<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1"> <TITLE>Cross papering</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY>  Hello David, Could you explain "cross papering" of flanges? Thanks, Geoff Pollard Sydney Conservatorium of Music -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces@ptg.org on behalf of Porritt, David Sent: Wed 1/3/2007 7:19 AM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] Parts Alan: I'm pretty much a Renner guy.  What part of "design" are you referring to?  If you mean the non-flat rail it's not my favorite part of S&S.  If the world were a perfect place I'm sure that design would hold the parts securely. Since we have to radically change the design by using traveling paper, and/or cross paper flanges to get the hammer aimed in the right direction the design becomes an impediment rather than a help. dp David M. Porritt dporritt@smu.edu -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [<A HREF="mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org">mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org</A>] On Behalf Of Alan McCoy Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 1:26 PM To: College and University Technicians <caut@ptg.org> Subject: [CAUT] Parts Hi Folks and Happy New Year to all, When you buy your next action parts - shanks, flanges, backchecks and wippens - which manufacturer are you going to choose? And why? Abel? Tokiwa? Renner? Steinway? I am currently working on a S&S M replacing S&F only and using Abel parts. Not finished with the job yet, but so far I like the parts. Pinning consistent at around 3g. Shank radius weight mostly at 5g, with a dozen at 4g and another dozen at 6g. Knuckle line is good. (Though I had to do a lot of flange papering to compensate for the S&S rail design. I can't see much advantage to this design. What am I missing?) Thanks for your thoughts and experience. Alan -- Alan McCoy, RPT Eastern Washington University amccoy@mail.ewu.edu 509-359-4627 </BODY> </HTML>