A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pills & Propellers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 22nd 08, 09:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default Pills & Propellers

To All:

Some time ago I mentioned having to take something like sixty pills
every day. That generated quite a bit of traffic, some of which was
loud in its disbelief, based on the author's direct, personal
experience as a corpsman, pharmacist or whatever. And they were
right... if they read my message to mean sixty DIFFERENT pills. What
they had overlooked or failed to comprehend was the fact I was taking
pills several times per day. Some pills were taken at three hour
intervals, meaning I took them eight times across a 24 hour day.
Others were taken every six hours (ie, 4 times) some only once, and so
on. Then there was the fact I had to take two, three or four pills to
make up the required dosage. And finally, there were the pain-
killers, some of which were to be 'Taken As Required' up to a certain
maximum per 24hr period.

Just keeping them all straight was a hell of a chore, something I'm
sure I never could have handled on my own. But my wife tackled the
problem with grim determination and not only memorized the names &
dosages, she would track me down whenever I was due for a pill-session
and stand over me until I'd gagged the things down. (Some of the
pills make you want to throw up. I got no sympathy.)

In many cases the local pharmacies did not carry a particular pill in
the dosage called out by the physician. For example, a certain
steroid commonly used by body-builders was only available in 4
milligram tablets. But that same steroid, in 20Mg doses, has proven
to be an effective anti-tumor medication when taken with certain other
drugs. Bottom line is that I was taking the things five at a time and
hitting the local pharmacies for a hundred tablets a week.

Turns out, taking 60 OR MORE pills a day is not uncommon for CANCER
patients.

Ditto for the blood tests; the so-called 'lab work.' Using the team
approach, I've got four physicians (plus a shrink!) not only
prescribing for me (but only one writing the 'scripts so as not to
create conflicts), at least three of the four want to see the results
of period 'lab work.' Sometimes the lab work for one includes data
needed by another but often times it would call for a different
frequency, such as a weekly report versus monthly, or a different
series of tests. This really isn't much of a problem. You can expect
to visit the blood lab at least once a week, the only thing that
changes is how much blood they need to draw. Some weeks it's only a
single sample but sometimes they collect four or even five samples.
But as I said, it isn't a problem since they only need to stick you
once, even if they need to draw five samples.

Then comes the IV's: drugs that are given intravenously. That's
where they plug you into a plastic baggy holding a quart or more of
some medication. You get to sit there and listen to elevator music
while the stuff drips into your vein.

A busy day is when things happen to coincide, typically around the
start -- or the end -- of a month, when you may be scheduled for
xrays, an IV and a five-sample blood-work session. Followed by
hitting the various pharmacies.

These are the logistic realities of trying to deal with a cancerous
tumor and it provides a neat insight into the professional foundation
upon which America's medical system is based. But it also reveals the
role played by the PATIENT. There is no ombudsman to oversee your
treatment; there is no one to protect you from clerical errors.
Indeed, often times the ONLY complete record of a patient's treatment
is the one maintained by the patient themselves... including casual
remarks such as taking sixty pills per day :-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah... well, gee whiz an' gosh darn; waytago Bigfella... but what's
that got to do with PROPELLERS?

I'm glad you asked :-)

Kid pops up on the internet and asks what kind of a propeller he needs
for his airplane. And gets five different answers, all of which are
CORRECT, in that they reflect props presently mounted on the nose (or
tail) of successful flying machines.

The truth is, unless EVERYTHING is idential to the kid's airplane, all
of those answers are liable to INCORRECT. So follow me through here.

What defines a prop?

Think about it for a bit and you'll probably come up with diameter and
pitch, such as 54x31. But that barely scratches the surface. You
also need to know if it's a left-hand or a right-hand prop; you need
to know which direction it ROTATES. Then you need to know the BLADE
AREA, as well as the AREA DISTRIBUTION. and finally you'll need to
know how that area is distributed relative to the blade.

Wanna guess what happens when you DON'T KNOW all that stuff? Not
knowing that stuff causes a huge hairy hand to rip your wallet outta
your jeans an' run off with a handful of MONEY. And not just once;
you're liable to have to buy two OR MORE props before you find one
that hits the 'sweet spot;' that lets your airplane perform the way
it should. that's because props are expensive.

Which is why it's a good idea to roll your own. In fact, it works
something like this: You mount a prop on your engine and go fly. In
some cases you don't even have to fly it to know its not the right
prop, just getting the thing up to take-off speed can tell you it's
the wrong choice. In doing so, the prop tells you it needs to be
shorter. Or longer. Or needs more pitch.. Or less.

Did you get that? You haven't even flown the plane and you know the
trial prop is wrong for your particular application; that you need
more (or less) pitch, for example. Or mebbe less diameter; something
shorter... or perhaps the same length but with less 'bite'...
something with less pitch.

If you're wealthy selecting the correct prop may be a trivial chore..
You simply haul out your wallet and order another prop.

But wht about guys like you & me? A well-made prop is worth a well-
made price. And lots of times you can say EXACTLY what is needed,
less diameter or less pitch? And if you've put the prop on the
PROPER end of the crankshaft you can forget about the possibility of
selling it to someone else.

The handy solution to your problem is to learn to make your own
propellers!

Which is a lot easier than most folks think. In fact, the hardest
part of making a prop is convincing YOU that you should give it a
try. Which is what this series of Cancerous Propeller messages will
try to do, beginning with what I've always considered to be the
hardest part of the job: making a good blank. That means gluing and
stacking and clamping a stack of boards into a fence-post sized pile
of lumber. Because once you have a good blank, the remain steps of
the procedure are fairly simple.

And why did I start with pine or whatever is being sold for shelving
in your neck of the neighborhood? Because the first two or three
'propellers' are going to be the gawdd-ugliest things you've ever
seen.

To learn how to do something RIGHT you've got to do it wrong to begin
with. That's what these props are for; they're going to show you how
NOT to carve a propeller. And if you think that's a wacky way to
carve a prop, you're wrong, pard. So let's get busy and make a good
blank. You want a good squeeze-out all the way around.

But get that frown off your face. Every one of those dud props is
worth at least $100... just as soon as you install a clock in the
middle. Seriously! It's a real propeller... you can even type a
little vitae to go along with the prop, saying how its diameter and
pitch indicate it was carved for the Continental A40 engine but that
the prop is no longer suitable for service. And to prevent someone
from trying to use it on an E-2 Cub, you've installed that spiffy
clock in the hub. You can even include a picture of an E2 with an A40
on its nose... and a close copy of YOUR prop, ready to go flying. For
a hundred bucks. No swap meets in your area? No Craig's list? Then
use it as a gift.

Learning to make the blank, then learning to cut the basic angles to
the top & bottom surfaces, is the Basic Lesson here -- those chores
are sucking all the good out of it. After that we get into SMOOTHING
the UPPER surface; making a nice streamlined shape. Then making both
blades IDENTICAL. (That's where grown men have been known to cry.)
But none of it is being wasted; it's all 'good' in the sense that you
have to know it in order to do it.

Once you know how to carve a good prop you simply go looking for
better wood. Birch is okay. Maple is better but the Borg carries
birch and for a lot of you, the box stores are going to be your only
source of wood. There's better glues; real props use different
stuff. But Plastic Resin will work for 'low-power' props, meaning
anything under 100hp. But a prop is a life-time sort of thing; a good
prop will last as long as the airframe, assuming you don't taxi into a
rock. Line anything made of wood, a good prop can be freshened-up by
sanding it down and giving it a new finishing... and then balancing it
to within an inch of its life. Don't worry about checks or dings --
there's lots of ways to deal with such things. And if you decide the
prop has finally had its day, it's still worth a hundred dollar bill
as a clock.

So think about your new career as a Prop Carver. And believe me when
I say there have been days when I had to take sixty or more pills :-)

-R.S.Hoover

  #2  
Old November 22nd 08, 02:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Stealth Pilot[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 846
Default Pills & Propellers

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:22:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

To All:


selecting goood propeller wood...

almost any wood has the tensile strength to keep a prop's blades on.

wooden props are bolted to the front of the aircraft with , typically,
6 bolts. those bolts hold the prop on to the prop driver by
compression and it is the friction generated between the prop and
driver that makes it do its stuff.

what I have found is that the arbitrating factor in whether a wood is
suitable as a prop wood is the compression strength of the hub.

on my O-200 powered Tailwind the wood prop is held on by a crush plate
and bolts torqued up to 120 inch pounds. the wood needs to be able to
withstand that compression without deforming or crushing.

also wood, no matter how well finsihed, will absorb some moisture in
wet weather and swell slightly, and conversely in dry weather it will
lose some moisture and shrink slightly.

the way to maintain the compression without having to continually
retorque the bolts is to use a sufficient stack of the conical
tempered spring washers called Belleville Washers. these have a known
compressive force and you stack them together to get the compression
needed. my prop uses 8 washers each bolt with 4 washers facing cone
up and 4 washers facing cone down toward each other to generate the
compression needed.
with these I need retorque my bolts only annually.

ol' snake unda the verandah.

(the belleville's are stacked like this...
^
^
^
^
V
V
V
V
with a bolt through the middle)
  #3  
Old November 22nd 08, 03:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Charlie[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Pills & Propellers

Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:22:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

To All:


selecting goood propeller wood...

almost any wood has the tensile strength to keep a prop's blades on.

wooden props are bolted to the front of the aircraft with , typically,
6 bolts. those bolts hold the prop on to the prop driver by
compression and it is the friction generated between the prop and
driver that makes it do its stuff.

what I have found is that the arbitrating factor in whether a wood is
suitable as a prop wood is the compression strength of the hub.

on my O-200 powered Tailwind the wood prop is held on by a crush plate
and bolts torqued up to 120 inch pounds. the wood needs to be able to
withstand that compression without deforming or crushing.

also wood, no matter how well finsihed, will absorb some moisture in
wet weather and swell slightly, and conversely in dry weather it will
lose some moisture and shrink slightly.

the way to maintain the compression without having to continually
retorque the bolts is to use a sufficient stack of the conical
tempered spring washers called Belleville Washers. these have a known
compressive force and you stack them together to get the compression
needed. my prop uses 8 washers each bolt with 4 washers facing cone
up and 4 washers facing cone down toward each other to generate the
compression needed.
with these I need retorque my bolts only annually.

ol' snake unda the verandah.

(the belleville's are stacked like this...
^
^
^
^
V
V
V
V
with a bolt through the middle)


I know that this is going to inspire more controversy than a political
statement, but here goes:

All that stuff above is absolutely correct, *except* the opening
premise. Notice those big cylinders that all the bolts go through in the
flange? The ones that extend into enlarged holes in the wood hub of the
prop? They are called 'drive lugs'. They are called drive lugs because
they are what drives the prop.

If the prop bolts get loose, the same thing happens to a prop that
happens to the wheels on your car if you let the nuts get loose. It
starts wobbling, which wallows out the holes the drive lugs run in,
which allows the prop face to move against the face of the flange,
creating the hangar tales about charred wood caused by inadequate
clamping force.

To analyze this, you can approach it from multiple directions. Shear
strength of wood fiber just isn't enough to handle the kinds of loads we
are talking about. Or, look at those drive lugs. If it's friction
preventing prop rotation on the flange, why do they bother to do the
extra machining on the flange, make 6 extra parts (and weight), and
counter-bore the prop bolt holes to accept these extra parts? Centering
could be accomplished with a raised center ring on the flange.

The reason for the drive lugs is to provide a machined precision fit to
the counter-bores in the prop, and to provide a larger 'working surface'
in the wood to take the load. You can see the same thing in the spar
attach points of highly stressed wood wings, where there are metal
bushings for the attach bolts.

Charlie
  #4  
Old November 22nd 08, 06:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,130
Default Pills & Propellers

On Nov 22, 7:58*am, Charlie wrote:
Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:22:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


To All:


selecting goood propeller wood...


almost any wood has the tensile strength to keep a prop's blades on.


wooden props are bolted to the front of the aircraft with , typically,
6 bolts. those bolts hold the prop on to the prop driver by
compression and it is the friction generated between the prop and
driver that makes it do its stuff.


what I have found is that the arbitrating factor in whether a wood is
suitable as a prop wood is the compression strength of the hub.


on my O-200 powered Tailwind the wood prop is held on by a crush plate
and bolts torqued up to 120 inch pounds. the wood needs to be able to
withstand that compression without deforming or crushing.


also wood, no matter how well finsihed, will absorb some moisture in
wet weather and swell slightly, and conversely in dry weather it will
lose some moisture and shrink slightly.


the way to maintain the compression without having to continually
retorque the bolts is to use a sufficient stack of the conical
tempered spring washers called Belleville Washers. these have a known
compressive force and you stack them together to get the compression
needed. my prop uses 8 washers each bolt with *4 washers facing cone
up and 4 washers facing cone down toward each other to generate the
compression needed.
with these I need retorque my bolts only annually.


ol' snake unda the verandah.


(the belleville's are stacked like this...
^
^
^
^
V
V
V
V *
with a bolt through the middle)


I know that this is going to inspire more controversy than a political
statement, but here goes:

All that stuff above is absolutely correct, *except* the opening
premise. Notice those big cylinders that all the bolts go through in the
flange? The ones that extend into enlarged holes in the wood hub of the
prop? They are called 'drive lugs'. They are called drive lugs because
they are what drives the prop.

If the prop bolts get loose, the same thing happens to a prop that
happens to the wheels on your car if you let the nuts get loose. It
starts wobbling, which wallows out the holes the drive lugs run in,
which allows the prop face to move against the face of the flange,
creating the hangar tales about charred wood caused by inadequate
clamping force.

To analyze this, you can approach it from multiple directions. Shear
strength of wood fiber just isn't enough to handle the kinds of loads we
are talking about. Or, look at those drive lugs. If it's friction
preventing prop rotation on the flange, why do they bother to do the
extra machining on the flange, make 6 extra parts (and weight), and
counter-bore the prop bolt holes to accept these extra parts? Centering
could be accomplished with a raised center ring on the flange.

The reason for the drive lugs is to provide a machined precision fit to
the counter-bores in the prop, and to provide a larger 'working surface'
in the wood to take the load. You can see the same thing in the spar
attach points of highly stressed wood wings, where there are metal
bushings for the attach bolts.

Charlie


Not all wooden props had the bushings. Many had more, larger
bolts instead, some didn't even have that. The earlier Continental A65
had a tapered crankshaft with a separate hub, and that hub had no
bushings. Bolts went through it from behind (before the hub was put on
the crank) and the prop went over the bolts, a clamping plate was put
over that, the plate splined to the hub so the prop was driven from
front and back both, and castellated nuts finished the job. It looked
like this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/4/597...8088ae.jpg?v=0

Biggest hazard was overtightening the bolts. Only 175 inch-pounds for
that one. Too much crushes the wood and it loses its elasticity and
won't maintain the pressure against the flange.

Dan

  #5  
Old November 22nd 08, 11:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Marc J. Zeitlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Wooden Prop Drive Methodology - was: Pills & Propellers

Charlie wrote:

... They are called 'drive lugs'. They are called
drive lugs because they are what drives the prop.


With metal props, you're absolutely correct. However, with wooden
props, it is in fact the friction of the face of the prop hub on the
mounting flange that drives the propeller. The wood is not strong
enough to withstand the torque pulses (especially in the larger
engines) if only the small area in the drive lug holes was taking the
force.

Sensenich, Catto, Hertzler, and all wooden prop manufacturers are
clear on this point, and talk about just how much compressive pressure
is required to assure safe operation. Sensenich claims (in a paper
downloadable on their website) that it's about 600 psi. If the drive
lugs were doing the torque transmission, then the pressure would be
meaningless, and all you'd need is a good fit on the lugs and some
safety wire so the bolts didn't come off.

It starts wobbling, which wallows out the holes the drive lugs run
in, which allows the prop face to move against the face of the
flange, creating the hangar tales about charred wood caused by
inadequate clamping force.


Not hangar tales at all. If the pressure is too low, then a small
amount of relative motion can occur, which will then wallow out the
holes - not from wobbling, but from relative rotational motion.

You can read about my experience with this issue at:

http://www.cozybuilders.org/Desert_Center/

and:

http://www.cozybuilders.org/Oshkosh_Presentations/

I'm currrently using bellevilles (as the other poster mentioned,
although I disagree with some of his setup) on my prop, and have a
number of other canard flyers that are using my general setup on 1/2"
and 3/8" bolt installations.

To analyze this, you can approach it from multiple directions.
Shear strength of wood fiber just isn't enough to handle the kinds
of loads we are talking about.


This is just incorrect, as I've pointed out before - the wooden prop
manufacturers themselves state clearly that it's the friction of the
hub on the mounting flange that drives the prop - NOT the drive lugs.
Again, with a metal prop, you're absolutely correct that it's the
drive lugs.

... Or, look at those drive lugs. If
it's friction preventing prop rotation on the flange, why do they
bother to do the extra machining on the flange, make 6 extra parts
(and weight), and counter-bore the prop bolt holes to accept these
extra parts?


Because the engine flange manufacturer has no idea whether you're
going to use a metal or wooden prop - this way, you can use either
one. If the lugs weren't there, you could ONLY use a wood prop.

The reason for the drive lugs is to provide a machined precision
fit to the counter-bores in the prop, and to provide a larger
'working surface' in the wood to take the load.


Nope. For metal, you're correct. But for wood, it's the friction.
On the wooden props, the conterbores are there because the drive lugs
are there, but not to take the loads.

... You can see the
same thing in the spar attach points of highly stressed wood wings,
where there are metal bushings for the attach bolts.


Wing attach points tend not to take huge torque/force pulses that are
substantially larger than the average load that the bearing surface
needs to withstand. It's not an appropriate analogy.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2008 http://www.mdzeitlin.com/Marc/
  #6  
Old November 23rd 08, 02:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default Wooden Prop Drive Methodology - was: Pills & Propellers

On Nov 22, 2:08*pm, "Marc J. Zeitlin"
wrote:

... for wood, it's the friction.
On the wooden props, the conterbores are there because the drive lugs
are there, but not to take the loads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The late John Thorpe said much the same with regard to using wooden
props on the GPU that powered one of his last designs (the 'Tiger'?)
Even more surprising was the torque specs for wooden props. As I
recall it was on the order of 14 lb-ft. Of course, the best joke is
the claims made by 'experts' selling prop hubs with drive lugs :-)
-R.S.Hoover

  #8  
Old November 23rd 08, 12:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Stealth Pilot[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 846
Default Wooden Prop Drive Methodology - was: Pills & Propellers

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:08:15 -0800, "Marc J. Zeitlin"
wrote:

Charlie wrote:

... They are called 'drive lugs'. They are called
drive lugs because they are what drives the prop.


With metal props, you're absolutely correct. However, with wooden
props, it is in fact the friction of the face of the prop hub on the
mounting flange that drives the propeller. The wood is not strong
enough to withstand the torque pulses (especially in the larger
engines) if only the small area in the drive lug holes was taking the
force.

a few years ago a friend just out of the shakedown flight for his
quickie Q200 flew from Orange to a flyin that I attended.

when he landed he was quizzing the other fliers from his area about
the bushfires. what bushfires the other guys asked?
I could smell bushfires all the way down here but we couldnt see where
the hell any of them were.

one of the wags asked "y' gotta wooden prop?"
"yeah"
"y' betta check y' prop mate"

so we all went over, found a screwdriver, and removed spinner, pulled
off the lockwire and took the prop off. the back of the bearing
surface of the prop was charred to a depth of about an eighth of an
inch. the bushfire was quietly developing in the spinner.

my mate was horrified because he had retorqued the prop nuts the night
before making the flight.

the prop was one made for a certain manufacturer in bundaberg and was
from Queensland Hoop Pine.
QHP imho doesnt have the crush strength needed at the hub.
I'm told that none of their props ever succeeds in service much longer
than 300 hours.they all lack the crush strength.

something for Veedubber to explore is whether epoxy saturation of the
hub area could increase the crush strength of readily available softer
woods.
laminating hard faces wont do it because they just transfer the
pressure unabated to the soft core and crush it.

btw bob your specialists are schmiked up guys. they have long beaten
the survival estimates given in my old medical texts. looks like they
are going to succeed.

Stealth Pilot


  #9  
Old November 23rd 08, 02:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
cavelamb himself[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 474
Default Wooden Prop Drive Methodology - was: Pills & Propellers

Epoxy "saturation" is a very misleading term.

Even water thin viscosities like GetRot don't penetrate more than a
couple of millimeters into healthy wood.

Where is will penetrate is rotted out pulpy wood.

Or end grain balsa.
  #10  
Old November 23rd 08, 05:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default Wooden Prop Drive Methodology - was: Pills & Propellers

On Nov 23, 3:32*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

something for Veedubber to explore is whether epoxy saturation of the
hub area could increase the crush strength of readily available softer
woods.
laminating hard faces wont do it because they just transfer the
pressure unabated to the soft core and crush it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't know if just saturation would work. As Richard points out, on
healthy wood epoxy hardly soaks in at all. But if your hub has an
accurately made center-bore and if you make or buy drive lugs, you can
auger out the area where the drive lugs would seat and fill that area
with JB WELD or other filled epoxy. You have to wax the drive-lugs
and the bolts, and you need to get the filled epoxy deep into the
holes you've made (you don't want any of it to squeeze-out between the
prop and the hub), you'll end up with a softwood prop capable of being
torqued to hardwood specs. This is usually done as a repair
procedure. Just look at the clamping ring. If it has been drawn into
the wood by any amount you'll probably find charring between the prop
and the hub. Soaking the charred portion with epoxy will harden it
but the real problem is that the softwood prop simply lacks the
required compressive strength. That's where the filled epoxy comes
in. This also works for the valley created by the clamping ring. You
can use a WIRE BRUSH on a drill-motor to get down to clean, bare wood
then brush on a thinned coat of epoxy to act as a primer. Let it get
tacky then FILL the valley with a filled epoxy... such as JB WELD. It
will take a couple of tubes to fill a serious 'valley.' After it
cures you can sand it flush. Just make sure you keep it flat. If it
has been varnished (as opposed to epoxied) you may have to do the wire-
brush trick over the entire surface so you can apply a finish-coat of
epoxy once you've returned the surface to truth. (Tracking will tell
you if you've got it right.)

There's a lot of elderly VP's and other basic designs that, despite
their age, have accumulated relatively few hours, such as fifty hours
in fifteen years -- stuff like that. (And most of that will have been
accumulated during the first year or two.) The sale of such
airplanes is often tied to an estate sale -- the builder has died and
there's no one who can give you accurate information about the
condition of such things as the prop, engine and landing gear. And
they may not want you to go digging into it. But if you're allowed to
dig (or just remove the prop, for that matter) you'll often find
charring, especially if they've glued on a spacer to allow the prop to
clear the #3 exhaust stack.

At a real auto-parts store (as opposed to a franchise, such as Pep
Boys, et al) in the 'Dorman' trays, you will find 'drive lugs' for
about six bits as opposed to the $18 or $20 wanted for an 'aircraft'
drive lug. They don't call it a drive-lug of course -- it is a brake
part, I think for early Chrysler products.

-R.S.Hoover

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Ten O'clock Pills [email protected] Home Built 7 November 16th 08 08:23 PM
Dauntless Software/Safelog/Poison Pills Mitty Instrument Flight Rules 7 September 6th 07 03:07 PM
Wooden Propellers Danny Deger Piloting 11 March 4th 07 11:17 AM
Propellers [email protected] Home Built 6 March 30th 06 01:41 PM
Wooden Propellers Dick Petersen Home Built 5 November 13th 03 01:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.