X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:20:58 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.61] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.9) with ESMTP id 4473461 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:10:59 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.61; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=Ld9JFlKMFgY3Bgjux1mqgo3MIgmgB6+MOs3fwryjevBik1Ln7Lpg7NhOXBSPoKBK; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [216.57.118.85] (helo=[192.168.1.100]) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Oxh4Z-0004Zi-CR for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:10:23 -0400 From: Colyn Case Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-87--405538871 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: N33AN document question X-Original-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:10:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: <60DF00B3-42BC-434F-BA68-CE6A5C6B65B5@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da94009ab97d92054e9a58810f3abb4ab5fe5350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.85 --Apple-Mail-87--405538871 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii re: "either it works or it doesn't" anybody read that bit on asf about = the beaver in Alaska that almost crashed due to flutter? Ailerons were = out of rig. I bet that airplane "worked" for 100's of hours before it = "didn't work". http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/mayday/MaydayatMountMcKinley/ I think my point is that there is so much that you can't reasonably = inspect (e.g. short of full disassembly or destruction) that the next = best thing is to get an idea of how careful the builder was. Complete = logs, pictures etc. give you some insight into THE BUILDER moreso than = the airplane. Complete meaning enough to get some of that = understanding, not complete being sufficient in itself. Colyn On Sep 20, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Gary Casey wrote: > My advice, not being an expert in the field, is probably worth even = less than Rob's, but I agree with him. I have the original instruction = manual with various check marks and notes from when I built mine, but I = don't know what the next owner could get out of that. I have a list of = parts that was put into the engine by Lycon, but nothing on the engine = before that. I'm sure a complete set of documentation is worth = something, but how much? The most useful thing I've put together is a = semi-complete parts list of the common parts that went into mine. The = airplane is an inanimate object and knows nothing of its history - it = works or it doesn't. I'll bet that almost all 40-year-old production = plane has lots of things that don't show up in the logbooks, and we fly = them without worry. I'd get a good inspection from a Lancair expert and = go from there. Maybe only one cent's worth of opinion. > Gary > ES157 >=20 > I have to disagree with Colyn on this one. The aircraft was obviously = sound in initial workmanship as evidenced by the fact that it has flown = for 15 years. You do not mention the total hours but I assume it's in = the hundreds or maybe approaching a thousand. What you need to be = concerned about is, for lack of a better phrase, wear and tear. This = should be apparent to a qualified inspector. > =20 > I'd recommend having someone familiar with the Lancair, but that's = probably not essential. You might have a local A&P doing a pre-buy = inspection call the factory, or one of the guys at RDD or Aircrafters, = or someone like that, for advice on what to look for. In your shoes I = would be willing to pay a fee for the half-hour of their time to share = this expertise with your local A&P. > =20 > There may be some unique features where the Lancair ages less = gracefully than other airplanes, such as the attachment of the nose gear = drag link to the strut, are the factory service bulletins complied with = (available on line), and so forth. There are other issues, such as was = the self-centering mod done to the nose strut, which came around after = the aircraft was built. On these matters it would help to have a = Lanair-familiar dude look at it. But I would not shy away from this = airplane simply because there is no photo album of the build in = progress. > =20 > That's my two cents, which is probably all my advice is worth = anyway... > =20 > For what it's worth, I have very detailed records of how I have spent = my time and money on the airplane, but very few pictures. > =20 > - Rob Wolf >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-87--405538871 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii re: "either it works or it doesn't"   anybody = read that bit on asf about the beaver in Alaska that almost crashed due = to flutter?  Ailerons were out of rig.   I bet that airplane = "worked" for 100's of hours before it "didn't work".
http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/mayday/MaydayatMountMcKinley/

I think my point is that there is so much that = you can't reasonably inspect (e.g. short of full disassembly or = destruction) that the next best thing is to get an idea of how careful = the builder was.   Complete logs, pictures etc. give you some = insight into THE BUILDER moreso than the airplane.   Complete = meaning enough to get some of that understanding, not complete being = sufficient in = itself.

Colyn

On Sep = 20, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Gary Casey wrote:

My advice, not being an expert in the field, is = probably worth even less than Rob's, but I agree with him.  I have = the original instruction manual with various check marks and notes from = when I built mine, but I don't know what the next owner could get out of = that.  I have a list of parts that was put into the engine by = Lycon, but nothing on the engine before that.  I'm sure a complete = set of documentation is worth something, but how much?  The most = useful thing I've put together is a semi-complete parts list of the = common parts that went into mine.  The airplane is an inanimate = object and knows nothing of its history - it works or it doesn't. =  I'll bet that almost all 40-year-old production plane has lots of = things that don't show up in the logbooks, and we fly them without = worry.  I'd get a good inspection from a Lancair expert and go from = there.  Maybe only one cent's worth of opinion.
Gary

I have to disagree with = Colyn on this one.  The aircraft was obviously sound in = initial workmanship as evidenced by the fact that it has flown for = 15 years.  You do not mention the total hours but I assume it's in = the hundreds or maybe approaching a thousand.  What you need to be = concerned about is, for lack of a better phrase, wear and tear.  = This should be apparent to a qualified inspector.
 
I'd recommend = having someone familiar with the Lancair, but that's probably not = essential.  You might have a local A&P doing a pre-buy = inspection call the factory, or one of the guys at RDD or Aircrafters, = or someone like that, for advice on what to look for.  In your = shoes I would be willing to pay a fee for the half-hour of their time to = share this expertise with your local A&P.
 
There may be = some unique features where the Lancair ages less gracefully than other = airplanes, such as the attachment of the nose gear drag link to the = strut, are the factory service bulletins complied with (available on = line), and so forth.  There are other issues, such as was the = self-centering mod done to the nose strut, which came around after the = aircraft was built.  On these matters it would help to have a = Lanair-familiar dude look at it.  But I would not shy away from = this airplane simply because there is no photo album of the build in = progress.
 
That's my two cents, which is probably all my advice = is worth anyway...
 
For what it's worth, I have very detailed records of = how I have spent my time and money on the airplane, but very few = pictures.
 
- Rob = Wolf



= --Apple-Mail-87--405538871--