Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:43 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Phil Maxson)
2. 05:22 AM - Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Rich Simmons)
3. 05:48 AM - Re: What did you do today? (Bill Naumuk)
4. 05:59 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Jay Maynard)
5. 06:22 AM - Re: Bolt torque (Juan Vega)
6. 06:22 AM - Re: Bolt torque (Juan Vega)
7. 06:38 AM - Re: Bolt torque (JohnDRead@aol.com)
8. 06:47 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (thesumak@aol.com)
9. 06:50 AM - Re: Bolt torque (Bill Pagan)
10. 07:10 AM - Re: Bolt torque (Pete Krotje)
11. 07:14 AM - Re: Bolt torque (Pete Krotje)
12. 07:25 AM - Re: Bolt torque (JohnDRead@aol.com)
13. 07:36 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (David Brown)
14. 07:42 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Randy)
15. 07:56 AM - Re: Bolt torque (Bryan Martin)
16. 08:03 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Jay Maynard)
17. 08:10 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Paul Mulwitz)
18. 09:39 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Dave)
19. 10:41 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (japhillipsga@aol.com)
20. 10:57 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Paul Mulwitz)
21. 11:20 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Carlos Sa)
22. 11:21 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (japhillipsga@aol.com)
23. 11:34 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Paul Mulwitz)
24. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Paul Mulwitz)
25. 04:04 PM - Re: panel access modicaton location (Edward Moody II)
26. 04:56 PM - The removable forward top skin (LarryMcFarland)
27. 05:44 PM - Re: panel access modicaton location (Lawrence Webber)
28. 06:11 PM - Re: What did you do today? (Lawrence Webber)
29. 08:10 PM - Cutting holes with one or more flat sides (Craig Payne)
30. 08:24 PM - Re: Cutting holes with one or more flat sides (Paul Mulwitz)
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Scott=2C
I don't know what's come over you lately=2C but I like it! You're asking ma
ny of the questions I've been thinking of. I look forward to meeting you s
ome day. I think I'll go unground my plane this weekend (now that I have t
he tools to set the cable tension properly)=2C and go flying.
Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
Northwest New Jersey
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
> Date: Thu=2C 28 May 2009 21:04:08 -0700
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>
>
>
> Paul:
>
> Grounded? What does that mean? Has it flown yet? Who grounded your air
plane? <<SNIP>>
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE has ever-growing storage! Don=92t worry about storage limits.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tuto
rial_Storage1_052009
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Scott,
I appreciate your words. You are right in my case. I have not touched my plane
since I got the NTSB bulletin. I read this list to try and gain knowledge and
have to sort through the arm chair quarterbacks who know it all yet have not done
much. It makes the process difficult.
This list was meant to be a discussion forum but for a while they it turned into
a bashing list. Things were stated without concrete evidence/support and others
ran with it. I work in a quality group that studies issues and then suggest
counter measures. We use hard data to make decisions about path of travel for
the judgment phase and then the solution. This list seems to roll dice and pick
something in some cases.
I try to remember that the demonstrator for Zenith has thousands of hours and there
are many with several hundreds of hour on their units. The builders can smile
on most all of their flight hours. You can see it in their comments about
their flights.
I personally am waiting to pay cash for my engine kit but wrestle with the still
needed $28k investment. (Engine and electronics) Late this years if I can get
my motivator started I should have my firewall forward and then things can move
on. Till then, I need comments as yours to help filter out the crap and motivate.
Thanks again for your comments.
Rich Simmons
Murfreesboro, TN
601XL Canopy and brake lines
Working in IFR Cert in a Cherokee 140
I really like flying!
OH,
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: What did you do today? |
Larry-
Sounds like you did good. My main point was, don't be fooled by what
the outside looks like. Did you have a batch of crud come out?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Webber
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: What did you do today?
Bill being as frugal as i am i used a boat bilge pump set in a
solution of ATF
and acetone ran tubing in one side and out to return to solution. pump
was operated by a 12 volt car battery , let run about an hour then ran a
clean solution until i was
satisfied cooked in oven (my own not my wifes kitchen oven) and ran
once again
I showed mark from Clarks Corvair at CC#14 and he was impressed even
the outside looked new
Larry Webber 601xl corvair chugger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: naumuk@windstream.net
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: What did you do today?
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:18:41 -0400
Larry-
Did you have it boiled out at a radiator shop or is it new? It's
amazing the crud that came out of my folded fin even though it was
pristine on the outside. Remember, the oil cooler is post oil filter in
the loop and anything that gets dislodged goes straight to the bearings,
etc. Considering how small a cooler is, the cost should me minimal. In
my case, the guy at the radiator shop didn't even charge me. REALLY
cheap peace of mind.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Webber
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:59 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: What did you do today?
itested and mounted my 12 plate oil cooler
Larry
> From: purplemoon99@bellsouth.net
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com; zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: What did you do today?
> Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 02:10:06 +0000
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE. See how.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matron
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
ronics.com
ww.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE. See how.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:04:08PM -0700, cookwithgas wrote:
> You guys have fun chatting about the sky falling and I'll remain
> un-grounded.
Not that you give a fuzzy rat's posterior about me and my airplane - after
all, I'm just a lowly buyer, not one of the exalted types who built one (and
are scratch builders even more exalted than kit builders? are quick-build
kit builders even more lowly than slow-build kit builders?) - but my
airplane is *not* grounded. I've flown 165.6 hours in it since I took
delivery on June 10 of last year, and will probably have 175-180 hours in it
by the time of the first annual. I'm planning on going flying this evening
after I'm done working at the airport.
Outside the Zodiac community, there are folks who won't get in the airplane
because of the NTSB recommendation. I wound up having to travel over 250 nm
to find a pilot examiner to give me my CFI-SP checkride because the local
one is one such person. I've been told by some people that they don't think
much of her decision. I've got no problem with it, and certainly don't place
the blame on her; the answer "no" is *always* acceptable to the question
"can we make this flight?" in aviation. I don't place the blame on ZBAG;
their actions have been in the interest of safety, nothing more and nothing
less. I don't blame the NTSB, either (except in that they seem to be
contradicting themselves, something I'd love to see a better explanation
for). To me, Zenair's attitude needs work. They seem to be interested mainly
in denying a problem, when their focus, in my opinion, should be on doing
whatever it takes to restore confidence in the type. Issuing denials won't
cut it. Doing whatever testing is necessary - and releasing full and
complete documentation on the tests - is the only approach that wil work in
the long term.
To answer an accusation that was leveled at me in the other message: No,
I'm not just stirring the pot. I, and folks who aren't intimately associated
with the type, have legitimate questions about the aircraft that have not,
to date, been answered. Until those answers are found, the type will have a
black eye in the eyes of both the aviation community and the wider public.
Our interests are not well served by denying that there's a problem. They're
better served by either *proving* there's not a problem, or else finding the
problem and fixing it.
Grounding one's Zodiac is a personal decision. I carefully evaluated the
risks and decided I would be comfortable with flying mine as long as I did
so with the risks in mind, and take appropriate actions to minimize those
risks. I respect the decision of some folks to ground theirs, just as I
respect the decision of others not to. What I do not respect is those who
have displayed the hazardous attitudes of invulnerability (it won't happen
to me), antiauthority (don't tell *me* what to do!), or macho (taking
unjustified risks is good and manly). Those attitudes are quite evident from
some posters on this list.
I hope that the folks who are displaying those attitudes will at least
maintain their aircraft to the highest standards and fly them
conservatively. Quite aside from the obvious consequences to them and their
families in the event of a crash, the resuts in terms of public confidence
in the type and the value of existing aircraft would be devastating.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
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 |
|
I just checked it out. Its a good table to use. the info is correct, you just
need to read the top of the column where it says foot lbs or inch lbs. I am
saving it to use later. it is attached below for all.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: michael lord <mlord001@new.rr.com>
>Sent: May 27, 2009 8:40 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Bolt torque
>
>Thanks Guys for the heads up on the AN bolt torque.
>I will pull all of my wing bolts and replace them with new.
>
>To explain where I got the bogus information. I googled
>AN Bolt torque and a ultralightflyers.org/documents came up
>I clicked on it and AN Bolt torque spec.xls document came up
>with the faulty information.
>
>Regards
>Mike Lord
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 |
|
Michael,
now I see, i think the numbers have an extra zero. trash that file!
JUan
-----Original Message-----
>From: michael lord <mlord001@new.rr.com>
>Sent: May 27, 2009 8:40 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Bolt torque
>
>Thanks Guys for the heads up on the AN bolt torque.
>I will pull all of my wing bolts and replace them with new.
>
>To explain where I got the bogus information. I googled
>AN Bolt torque and a ultralightflyers.org/documents came up
>I clicked on it and AN Bolt torque spec.xls document came up
>with the faulty information.
>
>Regards
>Mike Lord
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 |
|
Juan;
Your numbers are off the wall wrong! Please look in the Zenith
Construction Standards for the correct numbers.
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
**************Discover the variety of Bisquick=AE mix. Get Recipes & Savin
gs
Now.
=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215225813%3B37274670%3Be%3Fhttp:%
2F%2
Frecipes.bisquick.bettycrocker.com%3FESRC%3D971)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Yep, we do tend to be snobs.? To add to your pecking order, folks that design their
own flying machines trump the scratch builders.? I have not done that, but
both of my sons are engineers and we dream. Hope we get to it before I check
out.
No disrespect is intended toward anyone.
Cheers,
Bill
601XL
do not archive
Jay said:
after all, I'm just a lowly buyer, not one of the exalted types who built one (and
are scratch builders even more exalted than kit builders? are quick-build
kit builders even more lowly than slow-build kit builders?)
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 |
|
Torgue values from 43.13 attached.
Bill Pagan
EAA Tech Counselor #4395
601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)
--- On Fri, 5/29/09, Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net> wrote:
From: Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Bolt torque
Michael,
now I see, i think the numbers have an extra zero.- trash that file!
JUan
-----Original Message-----
>From: michael lord <mlord001@new.rr.com>
>Sent: May 27, 2009 8:40 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Bolt torque
>
>Thanks Guys for the heads up on the AN bolt torque.
>I will pull all of my wing bolts and replace them with new.
>
>To explain where I got the bogus information.- I googled
>AN Bolt torque and a ultralightflyers.org/documents came up
>I clicked on it and AN Bolt torque spec.xls document came up
>with the faulty information.
>
>Regards
>Mike Lord
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
That chart is not correct. Please look at the torque values in FAA Advisory Circular 43-13 - chapter 7 paragraph 7-40 and the table following. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/$FILE/Chapter%2007.pdf
You will see that limit torque for AN3 is 40 inch lbs.
Most aircraft designers will specify torque in accordance with this AC.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Juan Vega
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Bolt torque
I just checked it out. Its a good table to use. the info is correct, you just
need to read the top of the column where it says foot lbs or inch lbs. I am
saving it to use later. it is attached below for all.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: michael lord <mlord001@new.rr.com>
>Sent: May 27, 2009 8:40 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Bolt torque
>
>Thanks Guys for the heads up on the AN bolt torque.
>I will pull all of my wing bolts and replace them with new.
>
>To explain where I got the bogus information. I googled AN Bolt torque
>and a ultralightflyers.org/documents came up I clicked on it and AN
>Bolt torque spec.xls document came up with the faulty information.
>
>Regards
>Mike Lord
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 |
|
Here is the FAA torque chart from AC43-13. Note that values are in inch
lbs
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Juan Vega
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Bolt torque
I just checked it out. Its a good table to use. the info is correct,
you just need to read the top of the column where it says foot lbs or
inch lbs. I am saving it to use later. it is attached below for all.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: michael lord <mlord001@new.rr.com>
>Sent: May 27, 2009 8:40 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Bolt torque
>
>Thanks Guys for the heads up on the AN bolt torque.
>I will pull all of my wing bolts and replace them with new.
>
>To explain where I got the bogus information. I googled AN Bolt torque
>and a ultralightflyers.org/documents came up I clicked on it and AN
>Bolt torque spec.xls document came up with the faulty information.
>
>Regards
>Mike Lord
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 |
|
Here's a question for all. Is this lack of understanding of torque values
behind the alleged wing failure problems?
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 5/29/2009 8:15:30 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
pete@usjabiru.com writes:
Here is the FAA torque chart from AC43-13. Note that values are in inch
lbs
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Juan Vega
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Bolt torque
I just checked it out. Its a good table to use. the info is correct,
you just need to read the top of the column where it says foot lbs or inc
h
lbs. I am saving it to use later. it is attached below for all.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: michael lord <mlord001@new.rr.com>
>Sent: May 27, 2009 8:40 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Bolt torque
>
>Thanks Guys for the heads up on the AN bolt torque.
>I will pull all of my wing bolts and replace them with new.
>
>To explain where I got the bogus information. I googled AN Bolt torque
>and a ultralightflyers.org/documents came up I clicked on it and AN
>Bolt torque spec.xls document came up with the faulty information.
>
>Regards
>Mike Lord
**************Discover the variety of Bisquick=AE mix. Get Recipes & Savin
gs
Now.
=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215225813%3B37274670%3Be%3Fhttp:%
2F%2
Frecipes.bisquick.bettycrocker.com%3FESRC%3D971)
Message 13
| 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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Scott, & listers,
Thanks for the voice of reason.
Everyone should read the letters at
http://www.zenair.org/nuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=17
There are at least two instances of 601XL's that have had aileron
flutter and have live to tell about it.
When I first found out that this could be a problem back in December, I
checked the tension on my aileron cables at about 25 hrs flight time.
They were loose. They had been checked before the DAR came and were
within specs. I check them on every preflight, they have not loosened
again. I attribute it to wear in of the parts.
The problem that I dealt with the most was leaky screws around the fuel
senders. Could have been the source of an explosion that could have
caused a wing to fold??
Thank goodness for my DYNON180, it showed low fuel pressure on climb out
after takeoff, the warning would only occur for a few seconds. The
gascolator screen had a fine mesh like silk on it, after cleaning no
more problems. Without this warning I am sure that I would have bellied
in some field.
I am sure that most people on this list would get along very well if
they were to meet at a flyin. Just about anything can be said with a
smile. On this list, everything is taken personally and gets heated.
I miss Sabrina's posts.
David, N601EX 81 hours and flew yesterday
<cookwithgas@hotmail.com>
Guys:
I've been reading these flutter posts once again till I'm blue in the
face
Message 14
| 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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Jay, You seem to believe the speculation by the NTSB but not the proven
tests done by
the German engineers. You say "Zenair's attitude needs work", I believe
their attitude
is fine and have taken the proper steps.
To me, Zenair's attitude needs work. They seem to be interested mainly
> in denying a problem, when their focus, in my opinion, should be on doing
> whatever it takes to restore confidence in the type. Issuing denials won't
> cut it. Doing whatever testing is necessary - and releasing full and
> complete documentation on the tests - is the only approach that wil work
> in
> the long term.
The results of the German-led GVT (Ground Vibration Tests) are in and
they are unequivocal: The Zodiac CH 601 XL and CH 650 E are not subject
to flutter if built, maintained and flown as intended by Zenair. The
linear flutter tests confirmed this for all speeds up to 400 km/h and
with aileron control cable tension down to less than ten pounds. Chris
Heintz and representatives from Zenair Europe will be meeting with DAeC
engineers in Germany during the coming week to review results of the
recently concluded tests and to discuss the process for lifting
remaining flight limitations on the LTF-UL certified aircraft.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Maynard" <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:04:08PM -0700, cookwithgas wrote:
>> You guys have fun chatting about the sky falling and I'll remain
>> un-grounded.
>
> Not that you give a fuzzy rat's posterior about me and my airplane - after
> all, I'm just a lowly buyer, not one of the exalted types who built one
> (and
> are scratch builders even more exalted than kit builders? are quick-build
> kit builders even more lowly than slow-build kit builders?) - but my
> airplane is *not* grounded. I've flown 165.6 hours in it since I took
> delivery on June 10 of last year, and will probably have 175-180 hours in
> it
> by the time of the first annual. I'm planning on going flying this evening
> after I'm done working at the airport.
>
> Outside the Zodiac community, there are folks who won't get in the
> airplane
> because of the NTSB recommendation. I wound up having to travel over 250
> nm
> to find a pilot examiner to give me my CFI-SP checkride because the local
> one is one such person. I've been told by some people that they don't
> think
> much of her decision. I've got no problem with it, and certainly don't
> place
> the blame on her; the answer "no" is *always* acceptable to the question
> "can we make this flight?" in aviation. I don't place the blame on ZBAG;
> their actions have been in the interest of safety, nothing more and
> nothing
> less. I don't blame the NTSB, either (except in that they seem to be
> contradicting themselves, something I'd love to see a better explanation
> for). To me, Zenair's attitude needs work. They seem to be interested
> mainly
> in denying a problem, when their focus, in my opinion, should be on doing
> whatever it takes to restore confidence in the type. Issuing denials won't
> cut it. Doing whatever testing is necessary - and releasing full and
> complete documentation on the tests - is the only approach that wil work
> in
> the long term.
>
> To answer an accusation that was leveled at me in the other message: No,
> I'm not just stirring the pot. I, and folks who aren't intimately
> associated
> with the type, have legitimate questions about the aircraft that have not,
> to date, been answered. Until those answers are found, the type will have
> a
> black eye in the eyes of both the aviation community and the wider public.
>
> Our interests are not well served by denying that there's a problem.
> They're
> better served by either *proving* there's not a problem, or else finding
> the
> problem and fixing it.
>
> Grounding one's Zodiac is a personal decision. I carefully evaluated the
> risks and decided I would be comfortable with flying mine as long as I did
> so with the risks in mind, and take appropriate actions to minimize those
> risks. I respect the decision of some folks to ground theirs, just as I
> respect the decision of others not to. What I do not respect is those who
> have displayed the hazardous attitudes of invulnerability (it won't happen
> to me), antiauthority (don't tell *me* what to do!), or macho (taking
> unjustified risks is good and manly). Those attitudes are quite evident
> from
> some posters on this list.
>
> I hope that the folks who are displaying those attitudes will at least
> maintain their aircraft to the highest standards and fly them
> conservatively. Quite aside from the obvious consequences to them and
> their
> families in the event of a crash, the resuts in terms of public confidence
> in the type and the value of existing aircraft would be devastating.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
>
>
>
Message 15
| 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 |
|
I don't recall seeing bolt failure mentioned in any of the accident
reports.
On May 29, 2009, at 10:24 AM, JohnDRead@aol.com wrote:
> Here's a question for all. Is this lack of understanding of torque
> values behind the alleged wing failure problems?
>
> John Read
> CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Message 16
| 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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 09:38:07AM -0500, Randy wrote:
> Jay, You seem to believe the speculation by the NTSB but not the proven
> tests done by the German engineers. You say "Zenair's attitude needs
> work", I believe their attitude is fine and have taken the proper steps.
Some of the proper steps. They should release the full report they got from
the engineers so that the actual conclusions may be evaluated.
As things stand, I believe that flutter is not the issue - as I have said
since Zenair sent out their press release. That does not explain why Zodiacs
are breaking up in flight. We still do not know what the issue *is*.
Zenair's best tool in this discussion is total, complete openness. So far,
they've been more interested in stonewalling. That's what I mean by a change
in their attitude.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
Message 17
| 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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
I have not seen any reference to where we might find a copy of the
reports to read. The only public information I have found so far is
a short video that shows testing of a CH650.
If you know of a location where the supposed report can be found,
please publish it.
Paul
XL grounded
At 07:38 AM 5/29/2009, you wrote:
>The results of the German-led GVT (Ground Vibration Tests) are in and
>they are unequivocal: The Zodiac CH 601 XL and CH 650 E are not subject
>to flutter if built, maintained and flown as intended by Zenair.
Message 18
| 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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Don't include me in that "we". I don't care how anybody gets a plane,
even the renters. A person who shares my interests will give me reason
to start a conversation, what they have to say will give me reason to
continue or walk away.
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: thesumak@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
Yep, we do tend to be snobs. To add to your pecking order, folks that
design their own flying machines trump the scratch builders. I have not
done that, but both of my sons are engineers and we dream. Hope we get
to it before I check out.
No disrespect is intended toward anyone.
Cheers,
Bill
601XL
do not archive
Jay said:
after all, I'm just a lowly buyer, not one of the exalted types who
built one (and
are scratch builders even more exalted than kit builders? are
quick-build
kit builders even more lowly than slow-build kit builders?)
Message 19
| 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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Paul, for you I totally concur whole heartily that you and your airplane should
be grounded. We "others" will continue to turn dead dinosaurs in to fun. Best
regards, Bill of Georgia
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
Sent: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:41 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
?
Scott,?
?
With all due respect to you, I think you are being very unfair to Jay and many
others.?
?
I have built a complete Zodiac XL from the bottom up, and mine is grounded. As
I mentioned several times on this list and in other venues, I respect the decision
announced by the NTSB. I don't agree with it, but I respect the organization
and their "Authority" on matters like this.?
?
The kind of familiarity you and I have with this design is more than Jay's. That
can have a great influence on our confidence in the design. It doesn't make
us accident analysis experts.?
?
One funny experience I have had is discussion with many people both inside and
out of the Zenith builder's community. To a man, every single one I have talked
to outside the Zenith community tells me grounding my plane was the correct
choice. All who have expressed any opinion that seemed to show some knowledge
of aviation said the ailerons need to be mass balanced -- just like the NTSB said.
This has included many old guys including some from the FAA, local experts,
A&P mechanics, and others. It is only Zenith insiders who have suggested to
me that the design is fine the way it is.?
?
'nuff said.?
?
Paul?
XL grounded?
?
At 06:44 PM 5/28/2009, you wrote:?
>Then there is Jay Maynard who purchased his from a store. Jay I can >understand
why you keep stirring the pot here because there are >hundreds of parts you
don't understand. It makes sense because you >wrote a check and picked up your
airplane from the airplane >store. No disrespect (I'm happy for you), but there
is no way you >can understand what most of us are talking about here.?
?
?
?
?
Message 20
| 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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Hi Bill,
Thank you for your support.
I have always agreed with Jay's recent comments that this is a
decision each of us must make for ourselves. There are no universal
answers. This could change if there are ever any actual facts about
the causes of the XL accidents. For now it is simply an open question.
One small correction, my Zodiac is grounded but I am not. I have
been flying nearly every day since receiving my leased Tecnam P92
Echo Super Deluxe a couple of weeks ago. I imagine it has very
similar performance and behavior to the Zodiac XL. Alas, it has a
Rotax engine instead of the Jabiru in my XL.
Just for the record, I don't consider Zodiac XLs to be dead
dinosaurs. It is still the ideal design for my needs and perhaps the
best LSA there is. Unfortunately, it has a small cloud hanging over it.
Best regards,
Paul
do not archive
At 10:41 AM 5/29/2009, you wrote:
>Paul, for you I totally concur whole heartily that you and your
>airplane should be grounded. We "others" will continue to turn dead
>dinosaurs in to fun. Best regards, Bill of Georgia
Message 21
| 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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Paul, is this the model you got?
http://p92.org/
(talking abot the one with wings, not the ones near the dog)
Carlos
2009/5/29 Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Thank you for your support.
>
> I have always agreed with Jay's recent comments that this is a decision
> each of us must make for ourselves. There are no universal answers. This
> could change if there are ever any actual facts about the causes of the XL
> accidents. For now it is simply an open question.
>
> One small correction, my Zodiac is grounded but I am not. I have been
> flying nearly every day since receiving my leased Tecnam P92 Echo Super
> Deluxe a couple of weeks ago. I imagine it has very similar performance and
> behavior to the Zodiac XL. Alas, it has a Rotax engine instead of the
> Jabiru in my XL.
>
> Just for the record, I don't consider Zodiac XLs to be dead dinosaurs. It
> is still the ideal design for my needs and perhaps the best LSA there is.
> Unfortunately, it has a small cloud hanging over it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Paul
> do not archive
>
Message 22
| 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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Sorry Paul, I'll slow down a bit. 'The phrase 'turning dead dinosaurs into fun'
actually meant to use gasoline made from petroleum extracted from underground
pools of decayed ancient carbon based life forms of which dinosaurs are included
by internal combustion in the engines of our 601 XLs by flying them in the
air and thereby gaining enjoyment and pleasure. Best regards, Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
Sent: Fri, 29 May 2009 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
?
Hi Bill,?
?
Thank you for your support.?
?
I have always agreed with Jay's recent comments that this is a decision each of
us must make for ourselves. There are no universal answers. This could change
if there are ever any actual facts about the causes of the XL accidents. For
now it is simply an open question.?
?
One small correction, my Zodiac is grounded but I am not. I have been flying nearly
every day since receiving my leased Tecnam P92 Echo Super Deluxe a couple
of weeks ago. I imagine it has very similar performance and behavior to the Zodiac
XL. Alas, it has a Rotax engine instead of the Jabiru in my XL.?
?
Just for the record, I don't consider Zodiac XLs to be dead dinosaurs. It is still
the ideal design for my needs and perhaps the best LSA there is. Unfortunately,
it has a small cloud hanging over it.?
?
Best regards,?
?
Paul?
do not archive?
?
At 10:41 AM 5/29/2009, you wrote:?
?
>Paul, for you I totally concur whole heartily that you and your >airplane should
be grounded. We "others" will continue to turn dead >dinosaurs in to fun. Best
regards, Bill of Georgia?
?
?
?
?
Message 23
| 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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Hi Carlos,
Yes, that's it. You even got the paint colors right. Only
difference I can see is mine has a two blade Sensenich ground
adjustable composite prop.
Paul
do not archive
At 11:11 AM 5/29/2009, you wrote:
>Paul, is this the model you got?
><http://p92.org/>http://p92.org/
>(talking abot the one with wings, not the ones near the dog)
>
>Carlos
Message 24
| 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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
No problem Bill.
Have you heard the dinosaurs didn't really become extinct? They became birds.
Best regards,
Paul
do not archive
At 11:15 AM 5/29/2009, you wrote:
>Sorry Paul, I'll slow down a bit. 'The phrase 'turning dead
>dinosaurs into fun' actually meant to use gasoline made from
>petroleum extracted from underground pools of decayed ancient carbon
>based life forms of which dinosaurs are included by internal
>combustion in the engines of our 601 XLs by flying them in the air
>and thereby gaining enjoyment and pleasure. Best regards, Bill
Message 25
| 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: panel access modicaton location |
Likewise, my entire forward top skin is removable and I highly recommend
that mod to the drawings. It takes a lot of nutplates and some dimpling
and some thought but is well worth it in terms of knowing that you will
be able to access the area in front of the panel any time you want to in
the future.
Ed
Message 26
| 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: | The removable forward top skin |
Hi guys,
There are a few still finishing the forward tilt canopy and I thought
perhaps this information would be useful for those wanting a removable
forward top skin. Its easier than trying to make a hole in the skin
work around the canopy etc., and it costs lots less.
For peripheral fasteners, I used clip nuts better labeled as J-nuts for
screws. I used a 6-32 J-nut from McMaster-Carr their part number #
94809A102 and 94808A401. These can be seen on the McMaster site
http://www.mcmaster.com/
I used round head 6-32 screws 3/8-inch long and spaced them about the
same as you'd do for A4 pop rivets.
Believe I used about 80 of these on the forward top skin and I use a
$9.00 battery powered screwdriver to remove them.
The clips were about $9.00 per 50 pieces. These do not raise the skin at
all. Much easier than nut plates and the half dozen that you might over
tighten or damage each year are just lifted from the hole catch, slid
off and replaced. These just slide over a hole and a very small
retaining edge captures it to keep it from slipping or being wiped off.
I'm terribly keen on these things, because they're cheap, refuse to let
go and never allow screws to come loose.
The forward top skin has to be modified to eliminate the wide segments
on each side and the wide segments have to become separate pieces that
stay on the plane.
See links below.
The fastener hole normally used should be 7/32 diameter for the clips.
The top skin holes should be 9/64 inch. I purchased about 300 of both
types and have used them elsewhere. See links of clips placed,
originally clecoed, finished install and access.
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/uclips.gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/xlfwdtopskin.gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/flash&rubber.gif
<http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/flash&rubber.gif>
<http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/flash&rubber.gif
<http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/flash&rubber.gif>>
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/electricaccess.gif
The method for removing the forward top skin begins by removing the
forward most 6 side screws before opening the canopy.
Two 3 x 5 rectangles of deburred aluminum are slid between the rubber
trim near the hinge to prevent the rubber from catching on the edges of
the top skin. When the canopy is lifted, these screw holes are covered
by the canopy arms. The rest of the screws are removed progressively,
the gas cap is removed and the skin is lifted out toward the cockpit and
set aside. The gas cap is then reinstalled.
The canopy should be raised to replace the forward top skin and the
reverse assembly is the same.
The removable forward top skin allows an easy removal of the forward
tilt canopy when it's time to paint. I've had the skin off half a dozen
times the past two years for wiring, gage replacement, checking inside
engine mount integrity, etc.
I hope this is useful for you and as you have questions, don't hesitate
to ask.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Message 27
| 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: | panel access modicaton location |
Hi all likewise the forward top skin is removable i split it down the cent
er fore and aft
used a cap rib and instead of rivets i used 4-40 rivnuts and finishing wash
ers
just removed it in less than 5 mins to install msd switch and firewall thru
coil wire
Larry
From: dredmoody@cox.net
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: panel access modicaton location
Likewise=2C my entire forward top skin is removable and I highly recommend
that mod to the drawings. It takes a lot of nutplates and some dimpling and
some thought but is well worth it in terms of knowing that you will be abl
e to access the area in front of the panel any time you want to in the futu
re.
Ed
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE goes with you.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutor
ial_Mobile1_052009
Message 28
| 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: | What did you do today? |
Bill in word yes
Larry
From: naumuk@windstream.net
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: What did you do today?
Larry-
Sounds like you did good. My main point was=2C don't be fooled by what
the outside looks like. Did you have a batch of crud come out?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Webber
Sent: Thursday=2C May 28=2C 2009 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: What did you do today?
Bill being as frugal as i am i used a boat bilge pump set in a solution o
f ATF
and acetone ran tubing in one side and out to return to solution. pump was
operated by a 12 volt car battery =2C let run about an hour then ran a clea
n solution until i was
satisfied cooked in oven (my own not my wifes kitchen oven) and ran once ag
ain
I showed mark from Clarks Corvair at CC#14 and he was impressed even the
outside looked new
Larry Webber 601xl corvair chugger
From: naumuk@windstream.net
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: What did you do today?
Larry-
Did you have it boiled out at a radiator shop or is it new? It's amazin
g the crud that came out of my folded fin even though it was pristine on th
e outside. Remember=2C the oil cooler is post oil filter in the loop and an
ything that gets dislodged goes straight to the bearings=2C etc. Considerin
g how small a cooler is=2C the cost should me minimal. In my case=2C the gu
y at the radiator shop didn't even charge me. REALLY cheap peace of mind.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Webber
Sent: Wednesday=2C May 27=2C 2009 10:59 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: What did you do today?
itested and mounted my 12 plate oil cooler
Larry
> From: purplemoon99@bellsouth.net
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com=3B zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: What did you do today?
> Date: Thu=2C 28 May 2009 02:10:06 +0000
>
>
>
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE. See how.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
ronics.com
ww.matronics.com/contribution
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE. See how.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE goes with you.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutor
ial_Mobile1_052009
Message 29
| 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: | Cutting holes with one or more flat sides |
A number of the items I'm mounting in my panel are designed to be kept from
rotating by a "flat" or two on their threaded shafts. The ignition key
switch and Bose (LEMO) headphone jacks are this way. Short of a custom punch
how do you cut a hole with the matching flats? For the ignition switch I
enlarged a smaller hole with a needle file. It will work but it isn't the
tightest fit. Any other approaches?
-- Craig (701)
Message 30
| 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: Cutting holes with one or more flat sides |
Hi Craig,
Let me recommend the following procedure.
First, make a model of the hole you want out of cardboard, plastic,
plywood, or some other flat material. Then position the model where
you want the hole and mark the outside edge with a Sharpie (I like
ultra fine ones for this). Now all you have to do is remove the
material inside the mark.
I usually start with a small drill followed by a step drill. For a
large hole such as the one needed for a radio I make 4 holes with the
step drill near each corner. That makes enough room to use snips to
start sneaking up on the final line. After the snips, I tend to
use a Dremel tool with a Christmas Tree shaped rotary file. This
allows me to start with the larger diameter to do rough cutting and
finish with progressively smaller diameter portion of the file.
When all done removing material I run a fine file around both sides
of the edge to remove burrs.
I hope this helps.
Paul
XL grounded
At 07:56 PM 5/29/2009, you wrote:
>A number of the items I'm mounting in my panel are designed to be kept from
>rotating by a "flat" or two on their threaded shafts. The ignition key
>switch and Bose (LEMO) headphone jacks are this way. Short of a custom punch
>how do you cut a hole with the matching flats? For the ignition switch I
>enlarged a smaller hole with a needle file. It will work but it isn't the
>tightest fit. Any other approaches?
>
>-- Craig (701)
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! --
|