Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:15:34 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com ([204.127.202.62] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b7) with ESMTP id 1710710 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:24:23 -0400 Received: from attbi.com ([66.30.42.21]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020824012423.ZNDF13899.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@attbi.com> for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:24:23 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <3D66DFA6.38705C61@attbi.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:21:42 -0400 From: "Angier M. Ames" Reply-To: N2811A@attbi.com Organization: Alpha Delta Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: " (Lancair Mailing List)" Subject: Re: LNC2 Rudder References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK, OK, I religiously practice the no drink an fly rule, unlike those morons from Southwest... but I'm sitting here in my workshop after a hard day of making ribs and spars for my tail, with a beer in EACH hand, staring at the rear end of my plane, and looking forward... I see that the exit point molded into the fuselage for the right rudder cable is .53" lower than the exit point for the left cable. Since I've heard no discussion on this list concerning this topic, I have come to the conclusion after only two beers, that the .53" difference was designed into the fuselage intentionally, for the singleminded purpose of making the plane go faster! Am I right? Did I pass the test? Angier Ames