Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - In a galaxy far, far away

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

In a galaxy far, far away

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

yak52

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 50

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:33 am Post subject: In a galaxy far, far away

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away the aviation authorities decided they needed to get a large number of older aircraft out of the fleet and, at the same time, allow more people to fly in a low, slow unregulated airspace. To that end they issued a set of specifications and requested engineers to design aircraft to those specifications. The engineers made several assumptions, i.e. the builders would follow the plans, the pilots would operate the airplane within the flight envelope, and the owners would properly maintain the aircraft. The engineers designed the aircraft to the government specs and released the plans and kits to the market. Unfortunately, the engineers were wrong in their assumptions about some of the builders, owners and pilots. Some builders,many of whom were not engineers and had no building experience felt they knew"better" than the designer and made "improvements" to the design or built poorly with hardware store tools and equipment. Some owners did not maintain the aircraft according to factory specifications. Some pilots "self checked" the modifications, flew aerobatics and exceeded Va and Vne with reckless abandon. Crashes insued. A group of builders then engaged in a campaign to force a redesign of the airplane by an avalanche of complaints to the aviation authorities. They demanded the airplane be made safe from "flutter". Even after the theory of flutter was refuted, they continued with their stream of complaints and many refused to believe any of the studies done by professional engineers or even the aviation authorities were correct. The aviation authorities, in order to stop this activity, engaged the designers of the airplane to strengthen the airplane so the pilots would have less opportunity to harm themselves by their excursions outside the flight envelope in their self designed "improvements" to the airplane. The designers, tired of going to crash sites, and tired of seeing how poorly built, flown and maintained their aircraft were, designed modifications that made the airplane far stronger than the original specifications. Several interesting things happened, including, (1)The complaining group claimed victory and patted themselves on the back as having superior knowledge to the others. They forgot their claims of design flaw were never shown as correct by any engineering study and ignored every indication of the aviation authorities that operational activities may have contributed to the crashes. As none of this group actually had a flying airplane(most don't even have a pilot's license), they suffered no real damage, and have further reason to put off ever having to fly their airplane.(2) The designers, who may or may not survive economically, are bombarded by demands they pay for these "improvements" by owners so shortsighted they couldn't pass a flight physical without wearing binoculars backwards, will now be able to attribute every crash to builder/pilot error.(3) The factory built airplanes will now have an additional bill for the "improvements" to an airplane which is already upside down financially and may never recover any commercial ability.(4) The rest, including those with hundreds of hours on the airframe, who built appropriately and flew the airplane within its flight envelope will also have to dissassemble their airplane to incorporate the "improvements" or face potential problems with the aviation authorities or the insurance companies, much less any attempted resale of the airplane.

   

 Steven Speilberg couldn't film one better than this.

  [quote][b]

jmaynard

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

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:33 am Post subject: In a galaxy far, far away

Oh, good grief. If you're going to post wildly inaccurate flamage, the least

you could do is put in a paragraph break every now and then.



On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 08:33:16AM -0500, roger lambert wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Some builders,many of whom were not engineers and had no building

 experience felt they knew"better" than the designer and made

 "improvements" to the design or built poorly with hardware store tools and

 equipment. Some owners did not maintain the aircraft according to factory

 specifications. Some pilots "self checked" the modifications, flew

 aerobatics and exceeded Va and Vne with reckless abandon. Crashes insued.


	


It's still yet to be demonstrated that that is teh case in all of the

inflight breakups. It's possible. How possible is anyone's guess.



 	  Quote: 	
		   A group of builders then engaged in a campaign to force a redesign of the

 airplane by an avalanche of complaints to the aviation authorities.


	


One well-reasoned report is not an "avalanche".



 	  Quote: 	
		   They demanded the airplane be made safe from "flutter".


	


At the time, there was a distinct lack of explanations that would account

for the accidents any other way - and especially ones that would account for

why factory-built aircraft were crashing.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Even after the theory of flutter was refuted, they continued with their

 stream of complaints


	


What stream of complaints? Discussion on a mailing list is not a complaint

to the authorities, no matter how much you may think it is.



 	  Quote: 	
		   and many refused to believe any of the studies done by professional

 engineers or even the aviation authorities were correct.


	


You're on the ZBAG mailing list. You know damned good and well there's no

unanimity there, except in that an answer needed to be found.



 	  Quote: 	
		   The aviation authorities, in order to stop this activity,


	


Horse exhaust. The FAA doesn't ground an entire fleet of aircraft to shut up

a few malcontents.



 	  Quote: 	
		   The designers, tired of going to crash sites, and tired of seeing how

 poorly built, flown and maintained their aircraft were, designed

 modifications that made the airplane far stronger than the original

 specifications.


	


I guess you missed the FAA's statement that the original Zodiac XL design

did not meet the ASTM standards.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Several interesting things happened, including, (1)The complaining group

 claimed victory and patted themselves on the back as having superior

 knowledge to the others.


	


What do you call the FAA's statement that the Zodiac's design was deficient,

then? The FAA, ever mindful of litigation, would not say that if they did

not sincerely believe it.



 	  Quote: 	
		   They forgot their claims of design flaw were never shown as correct by any

 engineering study


	


Tell that to the FAA.



 	  Quote: 	
		   and ignored every indication of the aviation authorities that operational

 activities may have contributed to the crashes.


	


Right. A 79-year-old man taking his wife up for her first flight in his new,

factry-built Zodiac is going to push the edges of the envelope.



 	  Quote: 	
		   As none of this group actually had a flying airplane(most don't even have

 a pilot's license),


	


Read my .signature. My airplane has around 210 hours on the Hobbs. It's

flown all over the central US. I've had a pilot's license for 20 years. Yes,

I'm a member of the group you insist on hating and blaming for the

grounding, instead of the Zodiac's design.



 	  Quote: 	
		   they suffered no real damage,


	


I've got an airplane I can't afford any more (due to extended unemployment),

can't fly, and can't sell. How, exactly, have I "suffered no real damage"?



 	  Quote: 	
		   and have further reason to put off ever having to fly their airplane.


	


I flew my airplane the day of the grounding, before I learned of it. I would

love to be able to fly it again. That's probably not oign to happen in the

absence of a miracle.



 	  Quote: 	
		   (2) The designers, who may or may not survive economically, are bombarded

 by demands they pay for these "improvements"


	


I have not made, and will not make, such a demand.



 	  Quote: 	
		   by owners so shortsighted they couldn't pass a flight physical without

 wearing binoculars backwards,


	


I agree that demands that Zenith/Zenair/AMD pay for the modifications are

shortsighted.



 	  Quote: 	
		   will now be able to attribute every crash to builder/pilot error.


	


Once the deficient design is corrected - and, no matter how loudly you howl

and scream and punf feet and fists on the floor like a two-year-old, the FAA

says that the design is deficient - then the aircraft should have its

accident rate fall to about the same as the rest of the LSA fleet, unlike

what it has been. This is the inconvenient fact you keep ignoring.



 	  Quote: 	
		   (3) The factory built airplanes will now have an additional bill for the

 "improvements" to an airplane which is already upside down financially and

 may never recover any commercial ability.


	


When I bought my AMD, I didn't expect to get out of it anything approaching

what I paid for it. That didn't bother me. If I were still making my

previous salary, it wouldn't bother me now. I bought it to fly for the rest

of my flying days. I'd love to simply fly it to Eastman (with a ferry

permit), write AMD a check, and fly home a couple of weeks later with an

airplane whose design has been thoroughly examined, tested, characterized,

and understood - far better than any other LSA flying.



 	  Quote: 	
		   (4) The rest, including those with hundreds of hours on the airframe, who

 built appropriately and flew the airplane within its flight envelope will

 also have to dissassemble their airplane to incorporate the "improvements"

 or face potential problems with the aviation authorities or the insurance

 companies, much less any attempted resale of the airplane.


	


Would you rather fly a design the FAA has found deficient, or would you

rather remove all doubt?



 	  Quote: 	
		   Steven Speilberg couldn't film one better than this.


	


I commend Tom Clancy's words to you before you write your next fairy tale.

Clancy observed that he couldn't get away with writing things that have

really happened, because fiction has to be believable. Your fairy tale is a

deliberate distoryion of reality, to the point of not being believable any

more.

-- 

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

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

z601a(at)anemicaardvark.c
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:35 am Post subject: In a galaxy far, far away

On Monday 16 November 2009 07:33, roger lambert wrote:

<snip>

 	  Quote: 	
		  (2) The designers, who may or may not survive economically, are

 bombarded by demands they pay for these "improvements" by owners so

 shortsighted they couldn't pass a flight physical without wearing

 binoculars backwards, will now be able to attribute every crash to

 builder/pilot error.

 <snip> 
	




Whoa, little buddy. Ignoring my visual accuity or lack thereof, I have every 

reason to expect Zenith to provide these improvements at minimal cost. 



Sure, they're a bunch of nice guys, and I'm more than willing to work with 

them because of it. I have no desire to see them go under, but neither is it 

reasonable for me to assume all the cost of what appears to be their error. 

At a minimum, I have a lot of extra labor to undo things, and install the 

"upgrades."



While their contract claims they have no responsibilty for results, I have 

printed copies of their website, and promotional materials, making broad 

claims for what can be accomplished with the kit. I suspect that, at a 

minimum, is negotiating in bad faith. While their attorney may have been the 

one forcing those words in the contract, the fact remains that they wind up 

being responsible.



Zenith is a small company, which does not have endless resources. Conversely, 

I'm retired, disabled, and I don't have an endless supply of money handy to 

offset errors made by others, even if they're unintentional. I think Zenith 

and I are on about an even playing field. I don't think I'm alone in this: I 

believe there are several others who are disabled or retirees who are 

building these kits. Given the nature of the aircraft, I would suspect there 

aren't that many really wealthy people building this aircraft: I doubt most 

of us can afford to eat the cost of the "upgrade."



I'm waiting to see exactly what Zenith offers, and at what price. They are, as 

many have been pointing out, really nice people who are willing to work with 

us as builders. I'm waiting to see just how much this policy carries over 

into the pricing of this modification. 

-- 

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

                Do not archive.

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

                Jim B Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

     Retired aerospace technical manager



     Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.

         Do not drink and derive.

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

dougsire

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 37

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:56 am Post subject: Re: In a galaxy far, far away

Well Roger, at least you have finally proved what I have suspected all along.   You're not really in touch with reality.



And apart from your obvious arrogance, what proof do you have that you are somehow a better builder/pilot/mechanic than those who died when their aircraft broke up in flight?

_________________
Doug Sire 601XL
Do Not Archive

jfowler120(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:22 pm Post subject: In a galaxy far, far away

Doug,



You are well over the edge.



Many posts on this forum have indicated very foolish piloting techniques and 

poor maintenance practices.  Similar unprofessional behavior may well have 

contributed to the accident pattern we have seen.  There is no way this can 

be tied directly to what has happened, but it is a a couple of factors that 

need to be considered.  We are all now paying, in time and effort, for what 

is mostly a CYA operation.



News flash.  Fly an airplane within its limits, do proper maintenance, and 

you are very unlikely to have problems.



I have flown a number of very tough airplanes well beyond their stated 

limits only because I had to in severe combat situations.  The 601XL was 

never designed for those sorts of operations.  This is a light aircraft 

designed primarily to cruise from A to B.  Stay within those limits.  It is 

clear that many do not, and add poor maintenance to the equation.



Karl



--------------------------------------------------

From: "dougsire" <dsire(at)imt.net>

Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 12:56 PM

To: <zenith601-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: Re: In a galaxy far, far away



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Well Roger, at least you have finally proved what I have suspected all 

 along.   You're not really in touch with reality.



 And apart from your obvious arrogance, what proof do you have that you are 

 somehow a better builder/pilot/mechanic than those who died when their 

 aircraft broke up in flight?



 --------

 Doug Sire 601XL

 Do Not Archive





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 73171#273171

tigerrick(at)mindspring.c
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:51 pm Post subject: In a galaxy far, far away

Guys, this whole thing is getting out of hand, IMHO. I thought Roger's post, as overly dramatic and format-challenged as it was, still made some good points. It was most likely written with tongue firmly planted in cheek, and I took it with a grain of salt or two.



I am really surprised at the venomous response from some here. The FAA and the NTSB still have not found a single "smoking gun" that's the primary cause for the in-flight break ups. And yet, it's also not normal for 7 601 series airplanes to suffer catastrophic airframe failures in a very similar fashion. All we know is that when overstressed (for whatever the reason), a chain of events starts that causes the airframe to fail in a predictable fashion. The one thing that we do know is that the airframe is not fault-tolerant of being overstressed. We also know that the 601 design has racked up thousands of flight hours without failure, but this is of little comfort to the 11 lost souls (and their families), who are forever marred by these crashes.



So, after all of the dust settles, we'll finally have an airframe that is more tolerant of airborne stresses and less susceptable to any single event resulting in catastrophic failure. It won't be irrecoverable anymore if the controls get mishandled, the aileron cables go slack, someone accidently steps on a flap, someone overstresses the aileron control system, the airplane goes a bit too fast or pulls a bit more G's than the design specifically allows. We'll now have an airplane that will at least allow us to safely return to earth under control.



I went back and reread the SAIB from the FAA, which claims the 601 was marginal in meeting the intent of the ASTM standard. However, the designer has claimed all along that the 601 is safe provided it's properly flown and maintained. Between the two schools of thought is a wide area that has been the subject of hot debate, and we won't get anywhere with one side demonizing the other.



So let's quit kicking Roger for his thoughts, order and install the upgrades, and get on with enjoying flying our little beasties as Chris and sons intended.



(opinion mode off)



Rick Lindstrom

ZenVair 601XL N42KP



--

jmaynard

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

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:37 pm Post subject: In a galaxy far, far away

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 04:51:04PM -0500, Rick Lindstrom wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   So let's quit kicking Roger for his thoughts


	


I'll quit kicking Roger just as soon as he quits bashing ZBAG, a group of

owners and builders that only has everyone's safety at heart - despite his

incoherent ravings.

-- 

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

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

ernieth(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:20 pm Post subject: In a galaxy far, far away

Made me Laugh. Thanks.



E.

Do not archive



On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:33 AM, roger lambert <n601ap(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away the aviation authorities

 decided they needed to get a large number of older aircraft out of the fleet

 and, at the same time, allow more people to fly in a low, slow unregulated

 airspace. To that end they issued a set of specifications and requested

 engineers to design aircraft to those specifications. The engineers made

 several assumptions, i.e. the builders would follow the plans, the pilots

 would operate the airplane within the flight envelope, and the owners would

 properly maintain the aircraft. The engineers designed the aircraft to the

 government specs and released the plans and kits to the market.

 Unfortunately, the engineers were wrong in their assumptions about some of

 the builders, owners and pilots. Some builders,many of whom were not

 engineers and had no building experience felt they knew"better" than the

 designer and made "improvements" to the design or built poorly with hardware

 store tools and equipment. Some owners did not maintain the aircraft

 according to factory specifications. Some pilots "self checked" the

 modifications, flew aerobatics and exceeded Va and Vne with reckless

 abandon. Crashes insued. A group of builders then engaged in a campaign to

 force a redesign of the airplane by an avalanche of complaints to the

 aviation authorities. They demanded the airplane be made safe from

 "flutter". Even after the theory of flutter was refuted, they continued with

 their stream of complaints and many refused to believe any of the studies

 done by professional engineers or even the aviation authorities were

 correct. The aviation authorities, in order to stop this activity, engaged

 the designers of the airplane to strengthen the airplane so the pilots would

 have less opportunity to harm themselves by their excursions outside the

 flight envelope in their self designed "improvements" to the airplane. The

 designers, tired of going to crash sites, and tired of seeing how poorly

 built, flown and maintained their aircraft were, designed modifications that

 made the airplane far stronger than the original specifications. Several

 interesting things happened, including, (1)The complaining group claimed

 victory and patted themselves on the back as having superior knowledge to

 the others. They forgot their claims of design flaw were never shown as

 correct by any engineering study and ignored every indication of the

 aviation authorities that operational activities may have contributed to the

 crashes. As none of this group actually had a flying airplane(most don't

 even have a pilot's license), they suffered no real damage, and have further

 reason to put off ever having to fly their airplane.(2) The designers, who

 may or may not survive economically, are bombarded by demands they pay for

 these "improvements" by owners so shortsighted they couldn't pass a flight

 physical without wearing binoculars backwards, will now be able to attribute

 every crash to builder/pilot error.(3) The factory built airplanes will now

 have an additional bill for the "improvements" to an airplane which is

 already upside down financially and may never recover any commercial

 ability.(4) The rest, including those with hundreds of hours on the

 airframe, who built appropriately and flew the airplane within its flight

 envelope will also have to dissassemble their airplane to incorporate the

 "improvements" or face potential problems with the aviation authorities or

 the insurance companies, much less any attempted resale of the airplane.



 Steven Speilberg couldn't film one better than this.



 ==

tigerrick(at)mindspring.c
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:56 pm Post subject: In a galaxy far, far away

Hi, Jay.



The last time I talked to William D. (the founder of ZBAG), he admitted that there was an faction of the group that wasn't as pure of heart as we would all have liked. I too, originally signed on as a ZBAG participant, but it became very clear that there were several different agendas at work, the worst being a few impatient souls who were very unhappy and wanted to build gallows and tie nooses as the solution.



I decided that the best course of action (for me) was to wait until the jury came back in before passing sentence on Zenith generally and the 601 specifically. In the mean time, I checked my 601 religiously, flew it conservatively, up until the time I lost access to the hangar it was in and moved it to my shop. And now I can finally get on with the mods, reassemble it, and fly it with renewed confidence.



I still think the original intent of ZBAG, to independently research the cause of the inflight break ups, was laudible. However, there was also a lot of inappropriate anger directed at the Heintz family, and a lot of leaping to the conclusion that the Heintz's just weren't doing enough fast enough. Lost in the ensuing debate was the realization that we ALL had a vested interest in putting this issue to rest, in a thorough and scientific manner.



With or without ZBAG, we'd ultimately end up where we are now. 7 inflight break ups of a single design in a short time frame isn't acceptable in anyone's book, and I'll bet even Roger will admit that. I also think Zenith deserves credit for going the extra mile in coming up with an upgrade package that will result in a stronger airframe, one that is more resistant to neglectful maintenance or stupid pilot/passeger tricks or severe turbulence. We do fly in an imperfect world with imperfect people. Zenith knows this, they've spent the last year coming up with these mods, partially based on their crash research with the NTSB.



In the old days, we'd most likely get a certified letter from Zenith or the FAA detailing the information that's now instantly available online. As marvelous a tool as the PC is in building airplanes, with discussion groups on every topic imaginable, we should recognize that it's also a powerful tool for forming and sharing opinions before thoroughly thinking things through. This is the downside.



My impression of Roger's parable was exactly that - a parable. I don't think he intended it to be scientific treatise purely based on fact, there's a lot of his opinion at work. We all view reality through our own set of filters, based on individual perceptions. That's a long way from "incoherent ravings".



Right now, Monday Night Fooball and a cold beer seem like the perfect solution to electronic dirt clod chucking!



Best,



Rick

--

NYTerminat(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:13 pm Post subject: In a galaxy far, far away

Rick, You are right. I don't think that Roger's post was meant  as pure fact but more as satire.  I took it with a grain of salt and  enjoyed the reading. There was no reason to flame him!!!!!!!!

  

 Bob Spudis

 N701ZX  Ch701/912S

  

  

  

 In a message dated 11/16/2009 4:52:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  tigerrick(at)mindspring.com writes:

 [quote]-->    Zenith601-List message posted by: Rick Lindstrom    <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com>



Guys, this whole thing is getting out    of hand, IMHO. I thought Roger's post, as overly dramatic and    format-challenged as it was, still made some good points. It was most likely    written with tongue firmly planted in cheek, and I took it with a grain of    salt or two.



I am really surprised at the venomous response from some    here. The FAA and the NTSB still have not found a single "smoking gun" that's    the primary cause for the in-flight break ups. And yet, it's also not normal    for 7 601 series airplanes to suffer catastrophic airframe failures in a very    similar fashion. All we know is that when overstressed (for whatever the    reason), a chain of events starts that causes the airframe to fail in a    predictable fashion. The one thing that we do know is that the airframe is not    fault-tolerant of being overstressed. We also know that the 601 design has    racked up thousands of flight hours without failure, but this is of little    comfort to the 11 lost souls (and their families), who are forever marred by    these crashes.



So, after all of the dust settles, we'll finally have an    airframe that is more tolerant of airborne stresses and less susceptable to    any single event resulting in catastrophic failure. It won't be irrecoverable    anymore if the controls get mishandled, the aileron cables go slack, someone    accidently steps on a flap, someone overstresses the aileron control system,    the airplane goes a bit too fast or pulls a bit more G's than the design    specifically allows. We'll now have an airplane that will at least allow us to    safely return to earth under control.



I went back and reread the SAIB    from the FAA, which claims the 601 was marginal in meeting the intent of the    ASTM standard. However, the designer has claimed all along that the 601 is    safe provided it's properly flown and maintained. Between the two schools of    thought is a wide area that has been the subject of hot debate, and we won't    get anywhere with one side demonizing the other.



So let's quit kicking    Roger for his thoughts, order and install the upgrades, and get on with    enjoying flying our little beasties as Chris and sons    intended.



(opinion mode off)



Rick Lindstrom

ZenVair 601XL    N42KP



--

yak52

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 50

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:24 am Post subject: In a galaxy far, far away

I do so enjoy the comments from the fringe elements of society. Although I never mentioned the names of anyone or  any group they certainly recognized themselves.

  

  I didn't mention ZBAG, but a response was made on their behalf by an individual who dresses in a costume from a 26 year old Disney movie and is a CFI without a medical.  I even got a punctuation lesson from that  same person who made two spelling errors and five punctuation/grammar errors in his reply.Honestly, though, that's much better than his common reply to "shut the f**k up" of 12/22/08, 4/15/09 and 6/14/09.

   

 To be called out of touch from reality by a person with no pilot license, no flying experience and no aircraft building experience who considers himself an expert in all three areas is indeed a compliment.

  

 To those of you concerned about the monetary discussion, I apologize. We'll all be taking it in the shorts(or in the spandex in at least one case) for this one. 

  

 To all the rest of you who recognized the food for thought in the fairy tale: fair winds, hot food and cold beverage.

  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-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