LS-4 Water bag repair

Thanks for the info guys.

Seems the bags are aftermarket. They are sort of a rubberized ripstop
material. I originally thought they were Hypalon but maybe they are
another rubberized material- not sure.

If anyone has bags that seem similar, please post.

Thanks again,

Mike




At 05:30 07 May 2009, M C wrote:
Does anyone know what material was used for the LS-4 water bags?

A friend needs to buy some material to repair a couple of small leaks.

Thanks

Mike

Not an "admonishment" at all. *

See the last sentence of this reply.

One of primary benefits of the Internet is the ability to look up information which may have been posted in the past rather than relying on the (sometimes shaky) memories of the people posting this time around.

This sentence states personal opinions and mixes dissimilar points:

-A capability of the internet being one's ability to attempt
independent research is a fact.

-Whether or not this internet capability is a "primary benefit" is
personal opinion.

-Intimating that someone should perform their own independent research
rather than asking a question of a web-based forum is an opinion
wholly dissimilar to qualifying the capability of internet technology.

-Intimating that someone must perform their own independent research
as a prerequisite to asking a question of a web-based forum is an
opinion wholly dissimilar to qualifying the capability of internet
technology.

Regardless, it's a fact that one is wise to consider any information
acquired via the internet as suspect, whether obtained first-hand or
second-hand .

My opinion: In this case the responder, since he knew the answer,
should have simply supplied the URL for the benefit of all interested
parties, present and future, and 1. Skipped any commentary that could
be misconstued as admonishment for asking the question, and 2. Not
required an intermediary step of the inquirer to make contact via
email in order to receive the answer.

Whether or not this commentary is construed as admonishment is open to
personal interpretation--after all, you say "Po-tay-to" and I say "Po-
tah-to".

On May 7, 10:15*am, M C wrote:
Thanks for the info guys.

Seems the bags are aftermarket. *They are sort of a rubberized ripstop
material. I originally thought they were Hypalon but maybe they are
another rubberized material- not sure.

I they are the rubberized fabric Smiley bags they can be repaired
using inner tube patches. Valcanizing is probably a good idea but I
don't know if tire (tyre) repair places have the presses anymore.
It's been a long time since I saw one.

Andy

On May 7, 1:47*pm, wrote:
Not an "admonishment" at all. *

See the last sentence of this reply.

One of primary benefits of the Internet is the ability to look up information which may have been posted in the past rather than relying on the (sometimes shaky) memories of the people posting this time around.

This sentence states personal opinions and mixes dissimilar points:

-A capability of the internet being one's ability to attempt
independent research is a fact.

-Whether or not this internet capability is a "primary benefit" is
personal opinion.

-Intimating that someone should perform their own independent research
rather than asking a question of a web-based forum is an opinion
wholly dissimilar to qualifying the capability of internet technology.

-Intimating that someone must perform their own independent research
as a prerequisite to asking a question of a web-based forum is an
opinion wholly dissimilar to qualifying the capability of internet
technology.

Regardless, it's a fact that one is wise to consider any information
acquired via the internet as suspect, whether obtained first-hand or
second-hand .

My opinion: *In this case the responder, since he knew the answer,
should have simply supplied the URL for the benefit of all interested
parties, present and future, and 1. Skipped any commentary that could
be misconstued as admonishment for asking the question, and 2. *Not
required an intermediary step of the inquirer to make contact via
email in order to receive the answer.

Whether or not this commentary is construed as admonishment is open to
personal interpretation--after all, you say "Po-tay-to" and I say "Po-
tah-to".

Having a bad day, eh?

Having a bad day, eh?-

No, but thanks for the concern.

But I am tired of people getting slammed on this forum for simply
asking a question in earnest (whether it has been asked before or not)
and others acting like they're inconvenienced by answering.

Either reply without slinging veiled arrows or shut the hell up.

Although I think one should at least lightly search for what has been
covered here- before posting... I too think it's kinda lame when
people get grief (but I appreciate the humorous replies for their
legitimate queries here as well... especially since technology,
available products, schools of thought, and agreed upon solutions are
constantly evolving and changing.

I hope I'm not the only one that feels there is merit to revisiting
ideas and asking questions that have already been "answered"
before... just cause it worked in 1998 or whatever doesn't mean
there's not a better solution now, or an even better one on the
horizon that has not yet even been discussed at all.

-Paul

On May 7, 3:18*pm, wrote:
Having a bad day, eh?-

No, but thanks for the concern.

But I am tired of people getting slammed on this forum for simply
asking a question in earnest (whether it has been asked before or not)
and others acting like they're inconvenienced by answering.

Either reply without slinging veiled arrows or shut the hell up.

I think it's useful for the regular posters and readers to find an old
thread that may have been useful, bundle it with a tinyurl, and share
the link. At least that's what I try to do when a topic gets
revisited and there's way too much typing involved in restating it.
Overall, RAS remains generally civil and helpful, unlike some other
aviation news groups, like to keep it that way.

Frank Whiteley