Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Another XL Down

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

Another XL Down - Brazil
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: Re: Another XL Down - Brazil

That's a very different design than the XL wing so I wouldn't put a lot into comparing spar counts. With the main spar that far back, as compared with the 601 wing, I'd be willing to bet the loads are alot different.

 	  Andrewlieser wrote: 	
		  Link to the picture of the Vans wing if anyone is interested.

http://picasaweb.google.com/JimCone1941/RV12ConstructionPhotos/photo#5191820553241954290

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

Andrewlieser

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 43
Location: Chicagoland

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: Re: Another XL Down - Brazil

Thank Gig! I was just curios, being new to this admittedly I have a long way to go still

_________________
Andrew Lieser
S/N 6-7045
http://websites.expercraft.com/andrewlieser

Kevin Bonds

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 171
Location: Nashville, Tn

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 10:54 am Post subject: Another XL Down - Brazil

I'm the one that brought up the rivets. I was not offering them as a 

possible cause of anything. Just wondering why they are using them 

instead of Avex. I'm intelligent enough to see that this accident 

doesn't fit the profile thus far. Even if it did turn out that this 

accident was a structural failure, It would not tell us much. I'm not 

even sure why its being called a zodiac.



Kevin Bonds



steveadams wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Boy, I must have missed something. Admittedly my Portugese is very rusty, and there's not much to go on, but I didn't see anything about a break-up, and we're already focusing on the aluminum and rivets used in the construction as a

_________________
KevinBonds
Nashville, TN
Plans-building Zenith CH601XL w/Corvair Power
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds

frankroskind(at)HOTMAIL.C
Guest

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: Another XL Down - Brazil

Unfortunately my recollection is inaccurate and I apologize.  It does seem that a spin occurred in what I read, and no one takes issue with that recollection, apparently.  I read something about a wet wing.  It is possible to have fuel tanks contribute to making a spin stable.  That was a big problem with early Yankee AA-1's, although the fuel tank there was a tubular spar, and the fuel went out to the wingtips in a spin.  I would like to know why the Alarus needs a larger rudder to be certified utility, and therefore eligible to spin in training.  None of what I read about the Brazil crash suggests a wing failure, although a control failure would not be excludable.  If the pilot was an extremely experienced ag pilot it is extremely likely he knew how to exit a spin, so my question is what things about the aircraft make a spin difficult to exit?

  	  Quote: 	
		    From: n801bh(at)netzero.com

Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 18:41:31 +0000

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Re: Another XL Down - Brazil

 I didn't see the "entered a cloud" in any of the translations. That comment came from one poster and where he dug that up is beyond me.

 do not archive 

Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com

-- Frank Roskind <frankroskind(at)HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

All the conjecture about structurl failure seems to ignore the report-The plane seems to have been in a spin or spiral.  A spin is not likely to impose high stresses on the structure, although a bad recovery might, but there was no recovery described.  A spiral could result in structural failure as the turn tightens, but there was still no report of a failure, and further, the reason for entry to a fatal spiral while in plain view of the ground seems elusive.  Given that the plane had entered clouds, it is more likely that the plane entered an inadvertent spin due to disorientation.  If any design defect would seem to have a role, it might be the size of the rudder, if the pilot was unable to apply sufficient rudder to exit the spin, but there is little data to support or refute that conjecture.  I would point out that the Alarus comes with a bigger rudder for those who would like to spin the plane.  None of this is on point for other accidents involving structural failure, except the one in Britain where the pilot entered clouds and exited with a structural failure.  There is a simple way to mitigate the potential risk of this kind of accident- don't enter the clouds.  Materials seem irrelevant, unless it can be shown that a material failure led to a loss of control.

 	  Quote: 	
		   Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Another XL Down - Brazil

 From: moorecomp(at)yahoo.com

 Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 22:14:31 -0700

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 --> Zenith-List message posted by: "moorecomp" <moorecomp(at)yahoo.com>

 All,

 With all the questions regarding the materials used, on top of that, take a look at the placard that was on the panel:

 http://portal.ucpel.tche.br/py3vhq/home/Zodiac/fotos/20-04-2008/p3280012.jpg

 It reads; "Permitted aerobatics basic only. Never exceed +4/-4 G"

 -4 G with substandard materials pretty much guarantees a structural failure.

 Slippery airframe, sexy look, high time ag pilot, aerobatics, possible substandard materials=2 people dead. Sad day for all.

 Best regards,

 Craig Moore A&P

 Mancelona, MI

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=181664#181664

 ======================

 Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM anytime you're online. 

 	  Quote: 	

">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

tronics.com

www.matronics.com/contribution

_____________________________________________________________

Stay connected on the go with a full featured tablet PC. Click now!

 	  Quote: 	

arget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

p://forums.matronics.com

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

Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends. Start sharing.  [quote][b]

jmaynard

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 394
Location: Fairmont, MN (FRM)

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:23 am Post subject: Another XL Down - Brazil

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 11:48:58AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   That's a very different design than the XL wing so I wouldn't put a lot

 into comparing spar counts. With the main spar that far back, as compared

 with the 601 wing, I'd be willing to bet the loads are alot different.


	


Hm. I'm about to show my total ignorance of aircraft structural design, so

bear with me.



As I understand things, the ribs are there to transfer the loads from the

skin to the spar(s), as well as to stiffen the structure so that the

airfoil's shape is not deformed in flight. If the wing loading is

comparable, then if there are fewer ribs, each one would have to carry more

load, and there would be fewer, but higher, point loads along the spar. If

the spar is capable of dealing with those loads, then all is good. This

effect would be mitigated somewhat by the load applied directly to the spar

by the skin, but how much?



Assuming that the strength of each rib is not an issue, what benefits are

gained by using more ribs? Is Van just being more conservative, or is he

using lighter ribs (thus necessitating more to carry the same load), or

what?

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC                   http://www.conmicro.com

http://jmaynard.livejournal.com      http://www.tronguy.net

Fairmont, MN (FRM)                        (Yes, that's me!)

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

William Dominguez

Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 118

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: Another XL Down - Brazil

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe more ribs also increase the wing's torsional rigidity.



William Dominguez

Zodiac 601XL Plans

Miami Florida

http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom



Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com> wrote:[quote] --> Zenith-List message posted by: Jay Maynard 



On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 11:48:58AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   That's a very different design than the XL wing so I wouldn't put a lot

 into comparing spar counts. With the main spar that far back, as compared

 with the 601 wing, I'd be willing to bet the loads are alot different.


	


Hm. I'm about to show my total ignorance of aircraft structural design, so

bear with me.



As I understand things, the ribs are there to transfer the loads from the

skin to the spar(s), as well as to  stiffen the structure so that the

airfoil's shape is not deformed in flight. If the wing loading is

comparable, then if there are fewer ribs, each one would have to carry more

load, and there would be fewer, but higher, point loads along the spar. If

the spar is capable of dealing with those loads, then all is good. This

effect would be mitigated somewhat by the load applied directly to the spar

by the skin, but how much?



Assuming that the strength of each rib is not an issue, what benefits are

gained by using more ribs? Is Van just being more conservative, or is he

using lighter ribs (thus necessitating more to carry the same load), or

what?

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC                   http://www.conmicro.com

http://jmaynard.livejournal.com      http://www.tronguy.net

Fairmont, MN (FRM)                        (Yes, that's me!)

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 [quote][b]

_________________
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:04 pm Post subject: Re: Another XL Down - Brazil

I have not a clue Jay but the ribs certainly look smaller in the vertical axis than the 601XL ribs. This would change the strength of any given rib one way or the other.



To my thinking, ribs are cheap. If adding a few was really a structurally significant help I'd be real surprised that Zenith wouldn't have already done it.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

moorecomp

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 32

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject: Re: Another XL Down - Brazil

[quote="William Dominguez"]True, there is no mention of in-flight break-up anywhere so far. But the fact that this was an agricultural pilot with 16K hours of flying experience who could not recover from a spin at 3,500 feet in a plane with recent history of wing failures, seem to have created some suspicion. But as you say, the modifications could have prevented the pilot to recover from the spin.



William Dominguez

Zodiac 601XL Plans

Miami Florida

http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom

All,



Just a reminder that this is the second unrecoverable spin recently. The other was saved by a BRS. Juan said he went and did a spin and it flew itself out, but in both of the recent cases there were 2 people onboard. I don't recommend Juan goes out and tries it with 2 people.



http://www.centredaily.com/business/story/558643.html



Best regards,



Craig Moore

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject: Re: Another XL Down - Brazil

The only place clouds were mentioned was in the fourth message in the thread.



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=43275



The nice thing about the forum is it never goes away.





 	  Iberplanes wrote: 	
		  no clouds were on the comments Iï¿½ve read.  

  

 Alberto Martin

Iberplanes IGL 

http://www.iberplanes.es

Igualada -  Barcelona - Espaï¿½a

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

cndmovn(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: Another XL Down - Brazil

It definitely will increase the torsional rigidity, but you need to be sure the design is ready to handle the additional rigidity.  You may make it more rigid but that might overstress another part of the design.   I have used the example in the past of building construction.  People sometimes increase the beam strength of a floor to handle and increased load, but they do not consider that the footings are not designed to handle the increased weight.  The floor will not collapse, but the building will sink.  

 

You always need to think about the overall design limits and not just one element of it.  It is all a ballet of physics.



Paul



On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:54 PM, William Dominguez <bill_dom(at)yahoo.com (bill_dom(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

 [quote]Anyone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe more ribs also increase the wing's torsional rigidity.

 

William Dominguez

Zodiac 601XL Plans

Miami Florida

http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom



Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com (jmaynard(at)conmicro.com)> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		    --> Zenith-List message posted by: Jay Maynard 



On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 11:48:58AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   That's a very different design than the XL wing so I wouldn't put a lot

 into comparing spar counts. With the main spar that far back, as compared

 > with the 601 wing, I'd be willing to bet the loads are alot different.
	




Hm. I'm about to show my total ignorance of aircraft structural design, so

bear with me.



As I understand things, the ribs are there to transfer the loads from the

 skin to the spar(s), as well as to  stiffen the structure so that the

airfoil's shape is not deformed in flight. If the wing loading is

comparable, then if there are fewer ribs, each one would have to carry more

load, and there would be fewer, but higher, point loads along the spar. If

 the spar is capable of dealing with those loads, then all is good. This

effect would be mitigated somewhat by the load applied directly to the spar

by the skin, but how much?



Assuming that the strength of each rib is not an issue, what benefits are

 gained by using more ribs? Is Van just being more conservative, or is he

using lighter ribs (thus necessitating more to carry the same load), or

what?

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC                   http://www.conmicro.com

 http://jmaynard.livejournal.com      http://www.tronguy.net

Fairmont, MN (FRM)                        (Yes, that's me!)

 AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2  	  Quote: 	
		  

	
	
[b]

ihab.awad(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: Another XL Down - Brazil

On 5/7/08, William Dominguez <bill_dom(at)yahoo.com (bill_dom(at)yahoo.com)> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		   Anyone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe more ribs also increase the wing's torsional rigidity. 	




No -- ribs stiffen the skin and maintain the shape at each station, and transfer lift loads uniformly to the wing box. The torsional rigidity of the wing is a function only by the area enclosed by the wing box and the thickness of the skin around that area.

 

Extra ribs could increase the *ultimate* strength by delaying buckling of the skin.



Ihab



-- 

Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA  [quote][b]

ihab.awad(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: Another XL Down - Brazil

I should also add --



On 5/7/08, ihab.awad(at)gmail.com (ihab.awad(at)gmail.com) <ihab.awad(at)gmail.com (ihab.awad(at)gmail.com)> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		   Extra ribs could increase the *ultimate* strength by delaying buckling of the skin. 	


If all you want to do is delay skin buckling, then adding some stiffeners to the skin is probably a more lightweight solution than adding more ribs. Stiffeners could be spanwise, i.e., stringers --

 

  http://www.donsbushcaddy.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/RPittsWing.jpg



or they can be chordwise, as seen in the wing of a Glastar --

 

  http://www.glasairaviation.com/images/glastar/jswing2.jpg



Ihab



-- 

Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA  [quote][b]

pfranke(at)tpg.com.au
Guest

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: Another XL Down - Brazil

As far as rib spacing is concerned, I had a look over a Robin 2160 just the

other weekend and using my eyeball measurement, the rib spacing is pretty

well the same as on the XL. It took both of us by surprise when we saw that.

Just take a look at some of the maneuvers aerobat schools put them through.

Mind you, it is very easy to see that the two have the same father, the

similarities in design are very apparent.



Just my $0.02



Peter



" I found it interesting that the new RV-12 wing has 13 ribs per wing, more

than the Zodiac XL yet they have very similar specs (XL wing span 27 ft,

RV-12 is 26'8ft / XL wing area 132 SQF, RV'12 is 127SQF, XL wing loading is

9.85 lbs psf, RV-12 is 10.4 lbs psf).  Again this is just for comparison and

my own inquizitive mind that is all."

amyvega2005(at)earthlink.
Guest

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:47 am Post subject: Another XL Down - Brazil

Its not an issue of to people or one.  Its an issue of Aft CG.  Alot of people make the mistake of not minding their CG.  If the plane is loaded with too much in baggage, heck, all you need is twenty Lbs to the very rear on an Aft CG plane,  unless you unfassen you seat belt and hug the dash, she may not pull out of a spin.    This plane is very forgiving and well constructed, However one must keeep in mind, God is forgiving as well,   too a certain point.  I think the accidents or at least most of them will be attributable to pilot error in some form or another.  Or a flaw in the way it was constructed.  



Juan



--

amyvega2005(at)earthlink.
Guest

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: Another XL Down - Brazil

that was me, my bad.



Juan



--

Scotsman

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Posts: 89
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: Re: Another XL Down - Brazil

Firstly, I like the XL and own a kit in progress.  And no I am not employed by a rival homebuilt company just rather a person who bought prior/during the first accidents and has grown more concerned as the number of accidents increased with no real solution being found.



"I think the accidents or at least most of them will be attributable to pilot error in some form or another. Or a flaw in the way it was constructed."



Does it not seem to you that there are a disproportionate number of pilots making errors and builders not constructing the aircraft correctly?



Previously certain listers have called for an end to the speculation on the crashes.  As far as I am aware there is currently no substantive evidence of pilot error or poor workmanship on all of the accident aircraft.  Therefore to assume this position would also be speculative.



That being said I actually believe there is a need for intellectually based speculation as no other parties appear to be forthcoming with any substantive evidence as to the cause of the crash.



In terms of workmanship I do not believe that this is the recurring factor due to the range of persons/entities building the aircraft.  On the basis of the various reports I believe that Czech Airworks, AMD and home builders have built XLs that have crashed.  It would be unlikely, in terms of probability, that all three of these groups across various nations are all negligent in their building skills (and/or build materials) therefore causing structural failure.  It this was the case we would see approximately the same percentage failure rate across all homebuilds as I would assume that Zenith builders are little different from other builders in terms of accuracy etc.



If the tolerances for building are so small that the abovementioned three building groups cannot always produce a structurally sound aircraft then we have a problem with the design.



In reference to the unreliability of eye witness reports.  How many unreliable eye witness reports of wings flapping etc does it take to give a tiny piece of credence to their report?  The witnesses tend to be "civilians" and therefore are unlikely to have been tainted with the notion that XL wings allegedly fail.  I am only saying that they can't all be wrong.



In terms of pilot error I could concede that if all the alleged structural failure pilots were from the new LSA licence only it might be a training issue however the pilots of the various crashes seem to have a large range of experience and licences (from little to a large amount of hours with other aircraft also being owned by the same pilot, from PPL and upwards to LSA).



In terms of the suggestion of overstressing the aircraft with rapid elevator deflections I would suggest that this is possible however bearing in mind that the XL is stressed in certain cases to higher ultimate g tolerances that quite a few certified aircraft you would expect the same "careless" pilots to be killing themselves in certified aircraft at the same rates.  This does not seem to be the case across the board however I agree that in certain cases, potentially for example G-YOXI in the UK, where it appears as if pilot error is present.



I am concerned that Zenith have issued the AD regarding the elevator deflection however I would like to understand on what factual basis did they arrive at this modification to prevent further structural failures.  Is this AD then not also speculative in nature?



The only consistent factor that we are aware of at the moment is the design (save for the recent RB mod version).



I have sent an email to Zenith regarding similar thoughts to the ones listed above and wait for a response.  I believe that Zenith have an ethical and commercial obligation to be both transparent and engage in further dynamic testing.



I understand that the regulations only require the static load tests but my concern is that in flight the aircraft's wings are not uniformly loaded (especially evident in the case of deploying full drag flap).  As a result of the accidents and the "successful" repeated static load tests it would be prudent to transparently investigate/test further potential areas of concern outline by some of the listers.



I abhor the fact that without substantive evidence of the cause of the accidents combined with an appropriate resolution the likelihood of seeing further accidents posted on these pages is very real.



One last question does anyone know why the published negative g load reduced from -6 to -3?



Apologies for the long email.



James

PatrickW

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 380
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 9:55 am Post subject: Re: Another XL Down - Brazil

 	  Scotsman wrote: 	
		  I actually believe there is a need for intellectually based speculation as no other parties appear to be forthcoming with any substantive evidence as to the cause of the crash. 	


Well said, James.



Perhaps as a group we should replace the word "speculation", with the word "brainstorming".



Many of us XL builders *are* engineers, and many disciplines are represented among the builders on this forum.  As a group we cover a lot of ground, with the common thread amongst us being construction of an XL...



Speculation -  I mean *brainstorming* - is welcomed and encouraged.



- Pat

TxDave

Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 168
Location: Temple, TX

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 10:24 am Post subject: Re: Another XL Down - Brazil

James, that was a very thoughtful and well written post. It is ludicrous to believe that all of these accidents were caused by pilot error or poor construction. Are we to assume that we are all better pilots and builders than these poor folks?



Do you have to be an astronaut or an aeronautical engineer to safely build and fly a 601XL? We are all (well, most of us) amateur pilots and builders. There should be some margin for error.



There are too many good people losing their lives. It is not disrespectful of Chris H. for the building community to want some answers. This is supposed to be fun, not scary.



Dave Clay

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 10:47 am Post subject: Not another XL down post

As far as speculative posts please keep in mind that the well written post James just made is in a thread about an accident where there is no information that there was any in-flight break up at all. In fact, the first reports sound like the standard failure to recover from stall accidents that happen every week among planes of all types all over the world.



Is there cause for concern, sure. But I urge every one to go back and read the letters that Chris Heintz has written on the issue. Yes, I know that these links are behind the password protection of the builder's area but if Zenith doesn't choose to secure them any better than that then that is their fault and any Google Search could find them as easily with or without my posting them here. 



http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/cheintz-ntsb-nyc08fa158.pdf



http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/ch-letter-601xl-3-25-2008.pdf 



(Please note that this second letter has a P.S. after the signature. I know I missed it the first time I read the letter and it has just about as much info in the P.S. as it does in the body of the letter.)



As far a factual data for the elevator limiting modification that has been issued. It is very clear from flying the 601XL without the modification in place that the aircraft has, and I'll use a technical phrase here, a metric buttload of down elevator force. Way more than it could ever need in normal flight. In my almost 30 years as a certificated pilot, with time logged in over 25 models of aircraft I will say that, with the exception of a couple of aerobatic aircraft, I have never flown an aircraft that had as much unused down elevator as the 601XL. 



On the issue of pilot error, while experience helps it does not free pilots from screwing up. You only have to look back to the 2006 accident that took Scott Crossfield's life to prove that point. He had more high risk flying hours than all of the 601XL pilots combined have normal hours and he makes the bad choice to fly into weather that was to much for the plane.



In addition to the UK crash that James mentioned we also have the accident where the low time LSA pilot flew into bad weather and the other one where the family of the pilot admitted that he buzzed the house regularly. These are both situations that have historically cost pilots their lives.



In closing I'd like to say that have no problem with speculative brainstorming. I have a problem with those on the list that make design change decisions without all the facts and we don't have all the facts. Most 601 builders, myself included, aren't qualified to design the changes even if we had all the facts.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

Iberplanes

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 174
Location: Igualada - Barcelona - Spain

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Another XL Down - Brazil

James,



People contributing to the list like you  is what it makes this list GOLD



Very well explained and thought.



Alberto Martin

Iberplanes IGL

http://www.iberplanes.es

Igualada - Barcelona - España



---

_________________
Alberto Martin
601 XL - Jabiru 3300
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

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