X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:42:23 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.69] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with ESMTP id 5364803 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:16:27 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.69; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=Pqdm0sqCOj1yZBzXJ4/t0jXy1jBSkJ+yz7ouE770mRA9g7uK5iCx/ls/R4e3ybtp; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [72.73.82.72] (helo=[192.168.1.24]) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1RqEsR-0000SY-1N for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:15:51 -0500 From: Colyn Case Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-144--802883807 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fuselage access panel X-Original-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:15:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: <71BEF038-C833-4FB5-99D3-605FA0085418@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da94030be68dc7f30214e4674b7eb9ee4354c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 72.73.82.72 --Apple-Mail-144--802883807 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 non-ferrous would also work.... On Jan 25, 2012, at 7:06 PM, Bill Hogarty wrote: Just a short note to add to this thread....I ended up having to change = all the metal nutplates to nonmetallic fasteners for this panel because = of magnetic 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 of a change of subject to justify changing the title. > I have an ES and the access panel was already installed as part of the = "fast 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 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 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 >=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 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, weakens the rear fuselage. At least two IV-P=92s = have developed structural cracks from the opening back to the horizontal = tail. As far as I know, we=92ve not lost an airplane due to this, but on = the other hand, we=92ve probably been lucky=85 To the casual observer, = this seems such a trivial mod=97the opening is only about 8=94 x 12=94 = or so=97but the cover is designed to be a part of the fuselage = structure=85an important part. It can=92t work that way if not secured = all the way around it=92s perimeter. > =20 > Hope this helps! >=20 > Bob --Apple-Mail-144--802883807 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Just a = short note to add to this thread....I ended up having to change all the = metal nutplates to nonmetallic fasteners for this panel because of = magnetic interference.  Lot of work.  Something to think = about.

Regards, Bill = Hogarty




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

This thread was = called "oxygen tank location", but perhaps this is enough of a change of = subject to justify changing the title.
I have an ES and the = access panel was already installed as part of the "fast 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 = 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 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, weakens = the rear fuselage. At least two IV-P=92s have developed structural = cracks from the opening back to the horizontal tail. As far as I know, we=92ve not lost an airplane due to this, but = on the other hand, we=92ve probably been = lucky=85  To the casual observer, this seems such = a trivial mod=97the opening is only about 8=94 x 12=94 or so=97but the = cover is designed to be a part of the fuselage structure=85an important = part. It can=92t work that way if not secured all the way around it=92s = perimeter.
 
Hope this helps!