X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 10 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:13:02 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web81514.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.34] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.7) with SMTP id 1914613 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 06:51:21 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.199.34; envelope-from=kneadedpleasures@sbcglobal.net Received: (qmail 37171 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Mar 2007 10:50:02 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=23oF2+tyqsuFz1Pq0F7221XgDQkECMuCdLVtbh9VW17E1+UDnBl1LGBe3trPEdtyaSU761zfzvU2Qos9vxXGpHYKD5ezwUALDG3bLp82RBu4B5FinoHVUhA+rRuJpZ7j1uw8zvfwAnI7H2l9ARMZ9zAnM9OebXI3oqPcWXwE588=; X-YMail-OSG: o1nNQBYVM1k3yKgi42SgkOkivjoENlQD6QcHH8q2DiRbefkZwOJzMsMLBEbDxHa4wTbkvun5CYzGRZ6PdFBcyyW3dklTukrMPeXY.WZIVFnxv370hUKsfkzfnTinezL6ZESFomDqJqY- Received: from [71.145.153.47] by web81514.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:50:02 PDT X-Original-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:50:02 -0700 (PDT) From: kneaded pleasures Subject: [LML] Re:235/320/360 nose gear over center drag link X-Original-To: List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1900768684-1173610202=:36232" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Original-Message-ID: <857533.36232.qm@web81514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --0-1900768684-1173610202=:36232 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit It is my impression that very few of these links have been replaced in several tens of thousands of flying hours of the 235/320/360 fleet. If true, then why re-engineer this part? Why not just replace it with new when it shows signs of wear? After 6 years, 400 hours, 1100 landings and, yes, more than my share of inept/abrupt landings, my link shows no sign of elongation or wear. Greg Nelson --0-1900768684-1173610202=:36232 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit It is my impression that very few of these links have been replaced in several tens of thousands of flying hours of the 235/320/360 fleet.  If true, then why re-engineer this part?  Why not just replace it with new when it shows signs of wear?  After 6 years, 400 hours, 1100 landings and, yes, more than my share of inept/abrupt landings, my link shows no sign of elongation or wear.   Greg Nelson --0-1900768684-1173610202=:36232--