In message <memo.272048@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Graham Clarke
<gemin@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
>Is a mandatory mod. on this scale of difficulty really justified on the
>evidence ? and in view of
>
><<It appears that variables in overcentre geometry of LG08 and the shock
>absorber, torque effects of the LG03 bearings on the lower pivot tube due
>to differences in bearing tightness from aircraft to aircraft, and the
>shock absorber limit stop, were all factors as to why some aircraft
>suffered damage and others didn't.>>
>
>.. surely these variables can be specified more closely to ensure the
>aircraft are as the prototypes, indeed better, as we already have
>additional strengthening.
>
>gemin
>
>
I have to agree to sharing Grahams reservations on this one. The swift
shift from U bolts to welding does not inspire a great deal of
confidence - the former may not have been elegant, but if they worked
why change? I'm also damned sure my fire insurance will not cover this
work - and by now I have what many would consider a rather expensive
piece of kit ( 1:1 scale model?)
I certainly appreciate the information Andy provided on the number of
damaged frames and clearly something must be done, and welding is
preferable to extracting a broken frame or worse. I think I would have
to agree that Ivans' words " a few" is not quite an accurate description
of the problem. However the whole saga of the undercarriage does raise
some niggling doubts - V sections carved out of the "rubber" block,
Ivans plywood block addition (that was never issued as an official mod -
I did it, should I have?), an optional damper. At the end of the day,
only time may tell whether the mods will withstand average landings plus
the occasional worse than average from average pilots and indeed as Ivan
says " we all need to work together" he, because like most of us, no
doubt has a mortgage to pay and I because I have made a substantal
investment.
Rolph
--
Rolph Muller
|