X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:35:37 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from bay0-omc2-s28.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.164] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with ESMTP id 2284268 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:32:42 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.246.164; envelope-from=joscales98@hotmail.com Received: from hotmail.com ([65.55.135.26]) by bay0-omc2-s28.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:32:05 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:32:05 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: Received: from 75.81.226.134 by BAY130-DAV16.phx.gbl with DAV; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:32:01 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [75.81.226.134] X-Originating-Email: [joscales98@hotmail.com] X-Sender: joscales98@hotmail.com From: "Jim Scales" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: ES Strut issues X-Original-Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:32:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0073_01C7E70B.910021F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.50.0039.1900 Seal-Send-Time: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:32:06 -0500 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2007 16:32:05.0241 (UTC) FILETIME=[78FBF690:01C7E735] X-Original-Return-Path: joscales98@hotmail.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C7E70B.910021F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gary, I checked the alignment on the strut when I reinstalled it during the = annual. It is set right at 1.5 front to rear, 0 side to side. I agree = with you that there is something in the ES that is prone to produce this = shake. Finding it is the difficult part. I believe that whatever it is = the flaw is present in most of the ES models that are flying. There are = too many reports of this problem for it to be coincidence. Thanks, Jim ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gary Casey=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 9:07 AM Subject: [LML] Re: ES Strut issues Jim,=20 Since you have done all the logical things without effect, I'm = wondering if there isn't something "built-in" that is causing the = problem, like geometry. The only geometry issue I can think of is the = strut rake angle. The correct angle was the subject of some debate a = while back. All I know is that I set mine at +1.5 degrees (lower end = forward) and I have never had a trace of shimmy. The previous = discussion, as I recall didn't result in a definitive answer, but 0 to = +1.5 or so seemed to be the "correct" rake angle. I have the rebuilt = strut since new and have a different engine mount (for a Lycoming) and = either of those might make a difference, although I'm pretty sure my = engine mount is not more rigid than the standard one. While my strut is = not held laterally any better it is probably more rigid in the = fore-and-aft direction because of the different drag link design. Gary Casey ES #157=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C7E70B.910021F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gary,
 
I checked the alignment on the strut when I reinstalled it during = the=20 annual.  It is set right at 1.5 front to rear, 0 side to = side.  I=20 agree with you that there is something in the ES that is prone to = produce this=20 shake.  Finding it is the difficult part.  I believe that = whatever it=20 is the flaw is present in most of the ES models that are = flying. =20 There are too many reports of this problem for it to be = coincidence.
 
Thanks,
 
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary=20 Casey
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 = 9:07=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: ES Strut = issues

Jim,=20
Since you have done all the logical things without effect, I'm = wondering=20 if there isn't something "built-in" that is causing the problem, like=20 geometry.  The only geometry issue I can think of is the strut = rake=20 angle.  The correct angle was the subject of some debate a while=20 back.  All I know is that I set mine at +1.5 degrees (lower end = forward)=20 and I have never had a trace of shimmy.  The previous discussion, = as I=20 recall didn't result in a definitive answer, but 0 to +1.5 or so = seemed to be=20 the "correct" rake angle.  I have the rebuilt strut since new and = have a=20 different engine mount (for a Lycoming) and either of those might make = a=20 difference, although I'm pretty sure my engine mount is not more rigid = than=20 the standard one.  While my strut is not held laterally any = better it is=20 probably more rigid in the fore-and-aft direction because of the = different=20 drag link design.
Gary Casey
ES #157=20

 
------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C7E70B.910021F0--