) repaired and overhauled in your own hangar.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> That's because Beech makes available to owners and shops all the Compone= nt >> Repair Manuals and instructions needed to accomplish the tasks.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> While Lancairs may be different because of the experimental category, >> these aircraft must still be maintained in an airworthy condition. >> Therefore, I would argue that Lancair should make the data available to >> any owner or shop so that Lancairs can be maintained in an airworthy >> condition whether it be repairs, overhauls, inspections or whatever is >> needed to ensure airworthiness. Those procedures and the parts necessar= y >> to maintain them are part of what makes the Lancair an airplane--not jus= t >> the original kit.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> If I were running the ship, I'd do whatever I can to make the operating >> costs for Lancairs as low as possible. I'd publish and sell a complete = set >> of manuals for overhaul and repair instructions (as TCM does for the >> engine) plus I'd offer to perform the work in-house as well (if that mak= es >> sense). That makes for a very happy owner group and keeps costs under >> control and allows everyone in the world to maintain an airworthy airpla= ne. >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> It is the owner's airplane, the owner's strut and the owner's >> responsibility to maintain it in an airworthy condition. The data to ke= ep >> it airworthy is not proprietary and should not be locked away in someone >> else's cabinet. That's just wrong.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I could be wrong but I look forward to comments on that position and I >> suggest anyone looking to buy any airplane simply ask where all the >> instructions for continued airworthiness reside. The answers can be >> revealing.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Paul**** >> >> On 24 September 2013 04:19, Valin & Allyson Thorn > > wrote:**** >> >> Paul,**** >> >> Normally this work is done by Lancair and that is their strong >> preference. We wanted to do it ourselves for its educational value. Af= ter >> some deliberations, Lancair agreed and required us signing a liability >> waiver and they would provide absolutely no instructions but would sell = us >> the seals.**** >> >> ** ** >> >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Mike Larkin > LarkinAviationConsulting > LegacyL2K@gmail.com > 602-770-6054 -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html =20 ----------MB_8D088E83953AF3C_1E48_2E9E1_webmail-m151.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Steve,
 
I would think the 320-360 strut would be less complicated then Le= gacy. Another reason I sent mine in for OH it was a 1989-1990 model sitting= around unused for over 20 years. Given I couldn't get parts and wante= d the self centering option I bit the bullet.  Now that I have all the= updated parts I will disassemble it when the time comes and do as Mike has= done.  I personally feel more secure when I have supervised a repair.= All design changes should be easy assessable and available. Is that n= ot why we have repairmen certificates?  Lancair does have a right= to charge a fee for the parts but it should be reasonable. There will= still be plenty of owners  that will prefer Lanca= ir OH it.
 
Steve   Alderman  N25SA   360
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Colwell <mcmess1919@yahoo.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, Sep 26, 2013 8:28 am
Subject: [LML] Question on Legacy MG Strut

I h= ave a ESCO P/N NGO-2000, S/N: 2107 nose gear strut on our Legacy.  I d= on=E2=80=99t know if it is the same as Mike=E2=80=99s but I hope it is sinc= e it does look simple.  The disassembled strut Scott showed us looked = more complicated as I recall.  Scott=E2=80=99s point was many design c= hanges had been made so upgrades, parts and reassembly is critical.  <= /span>
Spe= aking of motorcycles, I am restoring a 1983 BMW R80ST.  I would like t= o upgrade the forks with something like a Gold Valve mod.  (Off list, = any advice?)
&nb= sp;
Ste= ve
&nb= sp;
= From: Lancair Mai= ling List [mailto:lml@lancaironli= ne.net] On Behalf Of steve
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 6:33 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Question on Legacy MG Strut
 
I'm= with Mike on this. I should be able to fix my own strut. I did have lancai= r OH it before I first flew, $800 plus shipping and a couple of weeks down = time for the 320-360 . I would like the option of choice .Steve&n= bsp;maybe right about many ways to screw it up but so is the rest= of the airplane with far more danger. I built the engine from sc= ratch and is a lot more complicated then a strut.
&nb= sp;
Ste= ve Alderman    N25SA  360
&nb= sp;
-----Original Message-----
From: marv <marv@lancair.net>=
To: lml
Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 12:06 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: Question on Legacy MG Strut
Posted for Mike Larkin <legacyl2k@gmail.com>:

> Steve,
>
> Really, have you ever opened one if these up?  I have, it's = very basic.  A
> modern motorcycle strut is much more complicated.  The botto= m line is I
> should be able to buy wear parts from Lancair!  I should not= be told that
> you wont sell me parts you have on hand.
>
> Attached are some interior photos of a nose strut.  I have p= art numbers and
> local suppliers for all the needed wear parts.  And I made t= he special tool
> used to take the strut apart. Total cost $25.
>
> Mike Larkin
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Steve Colwell <mcmess1919@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I=E2=80=99m with Colyn on this, if Lancair wants to keep Strut rep= air in house I
>> don=E2=80=99t think it is about revenue on Struts.  At t= he last Lancair fly-in in
>> Redmond a few years ago, Scott Decker who was the strut specialist= , walked
>> us thru the many running changes that had been made.  Th= ere are a lot of
>> ways to screw up if you do-it-yourself.  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Steve Colwell  Legacy RG****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] *On Behalf Of
>> *Colyn Case
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 25, 2013 7:59 AM
>> *To:* Lancair Mailing List
>> *Subject:* [LML] Re: Undeliverable mail: Re: [LML] Re: Question on= Legacy
>> MG Strut****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I'm not sure of all the issues here but I can imagine Lancair need= ing to
>> make tough decisions where to put their resources.   In = any case, I suspect
>> more money flows into Lancair from the President than flows out.**= **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 7:51 AM, Mike's Gmail wrote:****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The funny thing!  I use to be able to buy seal kits from= Lancair.  Now
>> that the President of Lancair owns the landing gear company, you n= o longer
>> can.  In my world we call that a monopoly or conflict of= interest.  Not
>> very good for business.  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> A hangar mate across the way got so pissed about this he just sold= his ES.
>>  Said if you can work with the company that made your ai= rplane parts I'm
>> selling, and he did!****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Mike Larkin****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> 424LL
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone****
>>
>>
>> On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Paul Miller <pjdmiller@gmail.com> wrote:****
>>
>> I found your note on the liability waiver and refusal to provide >> instructions an interesting position by Lancair.  I'd li= ke to expand the
>> topic and make a few comments about owners being able to maintain = their
>> aircraft in an airworthy condition.  I have personal and= group involvement
>> in this matter with certified aircraft.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> For decades the alphabet groups and FAA and manufacturers have bee= n
>> fighting over the FARs that requires type certificated US aircraft=
>> manufacturers to make available airworthiness instructions to the = "owner"
>> so that the aircraft can be maintained in an airworthy condition a= t all
>> times.  This means instructions, parts availability, CRM= s and more.  Many
>> manufacturers have gone to extremes to satisfy that requirement.**= **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Some firms like Airbus do not want to disclose proprietary data an= d have
>> purposely not adhered to the FARs in this respect and forced owner= s to
>> overhaul or replace parts at great expense.  Those battl= es continue.
>> Conversely, companies like Beech and Cessna have long made the par= ts and
>> data available and Cessna will even cross-reference Cessna part nu= mbers for
>> original part numbers so you can go source the original or generic= part
>> needed  (o-rings, motors, brushes etc).  King = Air landing gear (for
>> example) is arguably more complex than an ESCO strut but the Beech= gear can:
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>  a) be exchanged at Beech or****
>>
>>  b) sent to any shop of your choice qualified in that ca= tegory or****
>>
>>  c) repaired and overhauled in your own hangar.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> That's because Beech makes available to owners and shops all the C= omponent
>> Repair Manuals and instructions needed to accomplish the tasks.***= *
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> While Lancairs may be different because of the experimental catego= ry,
>> these aircraft must still be maintained in an airworthy condition.=
>>  Therefore, I would argue that Lancair should make the d= ata available to
>> any owner or shop so that Lancairs can be maintained in an airwort= hy
>> condition whether it be repairs, overhauls, inspections or whateve= r is
>> needed to ensure airworthiness.  Those procedures and th= e parts necessary
>> to maintain them are part of what makes the Lancair an airplane--n= ot just
>> the original kit.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> If I were running the ship, I'd do whatever I can to make the oper= ating
>> costs for Lancairs as low as possible.  I'd publish and = sell a complete set
>> of manuals for overhaul and repair instructions (as TCM does for t= he
>> engine) plus I'd offer to perform the work in-house as well (if th= at makes
>> sense).  That makes for a very happy owner group and kee= ps costs under
>> control and allows everyone in the world to maintain an airworthy = airplane.
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> It is the owner's airplane, the owner's strut and the owner's
>> responsibility to maintain it in an airworthy condition. &nbs= p;The data to keep
>> it airworthy is not proprietary and should not be locked away in s= omeone
>> else's cabinet.  That's just wrong.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I could be wrong but I look forward to comments on that position a= nd I
>> suggest anyone looking to buy any airplane simply ask where all th= e
>> instructions for continued airworthiness reside.   The a= nswers can be
>> revealing.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Paul****
>>
>> On 24 September 2013 04:19, Valin & Allyson Thorn <thorn@starflight.aero
>> > wrote:****
>>
>> Paul,****
>>
>> Normally this work is done by Lancair and that is their strong
>> preference.  We wanted to do it ourselves for its educat= ional value.  After
>> some deliberations, Lancair agreed and required us signing a liabi= lity
>> waiver and they would provide absolutely no instructions but would= sell us
>> the seals.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Larkin
> LarkinAviationConsulting
> LegacyL2K@gmail.com
> 602-770-6054
&nb= sp;
 ----------MB_8D088E83953AF3C_1E48_2E9E1_webmail-m151.sysops.aol.com--