Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 07:52:22 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-6352830@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.136.218.217; envelope-from=kyrilian_av@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Secondary canopy latch (Legacy)
References: <list-6347288@logan.com>
From: Kyrilian Dyer <kyrilian_av@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <list-6347288@logan.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)

Thanks Charley
I'm not quite envisioning what you mean by shimming the striker plates close=
 together.  Do you mean you shimmed between the striker plates and the canop=
y to close the gap between the plates and the latch receptacle, to increase t=
he bite of the hooks?
- Kyrilian

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 24, 2013, at 11:32 PM, Charles Brown <browncc1@verizon.net> wrote:

> I had an early issue with over-center, but solved it by shimming the strik=
er plates so they're very close together, and carefully setting the hooks to=
 go as far as possible in the "engage" direction while leaving *just enough*=
 "retract" travel to get the canopy open.  So I don't use a secondary latch.=

>=20
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Kyrilian Dyer wrote:
>=20
> Just curious how many people have installed some sort of secondary locking=
 feature onto the interior canopy handle to reduce the chance of opening in f=
light.  If so, would you be willing to share (pictures, description, etc)?  I=
f not, do you feel the over-center feature provides sufficient protection?
>=20
> Thanks for any feedback.
>=20
> - Kyrilian
> L2K-236
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm=
l
>=20
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm=
l