X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:59:31 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms048pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.48] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2581752 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:21:04 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.252.48; envelope-from=sbej@verizon.net Received: from your4105e587b6 ([75.82.233.22]) by vms048.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JT200CTEH1S4137@vms048.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:20:17 -0600 (CST) X-Original-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:20:25 -0800 From: "Bryan Wullner" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FW: 320/360 Elevator RIGGING X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Message-id: <004d01c83eb8$ac63b7e0$6400a8c0@your4105e587b6> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004A_01C83E75.9DA7E160" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C83E75.9DA7E160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Or do what I did. Reverse the bob weight from how the plans so it. This = brings it down closer to the Control rod. The point of having the bob = weight low and close to the push rod is to give a heavier feel to the = elevator control. My control tube was about an inch too short so if I = mounted the bob weight the way the plans showed (on top of the arms) = then it was sitting a little high off the control tube. So I talked to = Ross and Lancair and he said I could turn it over to get the weight = lower and closer to the control tube. I did that and now it sits about = 3/4" off the control tube. I think I can live with that over rebuilding = the control tube, although I haven't made this my final decision yet. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Matt Reeves=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:42 PM Subject: [LML] Re: FW: 320/360 Elevator RIGGING Garry, I hate to suggest it, but you could make a longer push rod. Matt LHenney wrote: Garry, Yes, in this case, more is fine. I believe that quote came because = there was a guy who had his bob weight in upside down (appearing right = side up, btw). He was unable to get enough forward stick authority to exit = his stall testing and went crunch. IMHO, the 1/4" is affectively a "no interference" requirement. Larry -----Original Message----- From: Laznicka, Garry [MCCUS] [mailto:GLaznic@MCCUS.JNJ.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:05 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: 320/360 Elevator RIGGING Looking at the page 15-28 Rev 6/04-01-99 in "Lancair 320FB manual" = where Figure-9a is depicted, it's specified there that with full elevator = down (11 degrees) the Elevator Idler arm (which supports the Bob weight) to = be 1/4" from Rear push/pull tube. My question is: Would that be acceptable to have this distance at 0.59" Or is it absolutely critical that I have it at 0.25" I am maxed out on push-rods travel at this point. Thank you in advance for your suggestions and advice. Regards, Garry V. Laznicka L-360c 85% -- For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C83E75.9DA7E160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Or do what I did.  Reverse the bob = weight from=20 how the plans so it. This brings it down closer to the Control = rod.  The=20 point of having the bob weight low and close to the push rod is to give = a=20 heavier feel to the elevator control.  My control tube was about an = inch=20 too short so if I mounted the bob weight the way the plans showed (on = top of the=20 arms) then it was sitting a little high off the control tube. So I = talked to=20 Ross and Lancair and he said I could turn it over to get the weight = lower and=20 closer to the control tube. I did that and now it sits about = 3/4" off=20 the control tube.  I think I can live with that over rebuilding the = control=20 tube, although I haven't made this my final decision yet.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Matt=20 Reeves
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 = 1:42=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: FW: 320/360 = Elevator=20 RIGGING

Garry,
 
I hate to suggest it, but you could make a longer push rod.
 
Matt

LHenney <LHenney@charter.net>=20 wrote:
Garry,

Yes,=20 in this case, more is fine. I believe that quote came because = there
was a=20 guy who had his bob weight in upside down (appearing right side = up,
btw).=20 He was unable to get enough forward stick authority to exit his=20 stall
testing and went crunch.

IMHO, the 1/4" is = affectively a "no=20 interference" requirement.

Larry

-----Original=20 Message-----
From: Laznicka, Garry [MCCUS] = [mailto:GLaznic@MCCUS.JNJ.com]=20
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:05 AM
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: 320/360 Elevator = RIGGING

Looking at=20 the page 15-28 Rev 6/04-01-99 in "Lancair 320FB manual" = where
Figure-9a=20 is depicted, it's specified there that with full elevator down=20 (11
degrees) the Elevator Idler arm (which supports the Bob = weight) to be=20 1/4"
from Rear push/pull tube. My question is:

Would that = be=20 acceptable to have this distance at 0.59"
Or is it absolutely = critical=20 that I have it at 0.25"

I am maxed out on push-rods travel at = this=20 point.

Thank you in advance for your suggestions and=20 advice.
Regards,
Garry V. Laznicka
L-360c=20 85%



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

=

Never miss a thing. Ma= ke Yahoo=20 your homepage. ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C83E75.9DA7E160--