X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:52:50 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mailgate.tru.ca ([192.146.156.111] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with ESMTP id 2282547 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:57:08 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=192.146.156.111; envelope-from=DBaleshta@tru.ca Received: from mailgate.tru.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate (Postfix) with SMTP id E16933262F9 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Groupwise3.TRU.CA (groupwise3.tru.ca [192.146.156.117]) by mailgate.tru.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908193261CA for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TRUDOM3-MTA by Groupwise3.TRU.CA with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:56:25 -0700 X-Original-Message-Id: <46CE9D21020000B30000077A@Groupwise3.TRU.CA> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0.2 X-Original-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:56:01 -0700 From: "Doug Baleshta" X-Original-To: Subject: Re: [LML] TK5 shocks...the rest of the story References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__Part9EB91B81.0__=" X-PMX-Version: 5.3.3.310218, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.2.311128, Antispam-Data: 2007.8.24.82842 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report='HTML_NO_HTTP 0.1, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __MIME_HTML 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML 0' --=__Part9EB91B81.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rob asked me to post this on his behalf... =20 Doug =20 =20 Yes, I see that those who use the TK5's seem very happy with them. I have = no doubt that they are a very good product. However, for me the reasons I = am hoping to buy John Spry's struts are.... =20 1. My first 10,000 hours of flying was in light aircraft, and I = remember numerous times having trouble with air/oil struts, either losing = air or oil. The problem is that once they are flat, it is very unwise = to=20 operate the aircraft. Why do you think Mr Cessna put spring steel = main legs on all his single engined aircraft? 2. I live in Australia, and purchased a Lancair because it has such a = good range. A flat strut at Ayres Rock presents some significant logistical= problems, all of which make the extra four or five hundred dollars spent on John Spry's struts seem rather insignificant. I = know the service backup on the TK5's is reported as being very good, but = FEDEX or anyone else will take a significant time to=20 airfreight a new strut to me. Not to mention that there are no = maintenance facilities at most airports in Australia. It would be much = more economical and convenient if I could continue to my home=20 port where repairs could be carried out , all be it with a shock = absorber not working, using just the spring for shock absorption,=20 3. The clearances on the Lancair undercarriage, whilst it is retracting,= are very fine. A flat strut could create some very expensive problems = during retraction, and more so during extension/landing. At least with=20 the external spring on John's struts, I am guaranteed that the leg = will be fully extended for retraction, something I am not assured of with = a flat air/oil strut. 4. Cars have used shock absorbers inside coiled springs for decades. I = am sure a car shock strut in its lifetime on a car, will suffer many times = more abuse than the struts on a Lancair, even with my landings! Yet I don't see them requiring maintenance very often. =20 At the end of the day, we all have to make an informed choice. I am not = criticising the TK5's in any way. It is just that the philosophy of the = choice, for me, means I lean very heavily towards John Spry's struts. =20 Hope this helps. =20 Regards, =20 Rob. =20 PS If you want to post this on the LML I would appreciate it, as I am = having trouble with my email address, which causes the LML computer to = reject anything I try to post. --=__Part9EB91B81.0__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: HTML
Rob asked me to post this on his = behalf...
 
Doug
 
 
Yes, I see that those who use the = TK5's seem very happy with them. I have no doubt that they are a very good = product. However, for me the reasons I am hoping to buy John Spry's struts = are....
 
1.    My first 10,000 = hours of flying was in light aircraft, and I remember numerous = times having trouble with = air/oil struts, either losing air or oil. The problem is that once they = are flat, it is very unwise to
      &= nbsp;operate the aircraft. Why= do you think Mr Cessna put spring steel main legs on all his single = engined aircraft?
2.     I live in = Australia, and purchased a Lancair because it has such a good range. = A flat strut at Ayres Rock presents some significant logistical problems, = all of which make the extra four or five hundred
      &= nbsp; dollars spent on John Spry's struts seem rather insignifica= nt. I know the service backup on the TK5's is reported as being very = good, but FEDEX or anyone else will take a significant time to
      &= nbsp; airfreight a new strut to me. Not to mention that there = are no maintenance facilities at most airports in Australia. It would be = much more economical and convenient if I could continue to my home =
      &= nbsp; port where repairs could be carried out , all be it with a = shock absorber not working, using just the spring for shock absorption= ,
3.    The clearances = on the Lancair undercarriage, whilst it is retracting, are very fine. A = flat strut could create some very expensive problems during retraction, = and more so during extension/landing. At least with
      &= nbsp; the external spring on John's struts, I am guaranteed that the leg = will be fully extended for retraction, something I am not assured of with = a flat air/oil strut.
4.    Cars have used = shock absorbers inside coiled springs for decades. I am sure a car shock = strut in its lifetime on a car, will suffer many times more abuse than the = struts on a Lancair, even with my landings!
      &= nbsp;Yet I don't see them requiring maintenance very often.
 
At the end of the day, we all have = to make an informed choice. I am not criticising the TK5's in any way. It = is just that the philosophy of the choice, for me, means I lean very = heavily towards John Spry's struts.
 
Hope this helps.
 
Regards,
 
Rob.
 
PS If you want to post this on the = LML I would appreciate it, as I am having trouble with my email address, = which causes the LML computer to reject anything I try to post. --=__Part9EB91B81.0__=--