X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 13:36:02 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-yh0-f44.google.com ([209.85.213.44] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.8) with ESMTPS id 6759616 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 13:28:48 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.213.44; envelope-from=mwsletten@gmail.com Received: by mail-yh0-f44.google.com with SMTP id f73so5316926yha.31 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:28:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.189.202 with SMTP id c50mr847188yhn.139.1393956052715; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:00:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.170.142.84 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:00:52 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:00:52 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: Legacy canopy issues From: Mark Sletten X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160ac2c5accc404f3cbaf5e --089e0160ac2c5accc404f3cbaf5e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Questions for the latch designers: Will the secondary latch engage automatically on closing the canopy? If not then you're adding to the checklist. How far will you have to close the canopy for the secondary latch to engage? I see limited efficacy if you have to close it farther than the point people prop open their canopy for ground ventilation. Will the secondary latch be operated by the primary lock handle? This would be ideal. Can the secondary latch be released from outside the cockpit and will its operation be obvious? In my mind, the answers to these questions are critical. I won't use a latch that doesn't allow immediate and obvious ingress in an emergency. Anybody else have similar questions? I'll post more of these as I think of them. --Mark On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Robert R Pastusek wrote: > Had not seen this post, but exactly what we were talking about. > > > Bob > > > > *From:* Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] *On Behalf Of > *Steve Colwell > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:12 AM > *To:* lml@lancaironline.net > > *Subject:* [LML] Legacy canopy issues > > > > Note to Canopy Latch designers: If the latch can have a Hold Open > function for ventilation on the ground, it would be much more appealing. > > > > Steve Colwell Legacy RG > --089e0160ac2c5accc404f3cbaf5e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Questions for the latch designers:

Will= the secondary latch engage automatically on closing the canopy?
= If not then you're adding to the checklist.

Ho= w far will you have to close the canopy for the secondary latch to engage?<= /div>
I see limited efficacy if you have to close it farther than the point = people prop open their canopy for ground ventilation.=A0

Will the secondary latch be operated by the primary lock handle?
This would be ideal.

Can the secondary latch = be released from outside the cockpit and will its operation be obvious?
In my mind, the answers to these questions are critical. I won't= use a latch that doesn't allow immediate and obvious ingress in an eme= rgency.

Anybody else have similar questions? I'll post more= of these as I think of them.

--Mark


On Tue, Mar 4, 2= 014 at 11:06 AM, Robert R Pastusek <rpastusek@htii.com> wro= te:

Had not seen this post= , but exactly what we were talking about.


Bob

=A0

From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Steve Colwell
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:12 AM
To: lml@l= ancaironline.net


Subject: [LML] Legacy canopy issues

=A0

Note to Canopy Latch designers:=A0 If the latch can = have a Hold Open function for ventilation on the ground, it would be much m= ore appealing.

=A0

Steve Colwell=A0 Legacy RG


--089e0160ac2c5accc404f3cbaf5e--