Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:55 AM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_CHAPPERON?=)
2. 04:36 AM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Paul Mulwitz)
3. 05:48 AM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Dave Austin)
4. 12:20 PM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
5. 12:22 PM - Re: Re: crash B.S. ()
6. 12:56 PM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (LarryMcFarland)
7. 01:06 PM - Re: Re: crash B.S. (Dave)
8. 01:52 PM - Antennas (Bill Naumuk)
9. 02:09 PM - O-200 Electronic Tacho (Peter W Johnson)
10. 03:13 PM - Re: O-200 Electronic Tacho (Sabrina)
11. 04:17 PM - Re: Antennas (Lawrence Webber)
12. 08:36 PM - Re: Lightning holes flange dies & sizes (Lee Steensland)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
Hello all of you over the Atlantic ocean !
I react to Paul Mulwitz post. because he is speaking of what is
happening in
Europe and I=92m living in France with my 601xl built from a 100% kit .
I already introduced myself to you last year.
It=92 is right Dutch authorities decided ( maybe too quickly)to stop
flights
with 601;
In the same time, German people did the same , a few weeks ago ! they
have
considered, exactly as you said, that.
Design sounds good and number of 601 flying world wide a kind of proof.
However, they said that dynamic tests were not run and that is not
correct
.
So you must know that last week , ZENAIR FRANCE (Michael Heintz) sent a
601XL to a private laboratory in HAMBOURG (Germany) to have dynamic
examination in an artificial speed room ( blowers)
They also asked ZENAIR to have a dynamic =93g=94 test by loading wings ,
both
sides, (intrados and extrados) with a charge of sand sacks .
So you see that tests that were never ran in the past are going to be
done!
All buzz will stop that day !
Be sure that ZENAIR EUROP will communicate the very results if they are
positive
Be sure German authorities will communicate the very results if they are
negative !
Yours,
Fran=E7ois Chapperon
407 r=E9duite_modifi=E9-1
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
Bon jour Francois,
Thank you for writing to announce the dynamic
testing in Germany. Also, I thought Michael
Heintz was in California and Nicholas and Chris
were in Europe. Those guys move around very quickly.
My understanding of dynamic testing is different
from your description. As I understand it,
vibrations are introduced into various parts of
the airframe. The hope is to find a particular
vibration frequency and location that becomes
resonant. This makes the amplitude of the
vibration much larger and can lead, very quickly, to structural failure.
The problem with this type of test is the number
of different vibration frequencies and locations
for introducing the vibrations is nearly
infinite. That makes this kind of testing very
difficult and expensive. It is done (required?)
for many certified aircraft, but not usually done for experimental ones.
I am not familiar with the wind tunnel testing
you described. It sounds like a good idea, but I
have no idea what sort of issues it
examines. Perhaps this is a way to look at the possibility of control
flutter.
I believe the sand bag loading test is called
static testing. This kind of test has been
performed at least twice on the American version
of the Zodiac XL. I don't know if it has been
done on the European version at all.
I am glad to learn there are competent people
still looking for true explanations for the
problems with the XL. I will be flying mine very
soon (a month or two?) and don't expect to have
any problem. Still, I am concerned that there
might be a very small chance for a very big problem.
Best regards,
Paul
XL getting close
At 12:51 AM 3/7/2009, you wrote:
>Hello all of you over the Atlantic ocean !
>
>
>I react to Paul Mulwitz post. because he is
>speaking of what is happening in Europe and I=92m
>living in France with my 601xl built from a 100% kit .
>
>I already introduced myself to you last year.
>
>
>It=92 is right Dutch authorities decided ( maybe
>too quickly)to stop flights with 601;
>
>In the same time, German people did the same , a
>few weeks ago ! they have considered, exactly as you said, that.
>
>
>Design sounds good and number of 601 flying
>world wide a kind of proof. However, they said
>that dynamic tests were not run and that is not correct .
>
>
>So you must know that last week , ZENAIR FRANCE
>(Michael Heintz) sent a 601XL to a private
>laboratory in HAMBOURG (Germany) to have dynamic
>examination in an artificial speed room ( blowers)
>
>They also asked ZENAIR to have a dynamic =93g=94
>test by loading wings , both sides, (intrados
>and extrados) with a charge of sand sacks .
>
>
>So you see that tests that were never ran in the
>past are going to be done! All buzz will stop that day !
>
>
>Be sure that ZENAIR EUROP will communicate the
>very results if they are positive
>
>Be sure German authorities will communicate the
>very results if they are negative !
>
>
>Yours,
>
>
>Fran=E7ois Chapperon
>
>
>407 r=E9duite_modifi=E9-1
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: crash B.S. |
Could we give this subject a rest, please. And don't forget the do not
archive, because we won't want to go searching this stuff anytime.
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Take me with you this is getting old.
Oh, boy. Here we go again. I'm going out flying to get away from all this.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Rhino, they may have something there. The fact that there were tire
marks on one wing suggests that the wing may have folded down in flight.
The only way I can think to explain that one is that the plane may have
experienced a violent updraft, followed by one hellacious downdraft. My
thinking is that at the top of the updraft, and at the moment of
entering the downdraft, the inertia of the fuselage would have been to
continue up, while the downdraft was acting on the wings. Just a
thought. I seem to remember something similar happened to some T-28s a
long time ago.
Paul Rodriguez
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: Rhino<mailto:bsimmons@rainbowdata.com>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 4:59 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: crash B.S.
<bsimmons@rainbowdata.com<mailto:bsimmons@rainbowdata.com>>
jmaynard wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 12:38:38PM -0500, Juan Vega wrote:
>
> > Lets start looking at the facts, that most to all the accidents
are due to
> > pilot or maintenance issues. You guys that keep hunting for a
problem
> > after it is stated over and over again there is no design
problem, need to
> > find something else to do like go hunt for UFOs in the desert.
My brand
> > of BS smells more like perfume when compare to the BS you guys
are dishing
> > out over the wrong thing.
>
> Juan, you keep ignoring N158MD. How does that accident fit into your
view?
I can't speak for Juan, but N158MD seems to fit perfectly into what he
said.
> While cruising toward Willows, about 10 minutes after takeoff and 16
miles west of Lincoln, five ground-based witnesses heard the airplane.
Two of the witnesses also observed the airplane prior to the breakup.
>
> In summary, three of the auditory witnesses reported hearing a
"bang" sound. One of these witnesses reported that for about 10 seconds
prior to hearing the "bang," the engine was misfiring or sputtering. The
sound increased in loudness and ended with a loud "bang."
>
> The fourth witness reported to a Sutter County Sheriff's deputy that
he had been working in his field when he heard an airplane overhead. The
witness opined that the airplane's engine was missing really badly. A
few seconds later, as he was looking at it flying an estimated 800 to
1,200 feet above ground level, the airplane "blew up." The wings flew
off, parts went everywhere, and the cockpit turned in circles as it
descended.
>
> The fifth witness reported to the Safety Board investigator that he
was a retired United States Air Force mechanic and was familiar with
light airplanes. The witness was standing outside his residence, about
0.5-mile southeast of the accident site. In summary, the witness
reported that he heard the sound of the airplane's engine, and it
sounded fine. It was operating smoothly, its rpm sounded steady in that
it was producing a constant tone, and it was not backfiring or
sputtering. Then, the witness looked upward in the direction of the
engine sound and immediately observed the airplane. The airplane was
northwest of his location, and it was cruising in a northwesterly
direction. Its wings were level. The airplane was not turning, climbing,
or descending. The witnesses further stated that he could clearly see
the airplane and saw no evidence of fire or smoke trailing from it.
>
> The fifth witness additionally reported that, after a few seconds,
he stopped looking at the airplane and started talking on his cell
phone. The witness estimated that he looked away from the airplane for
about 5 seconds. Then, he heard the sound of the airplane's engine
rapidly change rpm. Within about 0.5 seconds, it decreased and then
increased, as if the pilot had retarded the throttle and then suddenly
changed his mind and restored the power. When the rpm came back up, it
did not sound like the engine had over revved. The tone sounded the same
as before the power had decreased. The witness reported that immediately
after the engine power came back up, he heard the sound of an explosion,
which was followed by the sound of metal scraping.
>
> Thereafter, he saw what he believed were three distinctive large
components falling. The components were the wings and the fuselage. The
witnesses stated that it took perhaps 6 to 8 seconds for the airplane to
fall, and it fell straight down. As the components descended, the
fuselage spiraled around. There was no fire or smoke.
>
> The witness opined that, originally, he thought there had been a
mid-air collision. However, there was no other aircraft in the area.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07FA026&rpt=fa<http://www.n
tsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07FA026&rpt=fa>
The aircraft actually took off 78 pounds over gross and was about 68
over when it crashed, but I don't see that as a factor.
All witnesses reported the aircraft in level or near level flight when
the accident occurred. If the airframe failed due to some design
deficiency, then why did both the wings and stabilizer fail downward
instead of upward? In level flight, natural forces push those surfaces
up, not down. Indeed, the left wing even had a tire mark on it's
underside from striking the landing gear.
Several of the witnesses strongly indicated engine trouble prior to
the breakup. This is a double edged sword though. While engine trouble
may have been the catalyst for this event, it is unlikely that an engine
problem would create an explosion of a magnitude that would cause the
aircraft to break up. On the other hand, some types of dramatic engine
failures have resulted in major changes to the flight characteristics of
some aircraft. Such changes could conceivably cause the aircraft to
transition into an attitude that created forces beyond it's design
limits. It is also possible that a pilots reaction to a sudden problem
caused him to inadvertently do the same thing. Both of those types of
scenarios have happened before.
Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) reported that AMD had made
modifications to the O-200 engine that were contrary to TCM's tested
design and TCM had never tested the engine with AMD's modifications. I
tend to doubt that's very relevant. The nature of those mods don't
suggest a catastrophic failure.
The owners had replaced a magneto without documenting it. The new
magneto timing was found to be 32 degrees BTDC instead of the required
28.
The starter was an aftermarket accessory whose installation was also
not documented. The gasket for the starter was not properly. The drive
coupling was noted to be loose, and actually fell out when they removed
the starter. This alone does not look to have been a factor in the
crash. TCM found that a required starter adapter plug assembly had
inadvertently not been installed when the engine was manufactured. It is
designed to keep oil out of an area of the engine where it is not
desired, essentially the area of the starter. TCM said that would not
have caused anything more than a leak around the starter, possibly made
worse by the improper starter installation mentioned above (the engine
was not oil starved at the time of the crash). TCM later admitted that
they had detected the oil leak during initial testing of the engine
during manufacture, and that they were responsible for the improper
starter installation.
There was a gear tooth broken off in the crankshaft assembly, but it
appeared to have occurred on impact.
One of the aircraft owners reported that they sometimes noticed an
unusual vibration in the floor area of the cockpit. The report makes no
significance of that, but it does make me go hmmmm.
Now for the meat of the issue. The right and left wing rear spar
attachment plates, the rear spar root doublers, the wing rear channel
(spar), the center spar web, front and rear, the center spar cap (main
wing spar), center section; and the rear spar attachment for the
stabilizer. were measured to determine conformity with construction
specifications. The thickness measurements of all examined components
were found consistent with the design specifications. No anomalies were
noted by the Safety Board investigator or the AMD participant. That
means that the previously tested, proven and approved design limits were
present in the construction of the crashed aircraft.
The aft 4 feet of the airplane's rear empennage, horizontal stabilizer
with attached elevator, vertical stabilizer, rudder, and the left
aileron were examined by a metallurgist from the Safety Board. The
metallurgist did not report finding any evidence of preimpact cracking
or damage in any of the examined parts. In other words, there was no
evidence of an inflight breakup of the horizontal stabilizer.
And finally, the airplane's entire structure was examined by an
aerospace engineer from the Safety Board. The engineer reported that all
of the fracture surfaces examined exhibited features consistent with
static overload. In other words, they happened as a result of stresses
beyond the design limits of the aircraft, which means there was no
design deficiency that caused the breakup. All breakups, fractures, etc
were caused by the aircraft exceeding the design limits after whatever
unknown factor initially caused the accident scenario to unfold.
In the end the NTSB determined "In-flight structural failure of the
horizontal stabilizer and wings for undetermined reasons." It says
undetermined for a good reason, because they have no evidence to
indicate a specific reason, to include a design deficiency. On the
contrary, their investigation very strongly indicates that there was no
design deficiency at all related to this crash.
With zero evidence to indicate a design deficiency in this crash, or
in any other 601 crash for that matter, it really isn't necessary for
Juan to explain how N158MD fits into his view.
Is it possible that that particular aircraft crashed due to some
construction deficiency? Sure it is, but none of the evidence points to
that, and a lot of the evidence seems to preclude it. Notice that I said
it was possible that it crashed due to some construction deficiency, not
a design deficiency. If there was indeed such a design deficiency in the
601, the NTSB would certainly have at least hinted at it. And such a
deficiency would almost certainly have shown up loooong ago when you
consider how many of them are flying.
Anyone can opine that there is some very minute possibility of a
heretofore unknown design deficiency. But if we really want to venture
into the realm of very minute possibilities then we could also opine
that the aircraft could have been struck by a meteorite.
There's a big difference between making a wild guess and claiming
something as true or even probable. It's even a good idea to ask if you
think something is true or even probable. But to claim something as true
or even probable without some definitive or even remotely associated
evidence is quite rightly going to make you subject to disagreement. It
is also difficult to raise an incident as evidence of your cause, when
the true facts of that incident seems to prove the opposite of what you
claim.
When it all boils down to it, anybody is free to believe whatever they
want. It just saves everyone grief and frustration if people don't claim
something as fact when they have no evidence of that. No, jmaynard, I'm
not saying you are specifically doing that. It just seems to be an
underlying train of thought for some people in discussions like this.
--------
Bob Simmons
CH 750!!!
N750TN (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233521#233521<http://forums
.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233521#233521>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List<http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Zenith-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Exactly right Andrew,
The discussion of this problem is painful for most posters XL builders
and owners, but it will run on until statistic or proofs resolve the issue.
I built a revision 4 HDS that was much heavier than the first edition
HDS that first flew with a Rotax 583 at a 580 lb empty wt. The HDS has
been progressively upgraded and strengthened by thicker materials to use
larger engines, presumably to fly faster, but as a drawing set, revision
4 HDS is still a very light aircraft by comparison to RV and others.
The newer XL at first glance with a reduction of wing thickness and
flaps assured a way to fly faster and land slower. The concept seemed
improved. Bolting a simpler bent-leaf-gear to the bottom of the fuselage
was easier to design, package and build. Wings cantilevered from the
fuselage required a center spar shortened to fuselage width. Repackaging
601HD and HDS from a more complex construct to a much simpler aircraft
allows it to compete with all LSA. The same passenger, pilot, baggage
and fuel are unchanged. The shorter center spar and longer wings
refocused and magnified stresses within the fuselage across a much
shorter and reduced section spar. It is this reduced spar section and
length that increases material stress within the spar and fuselage
attach points. Discussion seems focused on wings that fail and fold. I
dont believe an XL wing has ever failed unless it was damaged
externally. The center spar is, in design-terms, capable of doing its
job when the aircraft is constructed correctly, not overloaded, and has
properly torqued wing bolts. The safety margins in stress on the XL
cannot be as forgiving as those found in the HD and HDS series because
higher stresses are focused to a shorter lesser cross-section
center-spar material. This newer canted angle spar design still meets
the requirements and is thought to be statistically safe as demonstrated
by a history of many older and actively flying XL. It is the margin of
safety that needs to be addressed to preclude continuation of the
problem, whether it is better builder-flyer adherence to loading,
construction, etc or the introduction of a thicker section spar and
better integration of spar connections with the fuselage. This kind of
assumption would say that post-accident investigation would be unlikely
to find anything that relates to cause until there are lots more broken
parts and witnesses for comparing data. Early Bensen Gyrocopters went
through a more frequent kind of the same pain until improvements were
made much later when Bensens were no longer available. Even though a few
Bensons are still flying, 601XLs are still way safer!
Do fly safe guys,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
rans6andrew wrote:
>
> Juan, have you read the following, which I posted in December? Nobody has criticised
it so I guess it is reasonable, level headed stuff.
>
> I had been thinking along the same lines as Scotsman (who is from South Africa,
apparently) and then I came around to comparing accident types and rates with
other Zenair(ith) designs.
>
> I don't know how many 601XLs there are out there or indeed how many 601HDs there
are or 601ULs there are. In the UK we currently have 20 XLs on the register,
28 ULs , 17 HD and 10 HDS models. So less than 30 % of the fleet is XL types.
>
> Is this typical of the ratio in the world as a whole?
>
> If it is, assuming that the same sort of people buy/build ULs, HDs, HDSs and
XL varients, assuming that the same spread of pilot abilities, the same ratio
of aerobatic wannabees buy each model and the same spread of builder competences
we should be hearing about 3 times as many in flight break ups of the non XL
types as XL types.
>
> We don't.
>
> Where are the others?
>
> This line of thinking tells me that either I have missed something significant
or that there is something peculiar to the XL.
> Please correct me if there is a fatal flaw in my reasoning.
>
> Oh, and feel free to flame me 'cos it seems to be par for the course if you post
from the UK!
>
>
> Andrew - in the UK and building a 601UL.
> I'm going to run the engine for the first time this weekend.
>
> --------
> A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
> Still flying Rans S6 with 503.
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
It's strange for an outsider to watch this three sided argument, on the one
hand we have those (with money invested, not a neutral stance) who have
absolute belief and faith in the XL. There IS not a problem and if the wings
fell off in the driveway they would deny it. The opposing side who assumes
there IS a problem and until it is proven that nothing can possibly ever go
wrong will condemn the design. And the third (condemned by both preceding
sides) who looks at what appears to be happening and wonders why that might
be the case.
Me? I have an idea and no expertise and no proof, so I wait and watch. I DO
have an idea how this will play out that I am happy to share though. The XL
will go down in history with a lot of other aircraft as a design that for
some reason or other developed an undesirable history. Zenith will quietly
retire the design and move on (CH-650). Those who have 601XL's will have
either positive experiences and crow about the aircraft, others may have
less positive experiences and will say nothing, but others will either
blame or commiserate with them and post endlessly about it. For history (
and hysteria) look up the Beech (Doctor Killer) Bonanza or the Cirrus and
there are others out there. Look folks, sometimes bad things happen, all
designs should be endlessly suspect with an eye to making things better.
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
All-
Does anyone have any complaints with the stainless steel comm
antennas from ACS? You know, the cheap ones?
Having a hell of a time locating stuff I bought years ago and am
just getting around to putting in. Also in dire need of a Narco -10 ELT
antenna (God knows how I could lose something that big!) and a wiring
harness for a King KT76TSO Transponder. TSO is actually part of the
model number.
Thanks.
Bill
do not archive
Bill Naumuk
Townville, Pa.
HDS 601MG/Corvair 95%
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | O-200 Electronic Tacho |
Hi Guys,
How have you O-200 builders attached an electronic Tacho to the engine?
Pickups on the P-Leads?
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://zodiac.cpc-world.com <http://zodiac.cpc-world.com/>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: O-200 Electronic Tacho |
Off the P leads--make sure the equipment you are using is good quality and will
not ground out your mags if it fails.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233629#233629
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Bill dont feel bad i lost the fiberglass nose bowl i got from WW for 4 mo
nths
because i decided to clean up and put stuff where i wouldnt forget where
i put them talk about senior moments
Larry
From: naumuk@windstream.net
Subject: Zenith-List: Antennas
All-
Does anyone have any complaints with the stainless steel comm antennas
from ACS? You know=2C the cheap ones?
Having a hell of a time locating stuff I bought years ago and am just g
etting around to putting in. Also in dire need of a Narco -10 ELT antenna (
God knows how I could lose something that big!) and a wiring harness for a
King KT76TSO Transponder. TSO is actually part of the model number.
Thanks.
Bill
do not archive
Bill Naumuk
Townville=2C Pa.
HDS 601MG/Corvair 95%
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99 Contacts: Organize your contact list.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-
cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lightning holes flange dies & sizes |
At one point I posted about borrowing a set from someone.
I planned to make a set of dies or have a set made, but the cheapest price I was
quoted was like $500 or some such. I decided to just use a slotted stick with
prices like that.
If I could borrow a set that would be spectacular.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233649#233649
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|