Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:36 AM - First Flight (Peter W Johnson)
2. 04:20 AM - Re: First Flight (Scotsman)
3. 05:57 AM - Re: First Flight (John Davis)
4. 06:43 AM - Re: Re: 601XL main spar question (n801bh@netzero.com)
5. 07:52 AM - Re: 601XL main spar question (ken Buchmann)
6. 09:02 AM - Re: Re: 601XL main spar question (Bryan Martin)
7. 09:05 AM - Re: Re: 601XL main spar question (Terry Phillips)
8. 09:47 AM - Re: Re: 601XL main spar question (Paul Mulwitz)
9. 10:19 AM - Re: 601XL main spar question (Sabrina)
10. 10:34 AM - Re: Re: 601XL main spar question (George Swinford)
11. 10:53 AM - Re: Re: 601XL main spar question (Peter Chapman)
12. 11:09 AM - Re: 601XL main spar question (Sabrina)
13. 12:39 PM - Re: Re: 601XL main spar question (n801bh@netzero.com)
14. 01:26 PM - Re: 601XL main spar question (Sabrina)
15. 02:48 PM - Re: Re: 601XL main spar question ()
16. 03:33 PM - Re: Re: 601XL main spar question (Paul Mulwitz)
17. 06:34 PM - Re: 601XL main spar question (n1269k)
18. 07:38 PM - Re: 601XL main spar question (Sabrina)
19. 07:42 PM - Re: First Flight (Ron Lendon)
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 |
|
Hi Guys,
A good day today, my 601XL completed its first flight today with no
problems. I had the elevator trim wired incorrectly and up was down, down
was up which made for an interesting flight. I also need to re-pitch the
prop a bit to give a bit more rpm on takeoff.
I'll post a couple of pics later.
Anybody out there using a 68" three blade warp drive on an O-200, I would be
interested to know what pitch angle the prop is set to.
What a beautiful airplane to fly, Keep at it guys.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia.
http://zodiac.cpc-world.com
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: First Flight |
Congratulations mate....a bit envious though! Please post pics
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294404#294404
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: First Flight |
Hi Peter,
Congrats on your first flight, mine was just over a year ago and I still
have fond memories. Have Fun with your new bird and stay safe!
John Davis
N601JD - 601XL - Jab 3300
7A8 - Avery County Airport
On 4/16/2010 4:30 AM, Peter W Johnson wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> A good day today, my 601XL completed its first flight today with no
> problems. I had the elevator trim wired incorrectly and up was down,
> down was up which made for an interesting flight. I also need to
> re-pitch the prop a bit to give a bit more rpm on takeoff.
>
> I'll post a couple of pics later.
>
> Anybody out there using a 68" three blade warp drive on an O-200, I
> would be interested to know what pitch angle the prop is set to.
>
> What a beautiful airplane to fly, Keep at it guys.
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter
>
> Wonthaggi Australia.
>
> http://zodiac.cpc-world.com
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: 601XL main spar question |
Yeah... The Yube City fatal crash has pilot error written all over it...
.. Couple in their 70's, straight and level, below VA, all documented by
radar returns.......
from straight and level to massive destruction left scattered all over a
n orchard in about 40 seconds. Maybe the elderly gentleman was showing
his wife how he was going to fly in the Red Bull challange and broke the
plane with her in it for her first ride in it.... FAT CHANCE.
Sure looks like pilot error to me.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: JohnDRead@aol.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL main spar question
Pilot error! Regards, John
CH701 - Colorado - Jabiru 3300
Cell: 719-494-4567
Home: 303-648-3261 In a message dated 4/15/2010 6:27:53 P.M. Mountain D
aylight Time, chicago2paris@msn.com writes:--> Zenith-List message poste
d by: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Bob,
You are exactly the person to pull into the discussion... what do your
experts think is being addressed by the factory mods... in other words w
hich failure mode is being addressed the most with the upgrade according
to your sources...
although we each know very little on our own, we all have an expert of t
wo giving us advice...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294371#294371=====
========================
=================
========================
====== - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ======
========================
================== - List
Contribution Web Site sp; =======
========================
===================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=========
____________________________________________________________
Free growth stock reports
We feature companies that we invest in for long and short term gains
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4bc8687d75fe12af244st06vuc
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL main spar question |
Dear Everyone:
I always enjoy these learned discussions pertaining to wings. As a retired farm
practice veterinarian, I am now enjoying a life long desire to experience traveling
through the air like the birds do, but only in a flying machine.
I have owned a Cessna 172A, CH801, CH701 and now am building a CH750. I have never
seen a low winged bird in my entire veterinary experience and what is good
enough for God is good enough for me. Also, where wise men disagree, fools
step in.
And now at 80 years of age I am considering building a wooden (God's Composite)
open cockpit (white scarf and goggles) Biplane (Wright number of wings for mankind)
Ken
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294429#294429
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL main spar question |
The Yuba city crash did NOT happen in straight and level flight. The radar track
clearly shows maneuvering flight just before the break-up. The radar showed
a climb followed by a fairly rapid descent just before the break-up. The accident
report shows a failure in negative G loading. Maybe the pilot pushed the nose
over suddenly to avoid a bird strike. Or maybe he had a sudden medical problem.
We'll never know for sure.
Why do you keep denying the possibility of pilot error in these accidents? It's
a fact that pilot error is a factor in more accidents than all other causes combined.
It is an especially prevalent problem for low time pilots with low time
in type. Low time in type seems to be about the only common thread in these
accidents, along with low time on the airframe.
On Apr 16, 2010, at 9:37 AM, n801bh@netzero.com wrote:
> Yeah... The Yube City fatal crash has pilot error written all over it..... Couple
in their 70's, straight and level, below VA, all documented by radar returns.......
>
> from straight and level to massive destruction left scattered all over an orchard
in about 40 seconds. Maybe the elderly gentleman was showing his wife how
he was going to fly in the Red Bull challange and broke the plane with her in
it for her first ride in it.... FAT CHANCE.
>
> Sure looks like pilot error to me.
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL main spar question |
Thank you, Ken
At last someone is spreading some real wisdom on these issues.
You post has made my day!
Terry (still a low wing building fool--not even 70 yet--hope I'll have
finished my 601XL and be building something else when I'm 80)
At 07:51 AM 4/16/2010 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear Everyone:
>
>I always enjoy these learned discussions pertaining to wings. As a
>retired farm practice veterinarian, I am now enjoying a life long desire
>to experience traveling through the air like the birds do, but only in a
>flying machine.
>
>I have owned a Cessna 172A, CH801, CH701 and now am building a CH750. I
>have never seen a low winged bird in my entire veterinary experience and
>what is good enough for God is good enough for me. Also, where wise men
>disagree, fools step in.
>
>And now at 80 years of age I am considering building a wooden (God's
>Composite) open cockpit (white scarf and goggles) Biplane (Wright number
>of wings for mankind)
>
>Ken
>
>do not archive
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
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: 601XL main spar question |
Hi Bryan,
I believe you are correct when you refuse to rule out pilot error as cause
for all the XL breakups. Indeed, there has never been a determination, by
the accident investigation experts, of any probable cause for these
accidents.
The problem I have with blaming all this on pilot error is:
1. It is too convenient. The pilots are all dead and unable to defend
themselves or their actions. This makes them easy targets for those who
prefer to stay "In Denial" that there is actually a design problem with the
XL.
2. It doesn't make sense for me that only Zodiac XLs attract pilots prone
to errors that remove the wings from their planes. The Zodiac XL is the
only design that has experienced multiple accidents of this, or any, type
among LSA in the last few years. Out of hundreds of designs flying today
only this one has experienced unexplained in-flight structure failures.
Indeed the failures all amounted to the wings coming off at the root.
3. It doesn't provide any useful solutions to the problem. If the whole
cause for these accidents is pilot error then the only remedial action that
would help would be to find better pilots to fly Zodiac XLs. Perhaps a
special pilot's license is called for?
4. I find it odd, perhaps incredible, that the agencies that nearly always
find pilot error as the cause for any accident they investigate have never
found pilot error to be even a consideration in all these accidents. Only
the designer and companies that make their living from selling these planes
has taken a public position that pilot error, or maintenance problems, are
behind all the deaths.
So, while I agree with you that we cannot eliminate pilot error from the
cause of any of the XL accidents I think blaming the whole problem on
unfortunate pilot actions is nothing short of absurd "Denial".
Paul
XL installing upgrade
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Martin
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL main spar question
The Yuba city crash did NOT happen in straight and level flight. The radar
track clearly shows maneuvering flight just before the break-up. The radar
showed a climb followed by a fairly rapid descent just before the break-up.
The accident report shows a failure in negative G loading. Maybe the pilot
pushed the nose over suddenly to avoid a bird strike. Or maybe he had a
sudden medical problem. We'll never know for sure.
Why do you keep denying the possibility of pilot error in these accidents?
It's a fact that pilot error is a factor in more accidents than all other
causes combined. It is an especially prevalent problem for low time pilots
with low time in type. Low time in type seems to be about the only common
thread in these accidents, along with low time on the airframe.
On Apr 16, 2010, at 9:37 AM, n801bh@netzero.com wrote:
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: | Re: 601XL main spar question |
>>The radar showed a climb followed by a fairly rapid descent just before the break-up.<<
this has always bothered me, if I were experiencing flutter, my first instinct
would be to raise the nose to slow down...
if I recall correctly, the only person to live to tell about flutter dived away
rather than climbing...
what if our 601XL wings, as we built them to plans, can't handle this sudden pitch
up?
Check out this picture of the Zenith load testing... notice the additional cuff
bonded/riveted between the wing and fuselage... (this really bothers my mentors)
would the wing have failed the load test without that reinforcement? (I
know some will say it is just for aerodynamics, but why test in that configuration?)
we all talk about G forces but we never specify which way: + or -
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294449#294449
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/601xl_loadc_183.jpg
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: 601XL main spar question |
Hi Ken:
You make an interesting point about God's design choices, but don't carry it
too far. There are no recorded sightings of a bird with wing struts, or one
on wheels, floats or even skis. And they do tend to land in trees, so be
careful.
George
----- Original Message -----
From: "ken Buchmann" <buchdvm@fidnet.com>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:51 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL main spar question
>
> Dear Everyone:
>
> I always enjoy these learned discussions pertaining to wings. As a
> retired farm practice veterinarian, I am now enjoying a life long desire
> to experience traveling through the air like the birds do, but only in a
> flying machine.
>
> I have owned a Cessna 172A, CH801, CH701 and now am building a CH750. I
> have never seen a low winged bird in my entire veterinary experience and
> what is good enough for God is good enough for me. Also, where wise men
> disagree, fools step in.
>
> And now at 80 years of age I am considering building a wooden (God's
> Composite) open cockpit (white scarf and goggles) Biplane (Wright number
> of wings for mankind)
>
> Ken
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294429#294429
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL main spar question |
At 13:17 16-04-10, you wrote:
>Check out this picture of the Zenith load testing... notice the
>additional cuff bonded/riveted between the wing and
>fuselage... (this really bothers my mentors) would the wing have
>failed the load test without that reinforcement? (I know some will
>say it is just for aerodynamics, but why test in that configuration?)
Hi Sabrina,
Hope this helps:
It kind of looks like the same heavy plastic sheeting or whatever it
is, that is laid along the wing, under the wood (?) ontop of which
the weights sit.
The sheeting looks a bit like a reflection at first but one can see
it extend a little past the wing tip at the nav light.
A good interpolated zoom of the photo, eg by control - mouse scroll
wheel in Firefox, helps to see it more clearly.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON
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: 601XL main spar question |
>>It kind of looks like the same heavy plastic sheeting or whatever it
is<<
>>A good interpolated zoom of the photo, eg by control - mouse scroll
wheel in Firefox, helps to see it more clearly.<<
37 bags of top soil (20kg each?) on each wing = testing to 6 G ultimate?
see attached close up photo...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294460#294460
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/close_up_159.jpg
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: 601XL main spar question |
I thought the 6 G ultimate loading was for positive G loading and negati
ve ultimate was 3 G. The pic shows weight on the top of the wing, that i
s testing the negative loading.... They would have to flip the plane ove
r, suspend the fuselage on some saw horses and pile the weight on the bo
ttom of the wings to test for positive loading..... Am I thinking wrong
here ?
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL main spar question
>>It kind of looks like the same heavy plastic sheeting or whatever it
is<<
>>A good interpolated zoom of the photo, eg by control - mouse scroll
wheel in Firefox, helps to see it more clearly.<<
37 bags of top soil (20kg each?) on each wing = testing to 6 G ultimat
e?
see attached close up photo...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294460#294460
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/close_up_159.jpg
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.netzero.net/freeemail?refcd=NZTAGOUT1FREM0210
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: 601XL main spar question |
Hello Ben,
The testing appears to show 3G testing, you are correct...
my plans show +/- 6 G ultimate for a 601XL...
with our elevator design you can sneeze in my airplane with a hand on the stick
and generate -3G on the Dynon...
that is the point I am getting at...
do the upgrades supply sufficient strength in negative Gs or do they just address
positive Gs and torsion well enough?
what is the strength of the original design in negative Gs? as upgraded?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294479#294479
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL main spar question |
Opinions being like another part of our anatomy (everybody has one), I'd
like to throw in an unfounded suspicion for your consideration: If you
take a piece of flat metal, any thickness or length will do, set it at 9
degrees (forward) from vertical, and subject it to a true vertical
stress, it tries to bend backward under that stress. Could it be that
the main spar bends backward some, puts pressure at the rear spar
attach point, and starts the failure there, followed immediately by the
main spar failure when the rear breaks? I have no evidence, stats, or
analysis to back this up, but I can't think of any aircraft with a
canted spar. Thoughts, anyone?
Paul R
----- Original Message -----
From: PatrickW<mailto:pwhoyt@yahoo.com>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:39 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL main spar question
<pwhoyt@yahoo.com<mailto:pwhoyt@yahoo.com>>
Sabrina wrote:
> I would like to poll the members...
Torsion.
Take a cardboard shoe box. Tape it up nice and tight. You can stand
on it.
Take that same cardboard shoe box. Tape it up nice and tight, but
with a 9 degree tilt to it. Then try to stand on it. Not nearly as
strong.
The question is, "do the upgrades make the wing strong enough...?" It
appears that as far as Zenith and the FAA is concerned, the answer is
"yes".
Time will tell as more of us complete the upgrades and return to the
air.
Patrick
XL/Corvair/BRS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294356#294356<http://forums
.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294356#294356>
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 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: 601XL main spar question |
What a fascination notion!
I wonder if examination of the wreckage can shed light on this question. I
have heard many anecdotal comments about elongated holes in the rear attach
points. Perhaps the axis of elongation would be impacted if the spar is
bending . . .
Paul
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
paulrod36@msn.com
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL main spar question
Opinions being like another part of our anatomy (everybody has one), I'd
like to throw in an unfounded suspicion for your consideration: If you take
a piece of flat metal, any thickness or length will do, set it at 9 degrees
(forward) from vertical, and subject it to a true vertical stress, it tries
to bend backward under that stress. Could it be that the main spar bends
backward some, puts pressure at the rear spar attach point, and starts the
failure there, followed immediately by the main spar failure when the rear
breaks? I have no evidence, stats, or analysis to back this up, but I can't
think of any aircraft with a canted spar. Thoughts, anyone?
Paul R
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: 601XL main spar question |
Sabrina
My plans for the 650 shows +6/-3, the upgrade shows +6/-3 for both the 601 and
the 650. Both show 1320 max weight.
Terry
Plans building
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294496#294496
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: 601XL main spar question |
>>the upgrade shows +6/-3 for both the 601 and the 650<<
My mentors were concerned that although the upgrade does appear to strengthen the
wings as to torsional rigidity and positive Gs it may well detract from their
ability to handle negative Gs due to the decision to only upgrade the top spar
cap...
According to my plans, which CH still stands behind, if I don't upgrade I am at
-6G, if I upgrade, I am at -3Gs, according to the upgrade paperwork.
If it "might be" negative Gs causing the failures, does an upgrade sound like a
good idea without first addressing the stick sensitivity issue?
>>Is your comment below the reason you felt uneasy about the upgrade? ...wing fails
first in negative gs?<<
Scott, this is what I meant by cold feet/feeling uneasy and why I am considering
running a top mounted 1/8" cable between each wings' new rear spar mid-span
doublers, and 3/16" cable between the inboard AN47 bolts of the new main spar
struts.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294503#294503
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: First Flight |
Congratulations Peter.
Maybe the Elevator was wired for the North. Chris Heintz is from the other side
of the equator ya know.:D
Good on Ya,
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294505#294505
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! --
|