Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:03:35 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-2432569@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <glcasey@adelphia.net>
Received: from [64.8.50.196] (HELO mta8.adelphia.net)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b8)
  with ESMTP id 2432495 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:27:31 -0400
Received: from worldwinds ([207.175.254.66]) by mta8.adelphia.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.32 201-253-122-126-132-20030307) with SMTP
          id <20030617122730.YIXG1354.mta8.adelphia.net@worldwinds>
          for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:27:30 -0400
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
X-Original-To: "lancair list" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: parking brake
X-Original-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 05:27:19 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID: <NEBBIBKBKLGPNKKOGMMBCEANFAAB.glcasey@adelphia.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

As I understand it, there are two basic ways to take care of the issue.  One
is to apply a single valve in the common line from the reservoir, blocking
the return flow and the other is to use dual valve between the master
cylinders and the brake cylinders.  The second is apparently sold by Lancair
and the first is apparently more commonly used, especially in RVs.  The
first method would seem to be lower in cost and lighter in weight, but might
be less effective as there is more compressibility involved.  Any comments
on which is better?

Gary Casey
ES #157 ready for brake lines