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 nm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.94.237.213] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with SMTP id 5364170 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:50:13 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.94.237.213; envelope-from=pbricker@att.net Received: from [66.94.237.196] by nm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jan 2012 16:49:37 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.101] by tm7.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jan 2012 16:49:37 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1006.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jan 2012 16:49:37 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 939486.15570.bm@omp1006.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 61363 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2012 16:49:37 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: lbhKz08VM1kA1Q82TaFH7rWPicP3y3AdXsAbJVMkycjqU0S nFuxjO1sBW69r6_u7V_9sqN2_gppu9QyBm0LygwtCZB3.qR2jQUhVJP6rGLc hDwZqm.0GUgqrH0d1uk_hfpiUkGGM9zYrHWXCWnk_ygpRlEUdh4F9jKZYd1K nuA_0LcdJgenbXKY0MF1rIciLF1bwPT9n.OA7E.65UAdAkFpuZs.jNtDYkru k7hio_w0hzDmS1SmS3rIB0Qp2JJekgXdxa7HV8DNSMzyBDxuq._izmhavsNm cXEil4B_AszXOxjYNviyjoAfjsCNXj69m00hwFtggD.XuPObqMqskMtnUMqQ pFcSQ9t_pPBDS8Hx8Mc9hXRc0bFDrtxjlAQ70Rg4YfK0xed3PbUn1mfE8_4l NIFq3s6kFXhbActBOL5wQMTMapHhKlN8UM3M- X-Yahoo-SMTP: E_DOnNaswBA_C3UUkqdGieqw9axmS6GTFECYQXU- Received: from [192.168.1.69] (pbricker@76.206.248.200 with login) by smtp106.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2012 08:49:36 -0800 PST User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 X-Original-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:49:24 -0800 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fuselage access panel From: Paul Bricker X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Fuselage access panel In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3410326176_196825416" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3410326176_196825416 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Gary, I was lucky enough to get the SB before paint so changing to #8 screws wasn't that big a deal. Even if I had been in paint I would have done it. First, that is the most vulnerable area in the ES design. Second, almost al= l SBs are the result of people experience in the field. Do what you can to save the paint, but implement the bulletin. If you carefully enlarge the countersink you may be able to do it without chipping the paint. Paul Bricker From: Gary Casey Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:18:04 -0500 To: Subject: [LML] Re: Fuselage access panel 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 "fas= t build," so I left it alone. During the building process I received a bulletin 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 wonde= r if I should have. Of course, now there is a paint issue, but maybe the structural integrity issue would make it worthwhile changing. I could also add the large stainless washers to it and that should further increase the strength - 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 fuselage structure than the IV. Gary Casey 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 for easier access. Turns out this panel is a part of the fuselage structure= , and not mounting it with multiple screws, as specified in the plans, weaken= s the rear fuselage. At least two IV-P=B9s have developed structural cracks fro= m the opening back to the horizontal tail. As far as I know, we=B9ve not lost a= n airplane due to this, but on the other hand, we=B9ve probably been lucky=8A To the casual observer, this seems such a trivial mod=8Bthe opening is only abou= t 8=B2 x 12=B2 or so=8Bbut the cover is designed to be a part of the fuselage structure=8Aan important part. It can=B9t work that way if not secured all the way around it=B9s perimeter. =20 Hope this helps! Bob =20 --B_3410326176_196825416 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Gary,
I was lucky en= ough to get the SB before paint so changing to #8 screws wasn't that big a d= eal. Even if I had been in paint I would have done it. First, that is the mo= st vulnerable area in the ES design. Second, almost all SBs are the result o= f people experience in the field. Do what you can to save the paint, but imp= lement the bulletin. If you carefully enlarge the countersink you may be abl= e to do it without chipping the paint.

Paul Bricker=

From: Gary Casey &l= t;casey.gary@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:18:04 -0500
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject:= [LML] Re: Fuselage access panel

<= div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:bookman old style,= new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">
This thread was called "ox= ygen tank location", but perhaps this is enough of a change of subject to ju= stify changing the title.
I have an ES and the access panel was al= ready installed as part of the "fast build," so I left it alone.  Durin= g the building process I received a bulletin 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 structural integrity issue would = make it worthwhile changing.  I could also add the large stainless wash= ers to it and that should further increase the strength - and hurt the styli= ng.  Should I change these out?  Note that the ES has a much large= r 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 where some bu= ilders decided it would be nice to have the aft fuselage inspection panel hi= nged and latched for easier access. Turns out this panel is a part of the fu= selage structure, and not mounting it with multiple screws, as specified in = the plans, weakens the rear fuselage. At least two IV-P’s have develop= ed structural cracks from the opening back to the horizontal tail. As far as I know, we’ve not lost an airplane due to this, but = on the other hand, we’ve probably been lucky…  <= /span>To the casual observer, this seems such a trivial mod—the openin= g is only about 8” x 12” or so—but the cover is designed t= o be a part of the fuselage structure…an important part. It can’= t work that way if not secured all the way around it’s perimeter.
 
Hope this helps!

= Bob
 --B_3410326176_196825416--