Return-Path: Received: from arl-img-12.compuserve.com ([149.174.217.142]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 19:30:47 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by arl-img-12.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.18) id TAA19388 for lancair.list@olsusa.com; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 19:32:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 19:32:28 -0500 From: Lynda Frantz Subject: MC vs MEK - Gear warner Sender: Lynda Frantz To: "INTERNET:lancair.list@olsusa.com" Message-ID: <199903131932_MC2-6DE3-F8D7@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> My brother is a environmental chemist for Boeing. He says that MEK is better for what we are doing and that MC is an environmental substitute that produces less smog. As I recall California outlawed MEK so Douglas had to go to the next best pollution friendly solvent MC. Boeing in SEA was still using MEK. Unless you need to disolve plastic, stick with MEK I was told. We are selling an AOA that includes a gear warner. See www.angle-of-attack.com if interested. I too am interested in the main gear struts. I would like to comment that if the main gear strut were to compress the prop clearance would increase not decrease as someone suggested. Jim Frantz Lancair Network News