X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:50:31 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.12.143.99] (HELO imo-m11.mail.aol.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3503394 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:47:10 -0500 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v39.1.) id q.c14.58b59f03 (39952) for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:47:03 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:47:03 EST Subject: Re: [LML] forward hinge canopy bid thickness LN360 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1235173623" X-Mailer: AOL 9.1 sub 5003 X-Spam-Flag:NO -------------------------------1235173623 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Doug, Not exactly a problem of thickness, but one of stiffness. The original specification was not adequate and I added a bar of 1/4" foam and many additional layers of unidirectional carbon to provide stiffness across the center of the canopy between the hinge attachments. I had problems with the gas springs squeezing the canopy edges inboard and causing the center to bend (and lift) slightly. Bi-directional with only add weight as it is the unidirectional running from side to side that will add to the needed stiffness. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) In a message dated 2/20/2009 12:51:20 P.M. Central Standard Time, dbaleshta@tru.ca writes: Hi folks, the forward hinge canopy calls for up to 18 bid of unidirectional carbon fiber. I measured the thickness and according to the plans it should be around .140". The only unidirectional fiber I've found measures in at .023, or about 7 bid. Has anyone else come across this and what did you do? Did any of you use bi-directional CF with any problems? Thanks Doug -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID %3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62) -------------------------------1235173623 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Doug,
 
Not exactly a problem of thickness, but one of stiffness.  The=20 original specification was not adequate and I added a bar of 1/4" foam and m= any=20 additional layers of unidirectional carbon to provide stiffness across the=20 center of the canopy between the hinge attachments.  I had problems wit= h=20 the gas springs squeezing the canopy edges inboard and causing the center to= =20 bend (and lift) slightly.  Bi-directional with only add weight as it is= the=20 unidirectional running from side to side that will add to the needed=20 stiffness.
 
Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL=20 (KARR)

In a message dated 2/20/2009 12:51:20 P.M. Central Stan= dard=20 Time, dbaleshta@tru.ca writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>Hi=20 folks, the forward hinge canopy calls for up to 18 bid of unidirectional=20 carbon fiber.  I measured the thickness and according to the plans it= =20 should be around .140".  The only unidirectional fiber I've found=20 measures in at .023, or about 7 bid.  Has anyone else come across thi= s=20 and what did you do?  Did any of you use bi-directional CF with any=20 problems?

Thanks
Doug

--
For archives and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html=20
 

<= b>A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! -------------------------------1235173623--