X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:55:35 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.4) with ESMTP id 5432429 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 13:42:38 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.39; envelope-from=rwolf99@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.75]) by imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q27IfpB8006917 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:41:51 -0500 Received: from core-dqd001b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dqd001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.162.1]) by mtaomg-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 00668E000081 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:41:50 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: RE:LNC2 - Harmonization between pitch and roll X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User MIME-Version: 1.0 From: rwolf99@aol.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CECAA91813BBB7_1EE8_FB52_Webmail-d112.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 35700-STANDARD Received: from 216.207.126.66 by Webmail-d112.sysops.aol.com (205.188.171.229) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 07 Mar 2012 13:41:50 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CECAA917FE4F18-1EE8-3A45@Webmail-d112.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [216.207.126.66] X-Original-Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:41:50 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:365260512:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294b4f57abee0292 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CECAA91813BBB7_1EE8_FB52_Webmail-d112.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Greyhawk -- So I'm a "dim bulb", eh? ;-) Angier -- Your elevator bracket is the older one of the two I mentioned. A= lthough not as old as Scott ... err, I mean "Scott's" (Okay, Scott, we're = even now.) You measured 3.75 inches from the pivot to the pushrod. The new= ones have 2.75 (I measured 2.865 but 2-3/4 is close enough). I would reco= mmend drilling a second hole 1 inch closer than the one you have now. Ther= e is no need to replace the bracket with a new one, and if the hole is alre= ady there, you can swap it easily after flight tests. Although I would sta= rt with the pushrod at the inner location. I was unaware of the early aluminum brackets. This explains why the bracke= t kit I bought for $500 in 1994 had "extra parts". - Rob Wolf ----------MB_8CECAA91813BBB7_1EE8_FB52_Webmail-d112.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Greyhawk -- So I'm a "dim bulb", eh?   ;-)
 
Angier -- Your elevator bracket is the older one of the two I mentione= d.  Although not as old as Scott ... err, I mean "Scott's"  (Okay= , Scott, we're even now.) You measured 3.75 inches from the pivot to the pu= shrod.  The new ones have 2.75 (I measured 2.865 but 2-3/4 is close en= ough).  I would recommend drilling a second hole 1 inch closer than th= e one you have now.  There is no need to replace the bracket with a ne= w one, and if the hole is already there, you can swap it easily after fligh= t tests.  Although I would start with the pushrod at the inner locatio= n.
 
I was unaware of the early aluminum brackets.  This explains why = the bracket kit I bought for $500 in 1994 had "extra parts".
 
- Rob Wolf
----------MB_8CECAA91813BBB7_1EE8_FB52_Webmail-d112.sysops.aol.com--