Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:31:57 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-2608649@logan.com>
Disposition-Notification-To: "Angier M. Ames" <N2811a@comcast.net>
From: "Angier M. Ames" <N2811a@comcast.net>
Reply-To:  N2811a@comcast.net
Organization: Alpha Delta Research
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Elevator balance
References: <98371B26-F2D6-11D7-9484-000393C2C1A6@dynacomm.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Lorn,

I do agree with you completely.
But the trick will be to somehow make provision for additional weight 
being added to the counterweight arm after all the pretty paint and 
clearcoat, etc.

Angier

Lorn H. Olsen wrote:

>> Posted for "Angier M. Ames" <N2811a@comcast.net>:
>> .
>> .
>> The manual (the one I stopped reading several years ago) states 100% 
>> mass balance will be achieved when the counterweight arm hangs 1/2" 
>> to 3/4" low with all bits and pieces of hardware attached. Presumably 
>> this overwieght position is to account for the extra weight of paint, 
>> etc.
>
>
> It would be deadly to assume that 1/2" to 3/4" counterweight low would 
> be enough to balance final painting and assembly.
>
> The elevators MUST be balanced after the painting and final assembly. 
> You can not assume that any amount of over balance will compensate for 
> the paint and final assembly, whatever that assembly might be.
> --
> Lorn H. 'Feathers' Olsen, MAA, DynaComm, Corp.
> 248-478-4301, mailto:lorn@dynacomm.ws
> LNC2, O-320-D1F, N31161, Y47, SE Michigan
>
>