---------------------------------------------------------- TeamGrumman-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 04/07/06: 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:43 AM - Re: Grumman strength (Bruce Smith) 2. 05:46 AM - Re: Grumman strength (flyv35b) 3. 06:05 AM - Re: Grumman strength (flyv35b) 4. 06:16 AM - Re: Aileron Flexing (flyv35b) 5. 07:14 AM - Re: Grumman strength (flyv35b) 6. 07:21 AM - Re: Grumman strength (flyv35b) 7. 11:22 AM - Re: Grumman strength (TeamGrumman@aol.com) 8. 11:26 AM - Re: Grumman strength (TeamGrumman@AOL.COM) 9. 11:28 AM - Re: Grumman strength (TeamGrumman@AOL.COM) 10. 11:36 AM - Re: Grumman strength (Bruce Smith) 11. 11:37 AM - Re: Grumman big job (FLYaDIVE@AOL.COM) 12. 11:46 AM - Nice Cheetah (TeamGrumman@AOL.COM) 13. 11:47 AM - Re: Grumman big job (TeamGrumman@AOL.COM) 14. 12:35 PM - Re: Grumman strength (flyv35b) 15. 12:37 PM - Re: Grumman strength (flyv35b) 16. 02:55 PM - Re: Grumman strength (David Feinstein) 17. 03:59 PM - Re: Re: Grumman strength (923te) 18. 05:59 PM - Re: Re: Grumman strength (FLYaDIVE@aol.com) 19. 08:55 PM - Re: Re: Grumman strength (923te) 20. 11:36 PM - Re: Grumman strength (TeamGrumman@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:43:50 AM PST US From: Bruce Smith Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Bruce Smith Cliff, Gary, So, Vne is calculated, and then tested, right? Based upon spar strength, fuselage material strength? Did the factory ever do a static test to destruction? It would be interesting to learn what the ultimate load factors were, just for conversation and bragging rights. Gary, OK how much is the Cheetah annual costing right now? Bruce TeamGrumman@aol.com said the following on 4/6/2006 4:31 PM: > --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com > > > In a message dated 4/6/06 7:57:57 AM, flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com writes: > > > >> This doesn't mean that flutter will automatically occur at the design dive >> speed, just that the plane was tested up to that speed and the controls >> excited and there wasn't any catastrophic flutter.=A0 But don't forget that >> this was with a new plane with tight controls, cables adjust properly and=20no >> wear in the trim linkage.=A0 And Lord knows I have seen a lot of Grummans=20with >> quite a bit of elevator trim linkage, much more than a new plane would have. >> >> > > OFF-THE-RECORD: I know of one Cheetah that did a split-S at 12,000 feet and > leveled off at 3,000 feet. At or near 200 indicated for a good portion of > the way down. Smooth as silk. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:46:32 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "flyv35b" Agreed. The torque tube is pretty rigid and deflects very little. And the amount of deflection upward after the opposite aileron hits its stop seems to vary from plane to plane and appears to be less than the difference in travel between the two (7.5 degrees), although I haven't measured it specifically. Due to tolerances in travel and rigging there can be quite a difference here. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:26 PM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength > --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com > > > In a message dated 4/6/06 4:02:18 PM, A1ynk@aol.com writes: > > >> The aileron hits the stop and >> then the torque tube flexes alowing the other aileron to go up and hit >> that >> stop. >> Bill Hatton >> > > Not true. To go past the stop on the left side you are actually > stretching > the cables so the right aileron hits its stop and vice versa. > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:05:31 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "flyv35b" The aileron got started years ago off the east coast, on a plane coming back from the Bahamas I think. I understand that it consisted of a mild amplitude oscillation of a couple of cycles per second, probably the same phenomenon that many owners have experienced at times when flying in rain and otherwise. Initially, the FAA wanted to truncate all the ailerons at the trailing edge as a solution and the AYA and owners interceded and allowed the alternate solution of the 100 hr inspection which most everyone has opted for since. I bought a really nice 79 Tiger from an insurance company years ago that was declared unairworthy primarily due to this oscillation by an owner who wanted to get rid of the plane and he found a young new IA who was ignorant and agreed to go along with the idea. The insurance adjusted never came out and look at the so-called damage! The story is a bit more involved but the bottom line was I flew the plane after installing all new aileron bearings and adjusting the cable tension and the oscillation still existed just before the stall buffet while creeping up on it slowly from a slow flight condition. It is nothing serious to worry about. Later on after removing and balancing the aileron to dead on (it was within tolerance before) the oscillation completely disappeared. I sold the plane a year later after flying it all over for 100 hrs for $26,000 more than I paid for it! Cliff A&P/IA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gil Alexander" Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:47 PM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength > --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Gil Alexander > > > Don't forget the one that had aileron flutter at Van Nuys.... > > The photo of the 'bent' wing was quite scary, but nice to see the spar > could bend without breaking. > > They lost their counterweights in wake turbulence while on downwind. > > It was on a FAA poster at WJF - I'm sure Gary remembers it.... I think it > got the aileron AD started.... > > gil in Tucson > > > At 01:31 PM 4/6/2006, you wrote: >>--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com >> >> >>In a message dated 4/6/06 7:57:57 AM, flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com writes: >> >> >> > This doesn't mean that flutter will automatically occur at the design >> > dive >> > speed, just that the plane was tested up to that speed and the controls >> > excited and there wasn't any catastrophic flutter.=A0 But don't forget >> > that >> > this was with a new plane with tight controls, cables adjust properly >> and=20no >> > wear in the trim linkage.=A0 And Lord knows I have seen a lot of >> Grummans=20with >> > quite a bit of elevator trim linkage, much more than a new plane would >> have. >> > >> >>OFF-THE-RECORD: I know of one Cheetah that did a split-S at 12,000 feet >>and >>leveled off at 3,000 feet. At or near 200 indicated for a good portion >>of >>the way down. Smooth as silk. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:16:04 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Aileron Flexing --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "flyv35b" Absolutely. This is very common damage which I have seen on most planes I have inspected. Generally speaking the aileron torque tube is not centered in the flap tube and collar and the shoulder bolts protrude through about 1/16" or so. You need a think AND a thin washer under the bolt head at least. This can be inspected pretty well with a good flashlight and mirror. The inner flap bearing bracket that attaches to the fuselage side wall also has some movement compliance with the nuts loose and can possible be shifted a bit to allow better concentricity with the aileron torque tube. This usually is not necessary however. I have dressed lots of aileron torque tubes that had a groove worn in them by carefully filing the edges of the groove with a small fine file and then blending and polishing the area with a scotch brite disc on a rotary 90 degree air grinder. This should remove any stress risers that might exist as a result of a sharp edge groove. Cliff A&P/IA ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:22 PM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Aileron Flexing > --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com > > > In a message dated 4/6/06 4:36:46 PM, 923te@cox.net writes: > > >> The groove is about .5" Long by .25 wide and is .014 at its deepest >> point. >> It is about 16" from the tube end. >> > > Is this on the end near where it goes into the fuselage? It may have > been > caused by the bolt that goes through the flap torque tube. That's pretty > common. You're allowed 0.030 inches deep. There are a few things you > can do to > fix that. The inner-most aileron bearing support has an adjustment on > the > screw holes. Make sure they aileron torque tube is as far away as > possible. > Then, make sure you have enough shims (washers) under the special bolts on > the flap torque tube collar to keep the head of the bolt protuding more > than > about 3 to 5 thousanths. > > Gary > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:34 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "flyv35b" Gary probably knows more about this than I do, but I think that Vne is more based on the aeroelasticity of the control surfaces and their attachment structure that it is on ultimate strength. Factors such as balance, control surface and system rigidity and design of the control surface itself are more important than brute strength. Of course you also want the strength in adverse situations such as rapid aileron deflection, maybe to the stops, at reasonable speed. That doesn't mean that you can go to Vne or almost and then do maximum aileron deflection at the same time. This would add a lot of load to the wing with the down aileron, not to mention the forces on the aileron itself. This is exactly what has happened with the T-34 Beechcraft during the mock combat flying during a dive and rolling severely while "chasing" another plane. The plane was never designed for these "combination" loads at the extreme edge of the envelope. Full aileron deflection is not all that hard to do for a short time, even without doing a roll, by starting in a steep bank one direction and rolling the other way with full opposite aileron for about 3 seconds. Don't try this at speeds above maneuvering speed. Don't know what the factory did regarding static load testing. I'll bet they never went to failure on the wing. My concern with overload would not be with the wing but with the tail, especially on the AA5A and B. Cliff A&P/IA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Smith" Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 4:41 AM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength > --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Bruce Smith > > Cliff, Gary, > > So, Vne is calculated, and then tested, right? Based upon spar strength, > fuselage material strength? > > Did the factory ever do a static test to destruction? It would be > interesting to learn what the ultimate load factors were, just for > conversation and bragging rights. > > Gary, OK how much is the Cheetah annual costing right now? > > Bruce > > TeamGrumman@aol.com said the following on 4/6/2006 4:31 PM: >> --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com >> >> >> In a message dated 4/6/06 7:57:57 AM, flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com >> writes: >> >> >> >>> This doesn't mean that flutter will automatically occur at the design >>> dive >>> speed, just that the plane was tested up to that speed and the controls >>> excited and there wasn't any catastrophic flutter.=A0 But don't forget >>> that >>> this was with a new plane with tight controls, cables adjust properly >>> and=20no >>> wear in the trim linkage.=A0 And Lord knows I have seen a lot of >>> Grummans=20with >>> quite a bit of elevator trim linkage, much more than a new plane would >>> have. >>> >>> >> >> OFF-THE-RECORD: I know of one Cheetah that did a split-S at 12,000 feet >> and >> leveled off at 3,000 feet. At or near 200 indicated for a good portion >> of >> the way down. Smooth as silk. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:21:09 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "flyv35b" This makes me believe that the critical part of the aileron system and inspection per the AD79-22-04 is the integrity of the balance weight and the outer aileron bracket. Both of these areas can be inspected pretty well on even a preflight with a good strong flashlight if you know where to look. Any crack in the radius of the aileron bracket or in the weld joint of the balance weight is cause for immediate replacement. I have seen a few outer aileron brackets cracked but no balance weights. Cliff A&P/IA ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:28 PM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength > --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com > > > In a message dated 4/6/06 9:49:39 PM, gilalex@earthlink.net writes: > > >> Don't forget the one that had aileron flutter at Van Nuys.... >> >> > > Well, it did NOT have aileron flutter. And, it happend a LONG time after > the AD came out. > > I looked at that Tiger to do an estimate on repairs. The ailerons had > been > installed wrong. The long bolt that goes through for the aileron stop > had > been installed outboard of the stop. Thus, (don't you just love that > word) the > aileron stop could not act as a stop. The plane had encountered (or so > the > pilot said) wind shear from a jet landing on an adjacent runway. As the > story goes, the pilot tried to correct for the roll and the aileron ripped > out. > Funny, but the aileron stop was still there and intact. The other > aileron > was still on the plane and the aileron counter-weight had made a mark in > the > wingtip where it had gone way past the design limit. > > Gary > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 11:22:41 AM PST US From: TeamGrumman@aol.com Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com In a message dated 4/7/06 4:45:14 AM, bruce.smith@york.com writes: > Gary, OK how much is the Cheetah annual costing right now? > > Bruce > let's just say that the prop had crackes in the hub, an ADF was removed, the dorsal fin was replaced, the windshield was replaced, a top overhaul with new Lycoming/Lycon prepared cylinders, painted firewal, lots of powder coating, JPI with fuel flow, new hoses, new engine mount isolators, complete annaul, new brakes, repair of brake line, two wheel bearings, and lots of odds and ends. So far, it's almost 70% of the cost of the plane (he bought it in Nov 05.) ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 11:26:30 AM PST US From: TeamGrumman@AOL.COM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com In a message dated 4/7/06 7:15:20 AM, flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com writes: > Don't know what the factory did regarding static load testing.=A0 I'll bet > they never went to failure on the wing.=A0 My concern with overload would=20not > be with the wing but with the tail, especially on the AA5A and B. > I had heard that the Cheetah that encountered the thunder storm was tested and it took something like 16 to 20 g to bend the wings. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 11:28:30 AM PST US From: TeamGrumman@AOL.COM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com In a message dated 4/7/06 7:29:10 AM, flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com writes: > This makes me believe that the critical part of the aileron system and > inspection per the AD79-22-04 is the integrity of the balance weight and the > How about an aileron bracket that uses the same bearing as the one inside the outboard flap bracket? That would eliminate a good portion of the wear on the outer aileron torque tube. ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 11:36:23 AM PST US From: Bruce Smith Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Bruce Smith So, you're preparing a "Better Than New Cheetah" for him or her. TeamGrumman@aol.com said the following on 4/7/2006 2:20 PM: > --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com > > > In a message dated 4/7/06 4:45:14 AM, bruce.smith@york.com writes: > > > >> Gary, OK how much is the Cheetah annual costing right now? >> >> Bruce >> >> > > let's just say that the prop had crackes in the hub, an ADF was removed, the > dorsal fin was replaced, the windshield was replaced, a top overhaul with new > Lycoming/Lycon prepared cylinders, painted firewal, lots of powder coating, > JPI with fuel flow, new hoses, new engine mount isolators, complete annaul, new > brakes, repair of brake line, two wheel bearings, and lots of odds and ends. > So far, it's almost 70% of the cost of the plane (he bought it in Nov 05.) > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:37:00 AM PST US From: FLYaDIVE@AOL.COM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman big job --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com In a message dated 4/7/06 2:23:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TeamGrumman@aol.com writes: > let's just say that the prop had crackes in the hub, an ADF was removed, the > dorsal fin was replaced, the windshield was replaced, a top overhaul with > new > Lycoming/Lycon prepared cylinders, painted firewal, lots of powder coating, > JPI with fuel flow, new hoses, new engine mount isolators, complete annaul, > new > brakes, repair of brake line, two wheel bearings, and lots of odds and ends. > > So far, it's almost 70% of the cost of the plane (he bought it in Nov 05.) > ============== Gary: On a large job like this how do you handle the financing, a pay as you go? Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:46:39 AM PST US From: TeamGrumman@AOL.COM Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Nice Cheetah --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com I'm hoping he'll take this Cheetah to Texas for the convention ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:47:16 AM PST US From: TeamGrumman@AOL.COM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman big job --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com In a message dated 4/7/06 11:37:44 AM, FLYaDIVE@aol.com writes: > On a large job like this how do you handle the financing, a pay as you go? > > > always pay as you go. two reasons 1) that way, the final bill isn't so large the owner can't pay it 2) I get to pay my bills all other jobs, the parts are paid for in advance. ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 12:35:21 PM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "flyv35b" Like I said, I wouldn't worry about the wings. Maybe the tail isn't of any concern either. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 11:26 AM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength > --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com > > > In a message dated 4/7/06 7:15:20 AM, flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com writes: > > >> Don't know what the factory did regarding static load testing.=A0 I'll >> bet >> they never went to failure on the wing.=A0 My concern with overload >> would=20not >> be with the wing but with the tail, especially on the AA5A and B. >> > > I had heard that the Cheetah that encountered the thunder storm was tested > and it took something like 16 to 20 g to bend the wings. > > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 12:37:08 PM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "flyv35b" That would be an improvement and preclude the expense of installing the stainless steel wear sleeve and oversize bearing. There is plenty of room for a wider bearing it seems to me. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 11:28 AM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength > --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com > > > In a message dated 4/7/06 7:29:10 AM, flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com writes: > > >> This makes me believe that the critical part of the aileron system and >> inspection per the AD79-22-04 is the integrity of the balance weight and >> the >> > > How about an aileron bracket that uses the same bearing as the one inside > the > outboard flap bracket? That would eliminate a good portion of the wear > on > the outer aileron torque tube. > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 02:55:24 PM PST US From: "David Feinstein" Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Re: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "David Feinstein" # Certified aircraft are required (FAR Part 23) to be dive tested # (design dive speed) to 10% above what the manufacture sets as # Vne. For the Tiger that would amount to about 220 mph. As far # as I can determine this is and has always been based on IAS. It's based on Equivalent Airspeed (23.335), which is essentially the same thing as IAS for a Tiger (almost no calibration error). # But read the article by Van's chief engineer about their "theory" # that Vne is and should be based on TAS. Wonder why. In outer space, you could go VERY fast (TAS). IAS (or EAS) would be zero, and there wouldn't be any structural damage out there. ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 03:59:00 PM PST US From: "923te" <923te@cox.net> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "923te" <923te@cox.net> Sure there would be structural damage "out there". Why do you think there would not be? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Feinstein" Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 4:39 PM Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Re: Grumman strength > --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "David Feinstein" > > > # Certified aircraft are required (FAR Part 23) to be dive tested > # (design dive speed) to 10% above what the manufacture sets as > # Vne. For the Tiger that would amount to about 220 mph. As far > # as I can determine this is and has always been based on IAS. > > It's based on Equivalent Airspeed (23.335), which is essentially the same > thing as IAS for a Tiger (almost no calibration error). > > # But read the article by Van's chief engineer about their "theory" > # that Vne is and should be based on TAS. > > Wonder why. In outer space, you could go VERY fast (TAS). IAS (or EAS) > would > be zero, and there wouldn't be any structural damage out there. > > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 05:59:19 PM PST US From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com In a message dated 4/7/06 6:59:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 923te@cox.net writes: > Sure there would be structural damage "out there". Why do you think there > would not be? ======================== HMMmmmm Good question ... I guess you are talking about doing the same test a dive? Well, since there is almost NO friction S&L flight would be WAY above the plus 10% on Vne. It should be already in the 1000's of MPH. So the test would not be needed! But the big question is What are you going to use for an engine and how are you going to get the plane out there? Is it Out or is it Up? The only reason the plane is DIVED is to get GRAVITY to help increase the IAS above what the engine can do on its own in S&L flight. In space, there is almost NO gravity to start with. So, if you do a 60 degree bank in space would there be 2Gs? Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 08:55:07 PM PST US From: "923te" <923te@cox.net> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "923te" <923te@cox.net> Just put the spacecraft in a spin/tumble that generates 100G's and see what happens....that is after you scrape the pilots blood and other body parts off of the inside walls of the craft...... ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:57 PM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: Grumman strength > --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com > > In a message dated 4/7/06 6:59:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 923te@cox.net > writes: > >> Sure there would be structural damage "out there". Why do you think there >> would not be? > ======================== > HMMmmmm Good question ... I guess you are talking about doing the same > test a > dive? > > Well, since there is almost NO friction S&L flight would be WAY above the > plus 10% on Vne. It should be already in the 1000's of MPH. So the test > would > not be needed! But the big question is What are you going to use for an > engine > and how are you going to get the plane out there? Is it Out or is it Up? > > The only reason the plane is DIVED is to get GRAVITY to help increase the > IAS > above what the engine can do on its own in S&L flight. In space, there is > almost NO gravity to start with. > > So, if you do a 60 degree bank in space would there be 2Gs? > > Barry > "Chop'd Liver" > > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 11:36:19 PM PST US From: TeamGrumman@aol.com Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Grumman strength --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com In a message dated 4/7/06 12:37:38 PM, flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com writes: > That would be an improvement and preclude the expense of installing the > stainless steel wear sleeve and oversize bearing.=A0 There is plenty of room > for a wider bearing it seems to me. > Cliff > I've already designed the bracket, getting it approved is a different story.