Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Survey Commanders

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

barry.collman(at)air-brit
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:13 am Post subject: Survey Commanders

Hi Guys,

  

 Some years ago now, I had some email correspondence with  somebody whose father flew Commanders in the aerial survey role and we covered  the subject of wing spars.

  

 Some while ago, while Outlook Express was compacting my  emails, a bunch of them was lost.

  

 So, if that person remembers the exchange of emails,  will you please be kind enough to email me again!

  

 Very Best Regards,

 Barry Collman

    [quote][b]

steve2(at)sover.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:35 am Post subject: Survey Commanders

Barry,

  

 That was my Dad, Ronald Welebny. ron(at)melking.com (ron(at)melking.com)

  

 He flew Commanders and DC-3's worldwide doing magnetometer surveys in the  sixties and seventies. A couple 680E's were lost, and a couple broke spars. They  had the interiors stripped out when working from jungle strips in southeast  Asia, and did dye penetrant checks after every flight. (Espcially after the  weekly beer-run, is my suspicion.)

  

 Send him a message. He's always happy to talk about Commanders and had some  dealings with the factory engineers working on the survey mod.

  

 Steve

  

  

 [quote]   ---

barry.collman(at)air-brit
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:53 am Post subject: Survey Commanders

Hi Steve,

  

 Grateful thanks!

  

 Now I'm aware again of the names 'involved', let me do  another trawl through my messages to see if yours made it through the "cull"  that Outlook Express decided to execute whilst performing a "compact"  routine.

  

 Best Regards,

 Barry

 [quote]   ---

WINGFLYER1(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: Survey Commanders

I have a 680. What caused the spars to break?



Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.

  [quote][b]

floydgm(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:13 pm Post subject: Survey Commanders

Read this:

 http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/papers/aerocommander.pdf

  	  Quote: 	
		    From: WINGFLYER1(at)aol.com

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:49:25 -0400

Subject: Re: Survey Commanders

To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

  I have a 680. What caused the spars to break?

   Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.

 	  Quote: 	

" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List

p://forums.matronics.com

blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution

Express yourself wherever you are. Mobilize!  [quote][b]

steve2(at)sover.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: Survey Commanders

Just getting back from flying. Don't panic!

  

 The lower cap of the spars were raduised where they enter the  cabin, (and again in the nacelle on the bathtubs).

  

 The real short story is the spars developed cracks at those  (radia? radiuses? Too tired to think) in the lower cap. Which can end up  shortening your day considerably.

  

 The fix was the great honking strap riveted to the lower  cap. I haven't been around a bathtub in a dog's age or two, but believe the  strap on bathtubs extended outboard past the lower cap radius in the  nacelle.

  

 The spar continues to be the Achille's Heel of sorts for  Commanders, as we're still dealing with the repercusions of the factory's  decision to radius the caps way back when because of corrosion. The 500B I now  fly used an aluminum strap, and is not as subject to electrolysis in the  dissimilar metals causing corrosion as in other models. The straps made of stainless steel are another matter.

  

 By AD, the caps are checked yearly. We operate a little heavy  and its often bumpy, so we are maybe extra attentive.

  

 I don't know that there have been any airframes lost once they  were strapped. Commanders are not falling out of the sky.

  

 The Commander spar is a fascinating engineering study, and has  been managed.

  

 I ain't an engineer. I don't want to pretend to be one. I  tried to be careful with facts. I'm writing quick, going out to eat with the  wife. Going to have a beer, some food, and a nap. Maybe all at the same  time.

  

 The others in the group can correct any errors, I'm  sure!

  

 Steve

  

 [quote]   ---

WINGFLYER1(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject: Survey Commanders

Ron, Thank you very much. I had the spars dye penetrated about a year and a  half ago prior to buying the airplane and everything checked out o.k. Again  thank you very much and if you have any other advice,I would appreciate hearing  from you. Gil



Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.

  [quote][b]

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: Survey Commanders

<gulp>



   From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of mike  floyd

Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 2:10 PM

To:  commander-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Survey  Commanders

 

Read this:

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/papers/aerocommander.pdf

  	  Quote: 	
		        From: WINGFLYER1(at)aol.com

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:49:25 -0400

Subject:    Re: Survey Commanders

To:    commander-list(at)matronics.com



      I have a 680. What caused the spars to break?



         Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL    Autos.

 	  Quote: 	
		  



" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List

p://forums.matronics.com

blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
	


  Express yourself wherever you are. Mobilize! [quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

[b]

westwind(at)hdiss.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: Survey Commanders

Gulp!,indeed!

 [quote]   ---

RnJThompson(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: Survey Commanders

Before you go Gulp.  

Understand that CASA makes your FAA look totally professional. This paper was written by an academic and as history has proved we have very strong airplanes. Take note that the wing is essentially a fail safe design. If it was not then a whole lot more airplanes would have crashed. One classic example in the report is the case of ZK-BWA and the pictures. What was not explained was that this aircraft had been badly damaged previously and not repaired correctly. The other problem is that a lot of the corrosion found in Aussie aircraft was due to the fact that they had been used in low level coastal work and really had not been looked after. This paper also ends in about 1995. I believe that in the 1999 the FAA had Twin Commander almost re certify their wings at great expense, destroying numerous airframes. Strangely enough they passed with flying colours. (which must have pissed the FAA off no end). Even our wonderful CASA went on to their 8th amendment of their AD on spar life http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/under/ac/AC-066.pdf . I believe that a lot of accidents and especially in flight break ups have had a lot to do with the airframe being stressed way beyond its limits, usually in foul weather. You just have to do little thinking looking at the size of the things tale and then imagine the loads it has to take especially if you don’t go with the flow and try to manhandle it in turbulence. You can break anything if you try hard enough.  

   

Cheers  

Richard  

   

--

wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.c
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: Survey Commanders

Folks,  

To add a little to what Richard has said, and as a result of having been a long standing member of the CASA Standards Consultative Committee.  

   

Post WWII, a lot of work was done on fatigue in Australia, as the actual life of an individual airframe varies enormously, depending on the accumulation of fatigue damage, physical damage and corrosion damage.  

This included a rig test to destruction of 100 sets of new  P-51D wing sets (left over after Korea), and this resulted in the “bell” curve used, to this day, for likely fatigue life distribution in aluminium structures.  

   

A desire to “lead the world” can be very expensive, if not very carefully managed, and to say that some “over-reacted” is an understatement, at great expense to many of us. However, the professional engineers of the day were not entirely unjustified. Australia’s “good weather” produces a lot of heat turbulence, often well beyond design assumptions, as fitting a wide variety of GA, commuter and military aircraft with recording “fatigue meters” has shown. For a while, (and just for my own interest) I had a recording G meter mid-ships under floor in AT-28D, 51-3588. It was instructive to compare the tell-tale needle on the instrument panel G meter, and the recorder. The panel meter always under-recorded peak G, and of course gave no measure of duration.  

   

A number of in-flight break-ups of airline aircraft, including 3 Vickers Viscounts, spurred the efforts.  

To add to the mix, until 1998, Australia had its own design and certification rules, which, in the case of Aero-Commander, resulted in the certification of aircraft at higher gross weights than the factory/FAA, the higher weight certification included a spar strap.   

   

When the (now) well known problems of the cold bent spar extrusions surfaced, the AD spar straps were based on the existing Australian certification.   

   

One of the reasons then Department of Civil Aviation, DCA, took such a detailed interest, was the fact that they had a fleet of Aero-Commander, various models over the years. Richard’s aircraft was delivered new to DCA. The last models their successors used was the Commander 1000 (695A), one has just changed hands in US.  

   

The problems of the cold bent extrusions at the wing/body point is well understood, the management by AD has been effective.  

   

The problem of dissimilar metal corrosion in spar caps is (now) well understood, but is/was a serious issue. The problems of off spec . material has no answer, it must be replaced.  

   

As all our aircraft get older, the results of corrosion becomes increasingly important, if you have never found any, you haven’t looked hard enough – with the possible exception of Richard’s aircraft, all the DCA/DOA aircraft were ordered with US MilSpec corrosion protection, with all airframe components chromate  primed or anodised before assembly, with all drilled fastener holes treated to a brush of primer before “wet” riveting.  

   

As FAA produce “ageing aircraft” programs (Cessna SIDs) you will find a remarkable similarity between the inspection hours nominated, and the long standing Australian fatigue life/spar replacement ADs for C402 etc. Indeed, some of the new FAA/Cessna figures are marginally less than the Au AD. As we have pulled apart a few 402 for the SIDs, we have found some scary stuff. There are some very high hour airframes in Australia, when Cessna published the retirement life for the Conquest of 22,000 hours, I doubt they thought it would have had much effect. In Australia, 9 aircraft were grounded.  

   

If you have a look at the evolution of FAR 23 structural design standards, you will see the increasing attention to fatigue life, from memory, the Piper Tomahawk  was the first aircraft certified after the first FAR 23 amendment to include fatigue justification, hence the wing life.  

   

Take the AC structural ADs very seriously, none are unjustified. Having said that, look at the Australian AD Richard put up, the life limits are two or three times the equivalent for most Cessna /Piper, that’s telling us something.  

   

Neither of the two in-flight breakups of AC-500U or S appears to be fatigue related, being symmetrical downward bending failures just outboard of the engine nacelles.  

   

CASA (compared to FAA) is a problem, there have been some good changes in the senior management in the last two   

years, including several very competent people from the “Eastern Pacific Rim”, but it takes a long time to turn the ship of state around.  

   

Cheers,  

Bill Hamilton  

   

       

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard & Jacqui Thompson

 Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:37 PM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Survey Commanders  

  

  

   

Before you go Gulp.  

Understand that CASA makes your FAA look totally professional. This paper was written by an academic and as history has proved we have very strong airplanes. Take note that the wing is essentially a fail safe design. If it was not then a whole lot more airplanes would have crashed. One classic example in the report is the case of ZK-BWA and the pictures. What was not explained was that this aircraft had been badly damaged previously and not repaired correctly. The other problem is that a lot of the corrosion found in Aussie aircraft was due to the fact that they had been used in low level coastal work and really had not been looked after. This paper also ends in about 1995. I believe that in the 1999 the FAA had Twin Commander almost re certify their wings at great expense, destroying numerous airframes. Strangely enough they passed with flying colours. (which must have pissed the FAA off no end). Even our wonderful CASA went on to their 8th amendment of their AD on spar life http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/under/ac/AC-066.pdf . I believe that a lot of accidents and especially in flight break ups have had a lot to do with the airframe being stressed way beyond its limits, usually in foul weather. You just have to do little thinking looking at the size of the things tale and then imagine the loads it has to take especially if you don’t go with the flow and try to manhandle it in turbulence. You can break anything if you try hard enough.  

   

Cheers  

Richard  

   

-----Original Message-----

 From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of nico css

 Sent: Monday, 28 April 2008 10:57 AM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Survey Commanders  

   

<gulp>  

         

  

  

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of mike floyd

 Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 2:10 PM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Survey Commanders  

Read this:

  

 http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/papers/aerocommander.pdf        

  

  

From: WINGFLYER1(at)aol.com

 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:49:25 -0400

 Subject: Re: Survey Commanders

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 

 

 

     

I have a 680. What caused the spars to break?  

  

           

  

  

Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.  

   	  Quote: 	
		    " target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Listp://forums.matronics.comblank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
  

         

  

  

Express yourself wherever you are. Mobilize!    	  Quote: 	
		    href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c   	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution  	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  p://forums.matronics.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  p://forums.matronics.com 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  p://forums.matronics.com 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  p://forums.matronics.com 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  p://forums.matronics.com 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  p://forums.matronics.com 	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  p://forums.matronics.com 	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  p://forums.matronics.com 	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  p://forums.matronics.com 	
8 	  Quote: 	
		  p://forums.matronics.com 	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
0

       [quote][b]

barry.collman(at)air-brit
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:11 am Post subject: Survey Commanders

Hello All,

  

 Regarding ZK-BWA, I have a copy of the official  Report into the accident.

 Richard is, of course, correct in saying  that "this aircraft had been badly damaged previously".

 While being flown in the USA prior to  delivery, it was subjected to "an extremely heavy landing which  necessitated structural repairs before the aircraft could again be  flown".

  

 It was also evident that "structural defects had  existed in the rear spar caps of the starboard wing prior to the  accident".

  

 It was evidently the practice of the pilot to fly  very low over Mount Ruapehu to give his passengers a good look at a crater  lake.

 There is evidence to suggest that there was  strong turbulence in that area on the day of the accident.

  

 There is a strong possibility that, due to  turbulence, the propeller on the starboard side had struck an isolated  projection somewhere on the top of the mountain. Severe engine vibration  resulted from the now unbalanced propeller blades and shortly afterwards, it  encountered the severe turbulence.

  

 The starboard wing, which had already been  weakened by three defective spar caps, was subjected to stresses and loadings  beyond its capacity to withstand. There were instances known in the aircraft's  history of damage to the starboard wing. One was when the starboard prop struck  a metal stand while taxying with the engine running at high rpm. The tips of all  three blades were damaged and the aircraft was flown in that condition. Takeoff  and landing was effected on both engines, but it is not known if the right prop  was feathered during the flight, to eliminate engine vibration. The prop  damage was within repairable limits.

  

 On another occasion, the main gear was "forcibly  extended when the aircraft encountered sudden turbulence." Evidently, "under  exceptional positive gust loadings in the region of 6g the gear will be forcibly  ejected from the retract wells."

  

 I am currently looking at Commander accidents  where airframe disintegration occurred, but am only a relatively small way into  the exercise.

 However, so far expressions like "exceed design  stress limits" seem to appear on a very regular basis.

 These are coupled with expressions like "spatial  disorientation", "severe turbulence" and "airframe icing".

  

 So, Commanders do not fall out of the sky for no  apparent reason, as of course, we all know.

  

 Best Regards,

 Barry

  

 [quote]   ---

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:01 am Post subject: Survey Commanders

That's true, Richard. And some balance in the perspective.  Even the tail of an airliner came off a couple of years ago due to excessive  rudder input, didn't it? And the fire-fighting planes also lost a few due to  overstressing or fatigue or both. 

  

 What I couldn't figure out is why the spar is bent forward.  The simplicity of having a straight spar should have outweighed the benefits  that it might have had (and I am not saying there weren't any, I am just  ignorant) being bent. Ted Smith had to know that it would induce torque on the  spar. 

  

 Nico

  

 <ungulp>

  



   From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard  & Jacqui Thompson

Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:37  PM

To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE:  Survey Commanders

 

  

Before you go  Gulp. 

Understand that CASA  makes your FAA look totally professional. This paper was written by an academic  and as history has proved we have very strong airplanes. Take note that the wing  is essentially a fail safe design. If it was not then a whole lot more airplanes  would have crashed. One classic example in the report is the case of ZK-BWA and  the pictures. What was not explained was that this aircraft had been badly  damaged previously and not repaired correctly. The other problem is that a lot  of the corrosion found in Aussie aircraft was due to the fact that they had been  used in low level coastal work and really had not been looked after. This paper  also ends in about 1995. I believe that in the 1999 the FAA had Twin Commander  almost re certify their wings at great expense, destroying numerous airframes.  Strangely enough they passed with flying colours. (which must have pissed the  FAA off no end). Even our wonderful CASA went on to their 8th  amendment of their AD on spar life http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/under/ac/AC-066.pdf  . I believe that a lot of accidents and especially in flight break ups have had  a lot to do with the airframe being stressed way beyond its limits, usually in  foul weather. You just have to do little thinking looking at the size of the  things tale and then imagine the loads it has to take especially if you don’t go  with the flow and try to manhandle it in turbulence. You can break anything if  you try hard enough. 

  

Cheers 

Richard 

  

-----Original  Message-----

From:  owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of nico css

Sent: Monday, 28 April 2008 10:57  AM

To:  commander-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Survey  Commanders 

  

<gulp> 

    

 

From:  owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of mike floyd

Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 2:10  PM

To:  commander-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Survey  Commanders 

Read  this:

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/papers/aerocommander.pdf



   

 

From: WINGFLYER1(at)aol.com

Date:  Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:49:25 -0400

Subject: Re: Survey  Commanders

To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

  

I have a  680. What caused the spars to break?

 

    

 

Need a  new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL  Autos.

 	  Quote: 	
		    " target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Listp://forums.matronics.comblank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
 

    

 

Express yourself wherever you are.  Mobilize!  	  Quote: 	
		    href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  " target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  " target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  " target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List 	
2

 	  Quote: 	
		  " target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List 	
3[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]   [quote][b]

RnJThompson(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: Survey Commanders

Thanks for that Bill,  

Have not seen you for a while.  

My 680E has the primed interior and has very little corrosion. The only place is on the engine trusses and that has been ground out under the watchfull eye of my friendly Car35 guy. He reckons the amount taken out will not make a rats arse difference to the overall strength of the truss. The end is in sight, the old girl should be in the paperwork stages in a couple of months. I am building a new hangar down at Wedderburn to house her. The one I have there is not quite big enough, about a foot shy on span and about 3 foot shy on tail.  

Cheers  

Richard  

   

   

   

   

--

craigk391(at)sbcglobal.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:02 pm Post subject: Survey Commanders

When I had my pre-purchase inspection done on 747H I was told the dye penetrant inspection was no longer valid and that the spar had to be xray's or sonigramed?  Further,that the dye itself was found to be causing corrosion.  Anybody heard this story.  This was all done in October of last year.



Craig



WINGFLYER1(at)aol.com wrote:[quote]     Ron, Thank you very much. I had the spars dye penetrated about a year and a  half ago prior to buying the airplane and everything checked out o.k. Again  thank you very much and if you have any other advice,I would appreciate hearing  from you. Gil

steve2(at)sover.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: Survey Commanders

Craig,

  

 I was hoping somebody that knew this stuff better  than me would give you a good answer. I think though, that you're talking about  two different tests. One would be the dye penetrant of the radii of the lower  spar cap. We do that one every year, just 'cus, but I believe that one is only  required every other year.

  

 Then there is the looking for corrosion in the  layers (or leaves) of the lower cap.

  

 As always, if I'm wrong on that, someone in the  group should say so.

  

 Steve

 [quote]   ---

craigk391(at)sbcglobal.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:19 pm Post subject: Survey Commanders

OK, thanks!  Anyone with further clarity would be appreciated.



Steve W <steve2(at)sover.net> wrote:[quote]       Craig,

  

 I was hoping somebody that knew this stuff better  than me would give you a good answer. I think though, that you're talking about  two different tests. One would be the dye penetrant of the radii of the lower  spar cap. We do that one every year, just 'cus, but I believe that one is only  required every other year.

  

 Then there is the looking for corrosion in  the  layers (or leaves) of the lower cap.

  

 As always, if I'm wrong on that, someone in the  group should say so.

  

 Steve

 [quote]   ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum