X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:59:26 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [208.47.184.3] (HELO smtp.embarq.synacor.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with ESMTP id 2280484 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:53:21 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=208.47.184.3; envelope-from=matt.hapgood@alumni.duke.edu Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.embarq.synacor.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA095F358 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:50:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at X-Spam-Score: -0.064 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.064 tagged_above=-10 required=6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.44, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.375] Received: from smtp.embarq.synacor.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp02.embarq.synacor.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ia7YmD3khQap for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aprilia.hapgoods.com (va-65-40-217-234.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.40.217.234]) by smtp.embarq.synacor.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170AB9408B for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Dell690 (Dell690.hapgoods.com [192.168.2.123]) (authenticated bits=0) by aprilia.hapgoods.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l7NFju7s021658 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:45:57 -0400 From: "Matt Hapgood" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] TK5 shocks...the rest of the story X-Original-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:46:08 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <00c901c7e59c$b9674440$2c35ccc0$@hapgood@alumni.duke.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C7E57B.3255A440" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcflmF2ClDaFDvCNQba55PmQIGZ3QQAA7gYw Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C7E57B.3255A440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don't waste the useful load carrying a spare. They are very reliable (probably more so than just about any other part of my plane!). It would be such a time consuming effort to swap and align that you'd be better off using fedex and enjoying the afternoon wherever you are stuck. You don't want to swap without doing multiple gear retract / extension tests, and that takes awhile and requires stands, etc. My experience is comparable to Scott K (landings, and miles, and probably a few with hard bounces!). M From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jim Nordin Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:15 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] TK5 shocks...the rest of the story Tim's note answers my questions. Private comments I've seen backs up Tim's assertion the product is supported to a degree that warrants praise. Doing the math says 5%- 7.5% of the shocks fail for various reasons mostly due to hard landings. We don't have data that indicates the number of landings experienced for these failures however. That information could help evaluate other statistical conclusions. However, Scott K testifies 699 landings and miles of taxiing on less than ideal surfaces without problems . real evidence of a good product. Tim's straight forward answer and user testimony is enough for me. I'll use Tim's debongers . and maybe carry a donut set too. Thank you Tim. Jim Nordin _____ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Timothy Ong Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:40 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] TK5 shocks...the rest of the story Hi Guys, Sorry I've been real busy, but I've had a chance to look over the posts to the LML about the TK5 shocks. Indeed, if the shock has completely failed, it would not be advisable to fly except with the gear down. You will not hurt the shock deflated, but there is the good possibility that the gear will not retract properly. To date there has been over 400 sets sold to Lancair 235, 320, 360 aircraft owners (I'm trying to round up the exact number). This is probably over half the entire flying fleet. Of the failures (approximately 20-30) most were due to hard landings (this is an understatement) at which the aircraft should have been grounded anyway for a thorough inspection. There also have been a couple initial failures to installation errors on my part of seals and are defective components (mostly schraders). These type failures typically fail immediately upon installation. Interestingly enough I dyno test each shock, but for some reason the test does not pick up these failures (still scratching my head on this one). I have a one year warranty that covers any manufacturing defects whatsoever. I have actually warranted shocks that are much older do to the fact they had just begun their flight testing. In the past, if the aircraft has been AOG and not at its home airport, I have FEDEX'd overnight a replacement shock to get the aircraft home and sorted it out later. I have and always will stand behind my products that I design. The TK5 shock has definitely been proven in the market. At only 1.15 lbs, it is definitely the lightest alternative to the donuts. As far as Chris Z's comment that basically only good things are said on the LML about the TK5 shocks because I work for Lancair and that would be burning a big bridge...obviously Chris doesn't know me very well at all. If I've missed answering any of the pertinent questions, please let me know and, I'll try again. Regards, Timothy Ong ------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C7E57B.3255A440 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Don’t waste the useful load carrying a spare.  = They are very reliable (probably more so than just about any other part of my = plane!).  It would be such a time consuming effort to swap and align that you’d = be better off using fedex and enjoying the afternoon wherever you are stuck.  = You don’t want to swap without doing multiple gear retract / extension tests, and = that takes awhile and requires stands, etc.

 

My experience is comparable to Scott K (landings, and = miles, and probably a few with hard bounces!).


M

 

From:= Lancair = Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jim Nordin
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:15 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] TK5 shocks...the rest of the = story

 

Tim’s note answers my questions. Private comments I’ve seen backs up = Tim’s assertion the product is supported to a degree that warrants praise. Doing the = math says 5%- 7.5% of the shocks fail for various reasons mostly due to hard = landings. We don’t have data that indicates the number of landings experienced = for these failures however. That information could help evaluate other statistical = conclusions. However, Scott K testifies 699 landings and miles of taxiing on less = than ideal surfaces without problems … real evidence of a good = product.

 

Tim’s straight forward answer and user testimony is enough for = me.

I’ll use Tim’s debongers … and maybe carry a donut set = too.

Thank you Tim.

Jim Nordin

 

From:= Lancair = Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Timothy Ong
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:40 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] TK5 shocks...the rest of the = story

 

Hi Guys,

 =

Sorry I’ve been real busy, but I’ve had a chance to look over the = posts to the LML about the TK5 shocks.

 =

Indeed, if the shock has completely failed, it would not be advisable to fly = except with the gear down.  You will not hurt the shock deflated, but = there is the good possibility that the gear will not retract = properly.

 =

To date there has been over 400 sets sold to Lancair 235, 320, 360 aircraft = owners (I’m trying to round up the exact number).  This is probably = over half the entire flying fleet.  Of the failures (approximately 20-30) most = were due to hard landings (this is an understatement) at which the aircraft = should have been grounded anyway for a thorough inspection.

 =

There also have been a couple initial failures to installation errors on my = part of seals and are defective components (mostly schraders).  These type failures typically fail immediately upon installation.  = Interestingly enough I dyno test each shock, but for some reason the test does not = pick up these failures (still scratching my head on this = one).

 =

I have a one year warranty that covers any manufacturing defects = whatsoever.  I have actually warranted shocks that are much older do to the fact they = had just begun their flight testing.

 =

In the past, if the aircraft has been AOG and not at its home airport, I = have FEDEX’d overnight a replacement shock to get the aircraft home and = sorted it out later.

 =

I have and always will stand behind my products that I design.  The = TK5 shock has definitely been proven in the market.  At only 1.15 lbs, = it is definitely the lightest alternative to the donuts.

 =

As far as Chris Z’s comment that basically only good things are said = on the LML about the TK5 shocks because I work for Lancair and that would be = burning a big bridge…..obviously Chris doesn’t know me very well at = all.

 =

If I’ve missed answering any of the pertinent questions, please let = me know and, I’ll try again.

 =

Regards,

 =

Timothy Ong

 =

 =

 =

 =

 

------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C7E57B.3255A440--