Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

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

NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Scotsman

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

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:44 pm Post subject: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

Without trying to start a fight....



If aileron cable tensioning prevents flutter on the XL....and numerous other LSA etc types also utilise control cables then why wouldn't we see a similar number/incidence of "flutter induced wing failures" in a large selection of other types globally?



Since I bought my kit I do not hear of the same type of accidents happening in the various other types (certainly not in the same perceived frequency and small interval).  This would lead me to suggest that there is something different about the tensioning that more readily becomes a problem on an XL than say another kit aircraft.



On this basis it would be common sense, as opposed to complete stupidity, to invest time and effort in introducing a belt and braces approach to the tensioning/flutter issue.



Maybe the design of the control system is more prone than a similar type to control cables slackening.



To ignore this would be to, as someone said earlier, "put your head in the sand".  What if it is you that forgot to check your tension regularly after berating the posters looking for further safety margins and then experienced a flutter incident.  Have you ever flown an aircraft without being as thorough as you usually are on your pre-flight?



James

_________________
Cell +27 83 675 0815

Gig Giacona

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

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

I'm not sure who your post is aimed at but if you want to play what if I'll be more than happy to join you.



Do a Google search with the term words FAA Ignores NTSB happens all the time.



 	  d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote: 	
		  Wouldn't that be a great solution!  What if an investigation determines that 

the aircraft "might" be safe that way, but would be much safer with mass 

balanced ailerons. Would you simply ignore the modification because your 

cables will always be exactly the right tension? Perhaps the designer will 

look at a mass balance solution designed by someone else, maybe a bright 

young kid, and say it looks ok for those owners who prefer a belt AND 

suspenders solution. If I remember correctly NOTHING in my pilot training 

advocated ignoring a possible safety issue because it was inconvenient or 

expensive to acknowledge it.





---

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

Gig Giacona

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

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:05 pm Post subject: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

At what point do you stop with your "belt and braces approach"? Aircraft can always be safer if you add one more feature. Problem is pretty soon you go over the MGW before you have added fuel or yourself to the airplane.



To answer your last question, I do the same preflight every time I go up. I do have a somewhat shortened one that is used in a situation like a stop over to get fuel for either the plane or myself. You can bet your first born that "Check Cable Tension" will be on all of the check lists.



 	  Scotsman wrote: 	
		  Without trying to start a fight....



If aileron cable tensioning prevents flutter on the XL....and numerous other LSA etc types also utilise control cables then why wouldn't we see a similar number/incidence of "flutter induced wing failures" in a large selection of other types globally?



Since I bought my kit I do not hear of the same type of accidents happening in the various other types (certainly not in the same perceived frequency and small interval).  This would lead me to suggest that there is something different about the tensioning that more readily becomes a problem on an XL than say another kit aircraft.



On this basis it would be common sense, as opposed to complete stupidity, to invest time and effort in introducing a belt and braces approach to the tensioning/flutter issue.



Maybe the design of the control system is more prone than a similar type to control cables slackening.



To ignore this would be to, as someone said earlier, "put your head in the sand".  What if it is you that forgot to check your tension regularly after berating the posters looking for further safety margins and then experienced a flutter incident.  Have you ever flown an aircraft without being as thorough as you usually are on your pre-flight?



James

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

d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:41 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

I would actually be far more interested in seeing this aircrafts reputation 

restored, by finding out if there is or is not a problem and if so having a 

design change, than winning or losing an argument with you. If there is no 

problem, the incidents will stop of their own accord. If there is some small 

flaw, the price for ignoring it is too damn high.



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I'm not sure who your post is aimed at but if you want to play what if 

 I'll be more than happy to join you.

Gig Giacona

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

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:51 pm Post subject: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

That's the problem the reputation can never be restored. The flying community is just too small. I too would like to find out if there is a problem and to get it fixed if there is one. I just feel the NTSB isn't the way to do it.



 	  d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote: 	
		  I would actually be far more interested in seeing this aircrafts reputation 

restored, by finding out if there is or is not a problem and if so having a 

design change, than winning or losing an argument with you. If there is no 

problem, the incidents will stop of their own accord. If there is some small 

flaw, the price for ignoring it is too damn high.



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I'm not sure who your post is aimed at but if you want to play what if 

 I'll be more than happy to join you.

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

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:02 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

as with other planes such as the tomohawk,  the reputation will cause a drastic drag to residual value in the event of the sale, and in the event of an insurance renewal.  this BS has cost us all in our pockets.



Juan



--

Iberplanes

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

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:02 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

Jay, 



How can you be so sure the ZBAG never sent or shared information with ZAC? 



Please, let me know. 

Alberto Martin

www.iberplanes.es

Igualada - Barcelona - Spain

 

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

Zodiac 601 XL Builder

Serial: 6-7011



Tail Kit: Finished

Wings: Not Started

Fuselage: Ordered

Engine: Jabiru 3300

  [quote][b]

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

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:02 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

sounds like a guy that voted for oBAMA.  ouch!



jUAN



--

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:02 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

Hi Gig,



For some reason you seem to want to make this a personal issue.  It 

is not.  This sort of thing happens all the time with real products 

in a real world.



I don't have any negative feelings toward Chris regarding this 

airplane.  I believe he is the best designer in the world for this 

class of plane.  So, I believe he is the best designer to do the job 

of designing the mass balance solution.  I don't think his work will 

be substandard because he doesn't believe this solution is 

needed.  Indeed, I don't think it is needed either.  But, my 

judgement and his must bow to the respect deserved by the NTSB.



It is painfully common for an engineer to need to do a design change 

that he doesn't believe in.  So long as he doesn't believe it will do 

serious harm he has no reason to avoid this task.



I can't believe the FAA would disregard this decision by the 

NTSB.  Even if they did, my plane is still grounded until it gets the 

mass balance improvement.  It might help, or it might not, but that 

is just the decision I have made.



Paul

do not archive



At 12:19 PM 4/16/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  You don't trust the guy enough to believe him over a bunch of NTSB 

bureaucrats yet you still want him to design a modification.

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:11 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

sounds like a guy that voted for oBAMA.  ouch!



jUAN



--

hansriet

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 93

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:25 pm Post subject: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

Juan,



You stopped making sense a little while ago, but you're truly rambling now.

I would think that the value of a homebuilt would decrease most if the type keeps falling out of the sky, no matter what the reason is. A thorough review and, if necessary, modifications to the designcan only restore trust.



And please leave your political views off this list.



Hans van Riet

jetboy

Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 233

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:44 pm Post subject: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

take care in choosing mass balance modifications. The design rules applying to European 601XL is CAP482 British Civil Airworthiness Requirements section S - small light airplanes, section D, design and construction, S 6569



"Mass balance



The supporting structure and the attachment of concentrated mass balance weights used on control surfaces must be designed for:



a) 24 g normal to the plane of the control surface;



b) 12 g fore and aft; and



c) 12 g parallel to the hinge line"

I found this while reviewing the design rules documents that applied before the ASTM became the rule for LSA. I have not been able to freely obtain the ASTM spec anywhere but it may become more available now the NTSB have pointed to it.



Both BCAR-S and DS 10141E (formerly TP10141E from transport Canada) design rules that applied to the 601XL in non LSA markets

require flight testing for flutter, and the pre- LSA 601XL design should therefore have been tested in this manner, but I dont know the requirements under ASTM certification for LSA.



Another point about the DS10141E spec is that max. G loading for these aircraft is fixed, therefore it is not legal to modify or operate them at a higher than gross weight than originally stated unless the limit airspeeds such as Vne, Vfe are adjusted accordingly ensuring that the 4G will not be exceeded. I see people flying around here in "FAT Ultralight" mode saying that its OK I got a letter from CH (and they did, actually) and just dont fly in gusty conditions when "heavy".



Ralph



 	  psm(at)att.net wrote: 	
		  Hi Sabrina,



You have my greatest respect for trying to engineer a solution to the 

mass balance problem.  However, I would feel a lot better if the 

design came from Chris.



Have you used your special relationship with ZAC to ask if we can 

have a mass balance design released from them?



Paul

do not archive



At 11:19 AM 4/16/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Comments?

_________________
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a

ggower_99(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:55 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

Hello Sabrina,

  

 The flex hindge tested by ZAC worked perfectly in the test...  0.016" has necer failed, so I dont think we need a heavier alerion skin. maybe only use A5 ribbets, mainly in the ends.   

  

 Saludos

 Gary Gower.



--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>

Subject: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 2:19 PM



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Sabrina"

<chicago2paris(at)msn.com>



I am told Grainger just delivered two VJ99 pipe stands to my 'shop'

that I will use for balancing...



Things are going well...



Hinged or flex?



Gig raises a good point, all that new weight (2 1/2 pounds) on an .016 flex

hinge scares me...



Do we ask Zenith to make an .025 skin?  would that flex properly?



Comments?





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239564#239564





	
	


         [quote][b]

jmaynard

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

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:36 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 04:38:06PM -0400, jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    Obviously off line and strictly between you and me:


	


Uhm, you sent this to the list..



 	  Quote: 	
		    It is my opinion that the hard-core members of the ZBAG group feel that

  there is a fatal flaw in the design of the 601XL , therefore feel cheated

  by Zenith and Chris Heintz and they want revenge.? I believe it is their

  goal to put Zenith out of business and establish grounds for suing

  Zenith.?


	


I don't know if you consider me a hard-core memebr of ZBAG or not. However,

I can assure you that I don't feel cheated in the slightest. I have no

desire to put Zenith or AMD out of business, as that would leave my aircraft

in limbo in terms of approval for modifications and the like, not to mention

severely impacting the availability of spare parts.



 	  Quote: 	
		    In spite of the extensive testing that Zenith has done,


	


.except that Zenith's testing was all static testing, with no dynamic tests

done at all. They may have done them for the European certification bodies,

but only on the European version of the aircraft, and no data has been

released.



 	  Quote: 	
		    they still persist in their insistance that it is a flawed design.


	


Nope. I don't kow if it's flawed or not. I'd love nothing more than for the

design to be proven sound, but that hasn't been done yet, because the

necessary tests haven't been performed.



 	  Quote: 	
		    The NTSB is by nature a "sky is falling" organization, so they published

  that represensible letter that is full of inuendo, speculation,

  half-truths and outright lies.


	


I'll ask you the same question Juan adamantly refuses to answer: How do you

explain the inflight breakups, especially that of N158MD?



 	  Quote: 	
		    This has made the ZBAG guys almost giddy; and they are now saying "I told

  you so".


	


Whatever anyone else may or may not be saying, I can assure you that "I told

you so" is not what I want to say.



 	  Quote: 	
		    I seriously doubt that there is a flutter problem, but Zenith will

  probably come up with a modification that will get this off their backs,

  whether it is really necessary or not.


	


Would taking positive action to eliminate flutter as a possibility really be

so bad?



 	  Quote: 	
		    I'm also guessing that a Zenith modification will not satisfy the ZBAG

  guys.


	


I can't speak for any of the other ZBAG members, but a modification that was

shown through proper dynamic testing to eliminate any possibility of flutter

would satisfy me no matter who it came from.



My position n this hasn't changed one bit from the beginning. I don't know

for sure that there is or is not a problem. The entire Zodiac community

needs to know, once and for all. All we have right now are guesses. I'll

accept any answer that's backed up by testing in accordance with generally

accepted standards of aeronautical engineering. So far, I am not aware of

any such testing having been done. No, the static load testing is not

sufficient.

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI      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

stormyflight(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:13 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

Actually, to be reasonably accurate in a flutter speed prediction they need a fairly complete FEA model that has been validated and tweaked by a GVT.  That model is then run thru flutter code usually in various configurations (fuel full, fuel empty, flaps up and down).  The output will then give you the flutter and divergence speeds.  Really, an FEA model that is unvalidated by a GVT is a guess at best.  Also, the GVT data alone tell you nothing, it is only used to establish an accurate FEA model.



Jim Machin

601xl almost done



--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>

 Subject: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics..com

 Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 4:57 PM

 

 "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>

 

 Jay,

 

 Refresh my recollection, which crash was it where the main

 spar nuts had 5 or 6 threads showing?   Did

 the NTSB mention that in their report?   Did

 ZBAG ever mention that to the NTSB?    In my book,

 ZBAG is concentrating on aileron flutter to the detriment of

 spar and stick issues.    As I told you off line,

 a vast majority of my modifications addressed spar and stick

 issues.  Properly tensioned unbalanced ailerons are

 safe up to a certain speed.  ZBAG should release their

 Vne before someone is killed. If they don't have a V speed,

 how are they telling the NTSB that flutter is an issue

 without GVT data?  They need either GVT data or a

 computer predicted onset V speed before they can cry

 flutter.  

 

 >From what I am told, they only supplied 2D and not 3D

 data to the NTSB, is this true?

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 39637#239637

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Email Forum -

 FAQ,

    - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

 List Contribution Web Site -

               -Matt

 Dralle, List Admin.

daveaustin2(at)primus.ca
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:48 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

It seems to me that ZBAG did the unforgivable..  asked a question that they 

did not wish to hear the answer..

Dave Austin  601HDS - 912

William Dominguez

Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 118

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:20 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

The crash you are referring is the Yuba city crash.

 

What you are saying in relation to ZBAG concentrating on flutter to the detriment of spar and stick issue is not entirely accurate. Our engineer have been very thorough in addressing the other 2 issues.

William Dominguez

Zodiac 601XL Plans

Miami Florida

http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom



--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> wrote:

[quote]

From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>

Subject: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 7:57 PM



--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Sabrina" <[url=/mc/compose?to=chicago2paris(at)msn.com]chicago2paris(at)msn.com[/url]>



Jay,



Refresh my recollection, which crash was it where the  main spar nuts had 5 or 6 threads showing?   Did the NTSB mention that in their report?   Did ZBAG ever mention that to the NTSB?    In my book, ZBAG is concentrating on aileron flutter to the detriment of spar and stick issues.    As I told you off line, a vast majority of my modifications addressed spar and stick issues.  Properly tensioned unbalanced ailerons are safe up to a certain speed.  ZBAG should release their Vne before someone is killed. If they don't have a V speed, how are they telling the NTSB that flutter is an issue without GVT data?  They need either GVT data or a computer predicted onset V speed before they can cry flutter.  



 	  Quote: 	
		  From what I am told, they only supplied 2D and not 3D data to the NTSB, is this true?


	




Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=239637#239========================http://www.matronics.com/Nav=               - MATRONICS cs.com" bsp;               -Matt Dralle, List Adontribution" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution  [quote][b]

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

stormyflight(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:02 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

In my opinion, if the aircraft is built as designed and it has been show during several tests that the spar is indeed strong enough.  The question is how and what lead up to the spar being overstressed.  Flutter, an improper control input or gust (if flown outside the prescribed flight envelope) are the only choices assuming the structure has been adequately tested (which I think it has).  If what the NTSB says is true, that the stick forces reduce with g, well that is a very bad thing and could easily lead to an unintentional overload.  Flutter, also is a bad thing within the prescribed flight envelope (due to whatever reasons, ie. loose cables or whatever).  The good news is that both of these conditions are relatively easy to fix once identified.  They will not take extensive modifications to the airframe to rectify as opposed to if the wing spar is too weak.



It will take a little time, but these issues can and will be resolved.



Jim Machin

601XL almost done



--- On Thu, 4/16/09, William Dominguez <bill_dom(at)yahoo.com> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   From: William Dominguez <bill_dom(at)yahoo.com>

 Subject: Re: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 7:18 PM

 The

 crash you are referring is the Yuba city crash.

 

 

 What you are saying in relation to ZBAG concentrating on

 flutter to the detriment of spar and stick issue is not

 entirely accurate. Our engineer have been very thorough in

 addressing the other 2 issues.

 

 

 William Dominguez

 Zodiac 601XL Plans

 Miami Florida

 http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom

 

 --- On Thu, 4/16/09, Sabrina

 <chicago2paris(at)msn..com> wrote:

 

 From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>

 Subject: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of

 601XLs in US

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 7:57 PM

 

 --> Zenith-List message posted

 by: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>

 

 Jay,

 

 Refresh my recollection, which crash was it where the

  main spar nuts had 5 or 6 threads

 showing?   Did the NTSB mention that in their

 report?   Did ZBAG ever mention that to the

 NTSB?    In my book, ZBAG is concentrating on

 aileron flutter to the detriment of spar and stick

 issues.    As I told you off line, a vast majority

 of my modifications addressed spar and stick issues. 

 Properly tensioned unbalanced ailerons are safe up to a

 certain speed.  ZBAG should release their Vne before

 someone is killed. If they don't have a V speed, how are

 they telling the NTSB that flutter is an issue without GVT

 data?  They need either GVT data or a computer

 predicted onset V speed before they can cry flutter.  

 

 >From what I am told, they only supplied 2D and not 3D

 data to the NTSB, is this true?

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 39637#239========================

 http://www.matronics.com/Nav=       

        - MATRONICS cs.com"

 bsp;               -Matt

 Dralle, List Adontribution"

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

hills(at)sunflower.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:25 pm Post subject: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

Ya Andy, but if the patient moved his arm to much, it didn't break off.



Roger

--

Martin Pohl

Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 118
Location: CH-8645 Jona SG, Switzerland

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:20 am Post subject: Re: NTSB recommends grounding of 601XLs in US

Jim, I totally agree with you! By knowing that there might be a flutter issue (several reports about flutter by XL-pilots) and by knowing that elevator authority is rather over-sensitive, it is a reasonable and resolvable task to add effective modifications.



Since more than half a year several european aviation authorities suspect that flutter might have caused these accidents with g-loads beyond ultimate load (or how can you explain wing failure out of level flight aside from oversteering the controls?). That is why the German FAA is planning GVTs and that is also why the UK LAA is modifying one of their XLs with aileron mass balance (beside other minor modifications) for flight testing. The NTSB is now "only" quoting what UK LAA and German FAA were already saying since October 2008.



This only as a thought to the people that are discussing about ZBAG being the one that lobbied the NTSB... 



Anyway, someone asked about the critical speed before onset of possible aileron flutter: the German FAA issued a SD, stating a maximum speed of 180 km/h (similar to 97 kts). This speed must be based on some solide engineering judgement! If my XL would be flying already, I would stick to this maximum speed until more tests are done (GVT, FEM-simulation) and a positive result or modification is available.



Cheers

Martin

_________________
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
http://www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL/Main.html

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 5 of 6

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