X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:06:14 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-pz0-f52.google.com ([209.85.210.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with ESMTPS id 5364238 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:31:55 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.210.52; envelope-from=billhogarty@gmail.com Received: by dadp14 with SMTP id p14so10948408dad.25 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:31:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.208.228 with SMTP id mh4mr646785pbc.13.1327512678006; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:31:18 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.6.114] ([64.134.236.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lk11sm4023115pbb.0.2012.01.25.09.31.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:31:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fuselage access panel References: From: Bill Hogarty Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-0DC5AAC3-6936-4107-ABBC-DDE8ED7047C5 X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9A405) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: <74046EBC-70AA-4ABF-B859-0C1A544F5C3C@gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:31:13 -0800 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-0DC5AAC3-6936-4107-ABBC-DDE8ED7047C5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Just a short note to add to this thread....I ended up having to change all t= he metal nutplates to nonmetallic fasteners for this panel because of magnet= ic interference. Lot of work. Something to think about. Regards, Bill Hogarty On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Gary Casey wrote: > This thread was called "oxygen tank location", but perhaps this is enough o= f a change of subject to justify changing the title. > I have an ES and the access panel was already installed as part of the "fa= st build," so I left it alone. During the building process I received a bul= letin that recommended changing the #6 screws to #8 in order to increase the= strength and stiffness of the access port. I didn't do it, but I wonder if= I should have. Of course, now there is a paint issue, but maybe the struct= ural integrity issue would make it worthwhile changing. I could also add th= e large stainless washers to it and that should further increase the strengt= h - and hurt the styling. Should I change these out? Note that the ES has a= much larger horizontal stab and therefore might be more sensitive to fusela= ge structure than the IV. > Gary Casey >=20 > We have a classic example in the IV-P world where some builders decided it= would be nice to have the aft fuselage inspection panel hinged and latched f= or easier access. Turns out this panel is a part of the fuselage structure, a= nd not mounting it with multiple screws, as specified in the plans, weakens t= he rear fuselage. At least two IV-P=E2=80=99s have developed structural crac= ks from the opening back to the horizontal tail. As far as I know, we=E2=80=99= ve not lost an airplane due to this, but on the other hand, we=E2=80=99ve pr= obably been lucky=E2=80=A6 To the casual observer, this seems such a trivia= l mod=E2=80=94the opening is only about 8=E2=80=9D x 12=E2=80=9D or so=E2=80= =94but the cover is designed to be a part of the fuselage structure=E2=80=A6= an important part. It can=E2=80=99t work that way if not secured all the way= around it=E2=80=99s perimeter. > =20 > Hope this helps! >=20 > Bob --Apple-Mail-0DC5AAC3-6936-4107-ABBC-DDE8ED7047C5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Just a short note to add t= o this thread....I ended up having to change all the metal nutplates to nonm= etallic fasteners for this panel because of magnetic interference.  Lot= of work.  Something to think about.

Regards, B= ill Hogarty




On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:= 18 PM, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yah= oo.com> wrote:

This thread was called= "oxygen tank location", but perhaps this is enough of a change of subject t= o justify changing the title.
I have an ES and the access panel wa= s already installed as part of the "fast build," so I left it alone.  D= uring the building process I received a bulletin that recommended changing t= he #6 screws to #8 in order to increase the strength and stiffness of the ac= cess port.  I didn't do it, but I wonder if I should have.  Of cou= rse, now there is a paint issue, but maybe the structural integrity issue wo= uld make it worthwhile changing.  I could also add the large stainless w= ashers to it and that should further increase the strength - and hurt the st= yling.  Should I change these out?  Note that the ES has a much la= rger horizontal stab and therefore might be more sensitive to fuselage structure than the IV.
Gary Casey

We have a classic example in the IV-P world wher= e some builders decided it would be nice to have the aft fuselage inspection= panel hinged and latched for easier access. Turns out this panel is a part o= f the fuselage structure, and not mounting it with multiple screws, as speci= fied in the plans, weakens the rear fuselage. At least two IV-P=E2=80=99s ha= ve developed structural cracks from the opening back to the horizontal tail. As far as I know, we=E2=80=99ve not lost an airplane due to this, but= on the other hand, we=E2=80=99ve probably been lucky=E2=80=A6 &n= bsp;To the casual observer, this seems such a trivial mod=E2=80=94the= opening is only about 8=E2=80=9D x 12=E2=80=9D or so=E2=80=94but the cover i= s designed to be a part of the fuselage structure=E2=80=A6an important part.= It can=E2=80=99t work that way if not secured all the way around it=E2=80=99= s perimeter.
 
Hope this helps!