X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:06:35 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.69] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.4) with ESMTP id 2994867 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:25:57 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.69; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=F0FdjpxxtBTrsKFVfHWZHfVMb46bFVtZpx2DpxPPmQ9VPHwhGdKGUYqgpCAO0W4K; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [216.57.118.35] (helo=ccaselt3) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KCOFh-00068Q-8f for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:25:17 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <002401c8d8b5$70ba0ae0$6501a8c0@nvidia.com> From: "Colyn Case at earthlink" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Runaway Trim X-Original-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:25:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01C8D893.E95038C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940db35b5a9fea124601dffefae6977d7da350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.35 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C8D893.E95038C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rob said, But the logical step from the nuisance "it doesn't move when I = want it to" to the hazardous "it moves when I don't want it to" isn't = quite so logical. Failing one way just isn't as likely as failing the = other way It may be true that electrical runaway is less likely than "doesn't move = when I want it to" but I argue the effect can be similar. case 1: copilot jams pitch trim down and the button gets mechanically = stuck so you can't command pitch trim up. (yes I thought it was a = stretch to until one of my buttons got stuck down) case 2: auto-pilot/auto-trim drives to max trim and the auto-trim relay = box doesn't revert all the way to manual trim. (if you doubt this one = look at the tru-trak schematic. basically there's a relay normally = closed spring between you and loss of manual trim). ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C8D893.E95038C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rob said, But the logical step from the nuisance "it doesn't move = when I want=20 it to" to the hazardous "it moves when I don't want it to" isn't quite = so=20 logical.  Failing one way just isn't as likely as failing the other = way
 
It may be true that electrical runaway is less likely than "doesn't = move=20 when I want it to" but I argue the effect can be similar.
 
case 1:  copilot jams pitch trim = down and the=20 button gets mechanically stuck so you can't command pitch trim up. (yes = I=20 thought it was a stretch to until one of my buttons got stuck = down)
 
case 2: auto-pilot/auto-trim drives to = max trim and=20 the auto-trim relay box doesn't revert all the way to manual trim.  = (if you=20 doubt this one look at the tru-trak schematic.  basically there's a = relay=20 normally closed spring between you and loss of manual = trim).
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C8D893.E95038C0--