Engine Falls Off Kolb Firestar
Russell Duffy
In article <503a0i$8...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, gene...@ix.netcom.co says...
> What in the world is this industry coming to anyway...in a reply
>from Kolb Dennis Souder says the prop was hit by something causing an
>out of balance and shaking the engine bad enough it broke the mount
>bosses right off the ROTAX 447. I DONT THINK SO. but what did you
>espect from the factory. Then he (D. Souder) goes on to say that
>Pilots should pay close attention to detail when preflighting and to
>think ahead about loss of power, I think this guy should wake up and
>smell the Roses,,,,,,this rotax just came completly off the plane.
I'm curious what make you think you know more about this situation than Kolb.
Did you see the plane? Do you know that the mounting bosses weren't broken
off? What part of Kolb's explaination don't you think is feasable? Please
fill us in on the rest of the details that you seem to know about this
incident. Why do you seem to suggest that this is somehow Kolbs fault.
Rusty (Yes, I'm a Kolb customer)
Terry Schell
gene...@ix.netcom.com(MARK LORELLO) writes:
<snip>
> What in the world is this industry coming to anyway...in a reply
>from Kolb Dennis Souder says the prop was hit by something causing an
>out of balance and shaking the engine bad enough it broke the mount
>bosses right off the ROTAX 447. I DONT THINK SO. but what did you
>espect from the factory. Then he (D. Souder) goes on to say that
>Pilots should pay close attention to detail when preflighting and to
>think ahead about loss of power, I think this guy should wake up and
>smell the Roses,,,,,,this rotax just came completly off the plane.
hmm, what makes you think that Souder was lying? I don't think I have
seen any GA or Experimental design that would keep its engine 100% of
the time when a blade is lost at full power. Once a prop loses a
blade you no longer have a prop... you have a 70 hp vibrator. (I am
sure there is a market for that somewhere, but not in any aircraft)
Given the extreme vibrations caused by blade loss, it is almost
certainly safer to have the engine break free than try to fly it when
you cannot even grab the throttle (or hold the stick for that matter).
Just my opinion,
Terry Schell
Erik Shilling
In <5051a2$a...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry
Schell) writes:
>Given the extreme vibrations caused by blade loss, it is almost
>certainly safer to have the engine break free than try to fly it when
>you cannot even grab the throttle (or hold the stick for that matter).
Have to disgree with you here Terry. when you completely lose an
engine Your CG goes to Hell in a hurry.
a couple Formula I race planes had this problem a;nd they were required
to attach a cable to the engine to keeop it on the airplane. One hell
of a lot of drag, but it was still could be flown to a successful
landing. If the engine departed, because it would become so tailheavy
the airplane became unconrtolable.
No thank. I'd still like to have the engine dangling up front.
Erik Shilling
--
Erik Shilling Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's
Flight Leader Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers
MARK LORELLO
In <504cba$a...@cobia.gulf.net> r...@gulf.net (Russell Duffy) writes:
>
>In article <503a0i$8...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, gene...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>>from Kolb Dennis Souder says the prop was hit by something causing an
>>out of balance and shaking the engine bad enough it broke the mount
>>bosses right off the ROTAX 447. I DONT THINK SO. but what did you
>>espect from the factory. Then he (D. Souder) goes on to say that
>>Pilots should pay close attention to detail when preflighting and to
>>think ahead about loss of power, I think this guy should wake up and
>>smell the Roses,,,,,,this rotax just came completly off the plane.
>
than Kolb.
>Did you see the plane? Do you know that the mounting bosses weren't
broken
>off? What part of Kolb's explaination don't you think is feasable?
Please
>fill us in on the rest of the details that you seem to know about this
>incident. Why do you seem to suggest that this is somehow Kolbs fault.
>
>Rusty (Yes, I'm a Kolb customer)
>
Rusty, It seems you took a disliking to the way I wrote this post,
and I got the reaction of you just as I got a reaction from the letter
written in Ultralight Flying. Someone always trying to cover their
butt. I have NO,NONE,NOT ANY, claims of knowing a Kolb Aircraft or
knowing why All 4 motor mount bosses broke loose from the Rotax 447
in question. All I'am saying is, this type of failure should have never
happened. If you understood the letter, Gene says he heard ONE KLUNK
and then nothing. If the prop did infact take a hit, the engine would
still have ran under a severe vibration, not break the mounting bosses.
Again allow me to clairfiy, at the end of the letter Gene asked for any
other readers to responed with a similar experience. Not as what I
viewed as a cover my Butt response.I think this is a problem that
should be made aware to anybody else that might running one of these
engines and even the Rotax factory should be told to see if they can
reproduce the effects.
Very sorry to upset you, Mark
MARK LORELLO
That's right, as written in september Ultralight Flying under
Ultralighter's write section. I guess Gene Traxler of WI lost his
engine for no apparent reason. As Gene writes on his climb out to
300 ft. he heard a big Klunk and no more Engine . He had to hard
crash land it to miss a fence line.
What in the world is this industry coming to anyway...in a reply
from Kolb Dennis Souder says the prop was hit by something causing an
out of balance and shaking the engine bad enough it broke the mount
bosses right off the ROTAX 447. I DONT THINK SO. but what did you
espect from the factory. Then he (D. Souder) goes on to say that
Pilots should pay close attention to detail when preflighting and to
think ahead about loss of power, I think this guy should wake up and
smell the Roses,,,,,,this rotax just came completly off the plane.
I guess when they say thay make em light their
not kidding........TRUTH IN ADVERTISING??????.........
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <503a0i$8...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
MARK LORELLO <gene...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>... I guess Gene Traxler of WI lost his engine for no apparent reason.
> more Engine .
>
>from Kolb Dennis Souder says the prop was hit by something causing an
>out of balance and shaking the engine bad enough it broke the mount
>bosses right off the ROTAX 447. I DONT THINK SO.
If the mount bosses broke off the engine, how could that be the
airframe's fault? If the engine mounts themselves shattered, then one
might start pointing a finger at Kolb. But damage to the engine means
something either hit it and knocked it off the airframe, or the propeller got
out of balance and shook the thing until the Rotax casing sheared.
If the engine mounts are still attached to the airframe, and still
holding pieces of the Rotax, then one can't blame the accident on Kolb.
With no further information to go on, a failed propeller seems the most
likely cause of the accident.
So I gotta ask: What kind of prop? Were all the prop components
located at the engine impact site, or is one of the blades still AWOL?
What do the bolt holes through the hub look like? If it's a multipiece
prop, what signs are found the blade attachment points?
I think it says a lot for both the design and for the pilot's skills
that the only other damage was caused by a hard forced landing....
I'm all for discussing design deficiencies, but let's get more
information to work on.
Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
David Hyde
Ron Wanttaja (want...@chinook.halcyon.com) wrote:
> I'm all for discussing design deficiencies, but let's get more
> information to work on.
Why let facts interfere with our theories?
(Nice post, BTW)
Dave 'basher' Hyde
na...@windvane.umd.edu
Alan Abell
>I think it says a lot for both the design and for the pilot's skills
>that the only other damage was caused by a hard forced landing....
>I'm all for discussing design deficiencies, but let's get more
>information to work on.
>Ron Wanttaja
>want...@halcyon.com
>http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
This all goes to prove what I've been saying for a long time: When
you fly an ultralight, never fly at an altitude high than that from
which you would care to fall.
I'll stay with real airplanes, not glorified kites.
Just my thoughts,
Alan Abell
Ben Ransom
MARK LORELLO wrote:
>
> That's right, as written in september Ultralight Flying under
> engine for no apparent reason. As Gene writes on his climb out to
> crash land it to miss a fence line.
>
> from Kolb Dennis Souder says the prop was hit by something causing an
> out of balance and shaking the engine bad enough it broke the mount
> espect from the factory. Then he (D. Souder) goes on to say that
> Pilots should pay close attention to detail when preflighting and to
> think ahead about loss of power, I think this guy should wake up and
> smell the Roses,,,,,,this rotax just came completly off the plane.
>
> I guess when they say thay make em light their
> not kidding........TRUTH IN ADVERTISING??????.........
I'm getting into this late as I just saw the thread today. Let me
provide the last paragraph, verbatim, from the report in the UF!
magazine. The UF! note is authored by the pilot and presumed builder,
of the plane, so I think it is more accurate and useful than Mark's
interpretation of it. Mark's rush to bash Dennis Souder and Kolb, both
of which have *EARNED* a steller reputation in the UL/aviation industry,
looks more to be a matter of prejudgement than anything else. Here's
the part of the article dealing with cause:
"What caused this to happen? After searching the wreckage, we
discovered the engine crankcase was broken out at each of the four holes
where the stud bolts were attached. What made the crankcase casting
fail? The two rear stud bolts were still firmly secured to the airframe
mounting plate with pieces of the broken-out casting attached to the
bolts. These are the two bolts where most of the pushing force would
occur in a rear-mounted engine like that on the FireStar."
This points rather clearly to a failed Rotax crankcase casting, which
btw, I've never heard of happening before. Earlier in the article the
pilot states that the plane had only 7 hours since new, implying the
same for the engine. The plane had a single piece wooden propellor,
and there is no information (in the article) indicating it might have
struck anything to cause the case/stud failure. The article also stated
earlier "I heard a very loud klunk and then silence. No previous
vibration or noise was observed."
One more thing about Mark's [mis]information. The engine didn't come
"completely" off the plane. A picture accompanying the article shows it
laying in the area of the normal mount, facing backward. It's hard to
guess what might have kept it from leaving the airplane, but the fact
that it did not probably has a lot to do with the pilot's current good
health. Thank goodness.
I for one will take a fresh look for possible hairlines on my Rotax,
although it seems probable that the failed engine was a defect from the
factory, what with the failure happening early in its life.
In case anyone wonders, yes, I am a happy Kolb Firestar customer.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
UCD Mechanical Engineering Dept. o o
Email: bra...@ucdavis.edu
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
(916) 752-1834
J. Eskue
Kolb's have a very good reputation for longevity and strength.
Anything can be broken, however. I would be interested in the age of
the craft, the maintenance done, the type and age of the prop.
Aerobatic aircraft have a safety cable attached between engine
and firewall to retain the engine for wieght & balance, this for a
broken prop or a failed engine mount. I believe various racing classes
require this 'acessory', too.
An ex-hangar mate lost half a wood prop in his Vari-eze over
the Rocky Mountains several years ago. He said the vibration was bad
enough, even in the composite airframe, that he couldn't see the
instruments! He shut it down within seconds and managed to glide into
an airport. He found the O-235 laying in the cowling, completely broken
loose! He maintains his Vari in prime condition, but the prop had a
fault he did not detect. A lot more noise and action than reported on
this Kolb, however.
On the surface I would have to say this sounds more like an
individual problem than a "manufacturers" problem. For Kolb to admit
culpability without having the opportunity to examine the aircraft
would seem a bit naive in today's litigation-infested skies.
I noticed another post on here by someone going thumbs down on
ultralight aircraft as not "real airplanes". I would suggest those
feeling this way should take a closer look at what ultralights are
available before dismissing them as "unreal". I currently fly an
experimental taildragger, but look forward to ultralights as a way to
fly when the expense (either in time/health/or cash) of "real
airplanes" gets to be too much.
Johnnie Eskue
In article <503a0i$8...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, gene...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>
Alan Abell
jes...@dfw.net (J. Eskue) wrote:
> I noticed another post on here by someone going thumbs down on
>ultralight aircraft as not "real airplanes". I would suggest those
>feeling this way should take a closer look at what ultralights are
>available before dismissing them as "unreal". I currently fly an
>experimental taildragger, but look forward to ultralights as a way to
>fly when the expense (either in time/health/or cash) of "real
>airplanes" gets to be too much.
OK, John,
I'll take responsibility for that statement, no flame intended BUT I
must add:
The insurance carrier for our little grass strip commercial airport
will not allow ultralight ops. for a number of reasons, some of which
have been discussed here and some that shall go undiscussed for fear
of flame accusations.
At OSH this year, I had the opportunity to tour the ultralight area in
the company of three other pilots, one pro-ultralights, one
anti-ultralights and one an engineer whose duty it was ( to settle the
dispute) to find design flaws that would be disqualifing ( in his sole
opinion).
The result? By the time you find a useful design without some
engineering disqualification, the "light" aircraft is no longer an
ultralight, it requires license, medical, inspection, etc. to operate
and the aqusition cost is at least equal to a certified aircraft like
an airknocker, or T- Craft that has much more enduring value.
My opinion only,
Alan Abell
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <50cdlt$3...@nntp.interaccess.com>,
Alan Abell <a...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
>At OSH this year, I had the opportunity to tour the ultralight area in
>the company of three other pilots, one pro-ultralights, one
>anti-ultralights and one an engineer whose duty it was ( to settle the
>dispute) to find design flaws that would be disqualifing ( in his sole
>opinion).
>
>The result? By the time you find a useful design without some
>engineering disqualification, the "light" aircraft is no longer an
>ultralight, it requires license, medical, inspection, etc. to operate
>and the aqusition cost is at least equal to a certified aircraft like
>an airknocker, or T- Craft that has much more enduring value.
I'm curious...what kind of engineering disqualifications was he finding?
It's probably best not to mention the specific ultralight types, but I,
for one, would like to hear what kind of general problems he found and the
potential impacts of fixing them.
Boatfly
The factory story sounds ok to me what your problem?
Alan Abell
want...@coho.halcyon.com (Ronald James Wanttaja) wrote:
>I'm curious...what kind of engineering disqualifications was he finding?
>It's probably best not to mention the specific ultralight types, but I,
>for one, would like to hear what kind of general problems he found and the
>potential impacts of fixing them.
Ron,
I seem to have struck a nerve here.
I am not an engineer and was only a casual observer of this admittedly
cursory overview. The objections he raised were basically
concentrated on what he considered improper load paths on
flying/drag/anti-drag bracing, lack of beef in attach points on
aluminum tube structures and non-AN hardware and plumbing fittings.
Ultralights and the "light" aircraft kits must be seperated from one
another. The former is, by definition, a powered hang-glider (KITE)
and the latter is a homebuilt aircraft with an N number.
The point I must emphasize again is that, considering the expense
involved in these new "light" aircraft and their size and requirements
for licenses, a nice slow simple homebuilt or antique is as much fun (
although slightly different ) as easy to build or rebuild and probably
cheaper in the long run.
BTW congrats on the Fly Baby, sounds like fun! Keep up the good
posts.
Alan Abell
Pietenpol - loved it
Corben ace - liked it
Volksplane - liked it
Jeanies Teeney - scared hell out of me
That about defines my limitations.
MGrue
In article <503a0i$8...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
gene...@ix.netcom.com(MARK LORELLO) writes:
> What in the world is this industry coming to anyway...in a reply
>from Kolb Dennis Souder says the prop was hit by something causing an
>out of balance and shaking the engine bad enough it broke the mount
>bosses right off the ROTAX 447. I DONT THINK SO. but what did you
>espect from the factory. Then he (D. Souder) goes on to say that
>Pilots should pay close attention to detail when preflighting and to
>think ahead about loss of power, I think this guy should wake up and
>smell the Roses,,,,,,this rotax just came completly off the plane.
>
>
I flew aero commanders that were used for overnight mail. lost a prop
blade on r/h engine. Broke all four motor mounts before I could pull the
mixture. The only thing holding it in was the remains of the cowling,
hydralic lines and control lines.
Mark
Mark Ambrose
Ditto. A friend of mine flying a RANS S-9 with a Rotax 532 got a prop
strike trying to make a short field. During the ensuing go around he
realized he had lost about 6 inches of one prop. Broke 3 of the 4 mounting
studs before he could kill the engine.
Mark Ambrose
Maryland
MARK LORELLO
In <50ie94$r...@news9.erols.com> Mark Ambrose <mar...@pop.erols.com>
writes:
prop
>>blade on r/h engine. Broke all four motor mounts before I could pull
the
>>mixture. The only thing holding it in was the remains of the
cowling,
>>hydralic lines and control lines.
>>
>>Mark
>
>Ditto. A friend of mine flying a RANS S-9 with a Rotax 532 got a prop
>strike trying to make a short field. During the ensuing go around he
>realized he had lost about 6 inches of one prop. Broke 3 of the 4
mounting
>studs before he could kill the engine.
>
>Mark Ambrose
>Maryland
>
The point in Question here was not to bash anyone but to really
understand what happen and foremost how to possibly prevent this from
happening.The replies that everyone have posted are right on track.
Everyone that has replied, owns or knows of someone with a engine
other than Rotax, has said the very same thing...which is, the engine
seprated under severe vibration at the ***********MOTOR MOUNTS***** not
the crankcase, in this case and others that have Rotax engines
have in deed seperated right at the point of the casting where the
mounting boss is cast to the main part of the lower crank case. All of
the Rotax 618 and down share the same type of design.
Designed correctly, the crankcase should have been strong enough to
take the vibration and broke the mount or the mounting bolts. The mount
is there to be the weak link, NOT THE ENGINE CASE.
Anyway keep the thoughts coming, sooner or later someone will comeup
with answer why these Rotax crankcases are breaking.
Mark
Terry Schell
gene...@ix.netcom.com(MARK LORELLO) writes:
<snip>
>Designed correctly, the crankcase should have been strong enough to
>take the vibration and broke the mount or the mounting bolts. The mount
>is there to be the weak link, NOT THE ENGINE CASE.
>Anyway keep the thoughts coming, sooner or later someone will comeup
>with answer why these Rotax crankcases are breaking.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You sound like multiple rotax crakcases have broken... this is the
first I had heard about it. Are there other cases that you know of or
is this an isolated incident?
Terry
David Ohnsager
Alan Abell wrote:
>
> jes...@dfw.net (J. Eskue) wrote:
>
> > I noticed another post on here by someone going thumbs down on
> >ultralight aircraft as not "real airplanes".
<snip>
>
> At OSH this year, I had the opportunity to tour the ultralight area in
> the company of three other pilots, one pro-ultralights, one
> anti-ultralights and one an engineer whose duty it was ( to settle the
> dispute) to find design flaws that would be disqualifing ( in his sole
> opinion).
>
> The result? By the time you find a useful design without some
> engineering disqualification, the "light" aircraft is no longer an
> ultralight, it requires license, medical, inspection, etc. to operate
> and the aqusition cost is at least equal to a certified aircraft like
> an airknocker, or T- Craft that has much more enduring value.
>
> My opinion only,
> Alan Abell
Alan,
This is NOT a flame. Two points:
1) I, too, would like to know what the engineering disqualifications
were.
If you put six engineers in a room and told them to individually design
a solid cube three feet on a side you would get six different designs.
The thing about engineering is that it is not a reversible process; i.e.
it's like saying "The answer is 3. What's the question?" Engineers are
usually given a target (an answer, if you will) and are tasked with
finding a way to attain it. The number of paths to the answer "3" are
literally infinite. The number of ways to design a cube are nearly so
and I dare say that the number of ways to design a flying machine exceed
the number of ways to design a cube. It is important to understand that
from the point of view of each of the engineers, his design is right
while the other five designs are, in some way, wrong. If you asked a
seventh engineer to critique the six designs he may decide that ALL of
them are wrong. An eighth engineer might say that all of them are right.
My point here is that opinions, even professional ones, are just that
unless the constraints are clearly defined. I would like to know what
critria your engineer used to decide whether the ultralights were
deficient, and what he thought needed to be done to rectify the
deficiencies. I would also like to know whether he took any measurements
and crunched any numbers to justify his opinions, and what variety of
engineer he was (aeronautical, mechanical, civil, etc.).
An aside: If your engineer found deficiencies that rendered the birds
unsafe to operate in the regime for which they were intended, then he
has a legal, ethical, and moral obligation to call those deficiencies to
the attention of the designer. Did he?
2) At Oshkosh I attended the FAA forum on licensing ultralights. The FAA
encourages it, and the process is relatively quick, simple, and
inexpensive. When you're done, your 1977 Weedwacker 103 with the Gotcha
12cc 2-1/2 stroke motor is now a legal N-numbered AIRPLANE! You need a
license, medical, inspections, etc. to fly it. You can fly into
previously prohibited airports, and over populated areas. And you can do
all this without making any changes to the flying machine.
Would you feel more confortable flying an N-numbered airplane that
started life as an unregistred ultralight? If not, why not? My point
here is that N-numbering alone does not a certified, or safe, airplane
make.
Perhaps the crux of the matter is your definition of a useful design.
Would you please post it? It is possible that your definition is one
that it is impossible for an ultralight to meet.
Have you checked out the Preceptor N-3 Pup? Most pilots would agree that
J-3 Cubs are real airplanes, and that's what the Pup is a modified
version of. If you want aerobatics, try a Hurricane, it's stressed to +6
-6 G's. If you like water sports, consider one of Arnet Pereyra's
Aventura amphibians, complete with retracts. What these birds have in
common is that they are all FAR 103 legal ultralights.
UL's have come a VERY long way from the wing-and-a-sling-and-a-prayer
days. You don't have to be a lunatic to fly them, and they don't come
apart in the sky if you stay within their design envelopes. The same can
be said about N-numbered airplanes.
I repeat: This message is NOT a flame; not in spirit or in script; so
don't take offense. Where I fly, lots of GA guys bash ultralights. A few
hate UL's on principle, but the rest seem to be following a fashion
trend, or to have formed their opinions a decade or two ago and just
haven't updated them. I haven't met a GA pilot yet who can produce hard,
incontrovertible numbers justifying the condemnation of modern
ultralights. If such numbers exist, I can't help but believe that they
would be well publicized and that the sport would have withered on the
vine long ago. Personally, I love to fly N-numbered birds as well as
ultralights. In my humble opinion the sky is big enough for both, and
each has a use for which it is best suited. For me, the most important
thing is to fly.
Regards,
David
"Let's get back up in the sky where we belong!"
- Unknown Hippie, Seattle, 1969
MARK LORELLO
In <50kod2$k...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry
Terry, the fact of the matter is YES there has been more than a
few break right at the crankcase. Last week there was 3 alone posted
here, and this one I've been talking about. I also know of another in
Mich. that cracked the crankcase on a cross country and the pilot had
to have it welded mid trip.If you own a Rotax, My advise to you would
be to include a look over of your engine crankcase mount bosses during
preflight.
Keep it going ,,,good flying to ya,,, Mark
Johnny
In article <50hq1t$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mg...@aol.com says...
>
>I flew aero commanders that were used for overnight mail. lost a prop
>blade on r/h engine. Broke all four motor mounts before I could pull
the
>mixture. The only thing holding it in was the remains of the cowling,
>hydralic lines and control lines.
>
>Mark
That is what I would expect to happen. For a real treat, take a look at
the Lancair video that shows the racing IV from inside the cockpit when
it sheds a blade off of a carbon prop at full power. WOW! They use the
video as a sales tool to show just how tough the airframe is. BTW, the
engine did stay attached on the Lancair. They say it is because the
composite airframe is tough... I say true, but don't forget that the
carbon prop has lighter blades too.
As far as the Kolb goes though, it would seem that breaking all four
bosses from the engine is a bit extreme and I would be looking at the
broken areas for voids and other casting flaws.
Don't get me wrong, I like UL's but I have a hard time trusting
snowmobile engines when I am not snowmobiling. Just a personal bias
left over from my 2 stroke bike days.
--
-j-
______________________________________________
**********************************************
** **
** Johnny Enterprises **
** http://www.everett.net/users/allnight/ **
** **
**********************************************
Robert Moore
Alan Abell wrote:
> Ultralights and the "light" aircraft kits must be seperated from one
> another. The former is, by definition, a powered hang-glider (KITE)
> and the latter is a homebuilt aircraft with an N number.
This is not the definition that my copy of FAR 103 provides!
Bob Moore
1/2 VW Powered miniMAX (103 legal)
John R. Johnson
On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, David Ohnsager wrote:
> Alan Abell wrote:
> >
> > At OSH this year, I had the opportunity to tour the ultralight area in
> > the company of three other pilots, one pro-ultralights, one
> > anti-ultralights and one an engineer whose duty it was ( to settle the
> > dispute) to find design flaws that would be disqualifing ( in his sole
> > opinion).
> >
> > The result? By the time you find a useful design without some
> > engineering disqualification, the "light" aircraft is no longer an
> > ultralight, it requires license, medical, inspection, etc. to operate
> > and the aqusition cost is at least equal to a certified aircraft like
> > an airknocker, or T- Craft that has much more enduring value.
> >
> > My opinion only,
> > Alan Abell
> Alan,
>
> This is NOT a flame. Two points:
>
> 1) I, too, would like to know what the engineering disqualifications
> were.
<snip a long and accurate discussion of engineering and the different
recipes for a similiar goal>
>
> Perhaps the crux of the matter is your definition of a useful design.
> Would you please post it? It is possible that your definition is one
> that it is impossible for an ultralight to meet.
>
<snip some more good stuff>
> Personally, I love to fly N-numbered birds as well as
> ultralights. In my humble opinion the sky is big enough for both, and
> each has a use for which it is best suited. For me, the most important
> thing is to fly.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
Perhaps this subject can start an interesting discussion going. I
took the liberty of changing the subject line to something more
descriptive and apt for the subject matter.
Let's, just for the sake of argument, compare a Taylorcraft and a Kitfox.
These are both N-numbered airplanes, but the Kitfox represents the NEW
sport airplane and the Taylorcraft represents the OLD order. When you
put the two alongside each other, the Kitfox sure looks flimsy! I know
it is strong enough to carry out it's mission safely. However, i spent
so much time when I was young working with airfoils that would let me
put the wing spar in a deep section to optimize the spar material that
when I see an airplane where the leading edge tube is a spar it offends
my engineering sensibilities. That is a "poor use of material" in a
weight critical structure. As a result, I feel the older solution is
a better AIRPLANE. I admit the Kitfox will fly safely out of a much
shorter field and cruise faster. It is also draftier( I wouldn't have
believed that until I flew a Kitfox on a cold day! ) and feels less
secure. The ultralites I have flown have given me very uncomfortable
feelings in the lateral control area. I don't feel like I really HAVE
control. I give the airframe hints, and it decides whether or not to
do anything about it! I know the newer ones are much better.
Actually, these days the "ultralights" are merely light airplanes with
very low wing loadings. This means they fly very slowly and gently and
will NOT fly fast. They need minimal and minimally improved landing
areas and aren't not very good to fly for long trips or windy days.
My big heavy ( comparably speaking ) airplane is much better for camping
trips, carries more load, goes furthur and faster on a tank of fuel (
even if it IS a much bigger tank! ) and is a lot more comfortable. It is
also a lot more expensive to own and fly.
Clearly they are designed and built for different missions. The best
type of airplane is the one that fits your mission best! The Kitfox
is better for some things and the Stinson is better for others.
John
WILLIAM BERLE
I have owned and flown a T-craft, a Cub, and eight other oddball
airplanes. The modern "ultralights" are interesting, but there are
several compromises that were made with them that would have been
unacceptable totally in designing the certified lightplanes fifty years
ago. As such, there would have to be some great advantage of the
"ultralight" and "modern light sportplane" types to offset the clear
structural and performance advantages of the old fogeys like the
T-craft. If for example the Quicksilver, RANS series, etc. were half
the price of an old T-craft, well, you would then look at the savings
in money and the fact that the new UL types are strong enough, and
perhaps buy one. But there are a few wrinkles in this.
First, the structures are better on the old airplanes. Period. Steel
tubing and the engineering effort that went into the designs back then
are still unbeaten in safety and reliability.
Second, the modern UL types are simply not as reliable. No T-craft was
ever sold with a ballistic chute, and very few were ever wished for
without a serious error on the part of the pilot. In fifty years, there
has not ever been an engine as safe, reliable, trustworthy, and
predictable as the small Continentals. They're low tech, they're not
efficient, they're not great in the power to weight ratio. But flying
here in Los Angeles, through the VFR corridor right over Los Angeles
international or downtown LA, nothing gives a pilot as much peace and
security. I hope that some Honda auto conversion eventually has the
same reputation, but tell me about it in 50 years.
Third, and most importantly, it's easy to compare the cost of a 50 year
old T-craft to the cost of a new Ultralight or sportplane. The T-craft
might be substantially cheaper, and for my money it's a better bargain.
But try and take a minute and compare the new sportplanes to new
certified airplanes like a new Cub or new T-craft (when they are in
production :) ), or to a new Cessna 172. This would be a fair
comparison, and it makes those UL types look pretty good. The fact that
the old Cubs and T-crafts are still flying 50 years after they were
built is testament to their quality, and this is also something to
think about, but it makes an unfair comparison to hold a new airplane
up to it cost wise. Labor, insurance, materials, overhead have all gone
up a lot since 1946.
I am happy to buy an old T-craft for tem grand instead of something
newer, but it is an unfair comparison. If I wanted a brand new
airplane, I would have to go with the sportplanes like RANS and KITFOX,
because they are all that is affordable to the average guy.
Bill Berle
--
Bill Berle PP/ASEL/G
as-...@ix.netcom.com
Victor Bravo Enterprises
Victor Bravo Air Racing
MGrue
>I love to fly N-numbered birds as well as
>ultralights. In my humble opinion the sky is big enough for both, and
>each has a use for which it is best suited. For me, the most important
>thing is to fly.
>
>Regards,
>
>David
>
>
I have to second this opinion. I have both with my mooney as the
representitive "heavy" on the field. I love to fly with them and they
have a ball flying with me.
Mark
Bill Phillips
Now there are a couple of men who know what the hell they are talking
about. The most important thing is to fly...period.
Bill Phillips
> Don't get me wrong, I like UL's but I have a hard time trusting
> snowmobile engines when I am not snowmobiling. Just a personal bias
> left over from my 2 stroke bike days.
>
> --
> -j-
> ______________________________________________
> **********************************************
> ** **
> ** Johnny Enterprises **
> ** http://www.everett.net/users/allnight/ **
> ** **
> **********************************************
I know what you mean Johnny. I built a minimax with a Rotax 447. I've
got almost 100 hours on it now but it was a bit unusual to go screaming
around the sky at 6000 rpm until I got used to it. I've torn it down
and looked at it twice now and it's in perfect shape. I use Motul
2-stroke synthetic oil too, which is about the best in the world. It
sells for some un-Godly price like $8 bucks a quart or so. My Honda
CB750 Nighthawk motorcycle is a four cycle and I run it at 5000 rpm all
day long...and I have since 1982 with no problems. So, it's just what
you get used to. That Rotax cost $2000, I just replaced the engine in
my pickup with a new out-of-the-crate chevy 350 I bought for $1300. I'm
no engine man but I think the Rotax guys charge enough money to make an
engine that should last awhile. Mine has served me well.
The RV-6a with the Chevy Vortec runs at 3800 rpm. All this is
unconventional to conventional aviation in a way but not alarming. Some
engines run all day at higher rpm. If you took an old Onan built to run
farm equipment you'd never think of running it above 1000rpm. My Honda
idles at 1200 rpm. It's all what you get used to. That modified
snowmobile engine on my airplane hasn't missed a click in four years,
I'm impressed. But, maybe I'm impressionable.
Bill Phillips
Johnny
In article <323A05...@ix.netcom.com>, bill...@ix.netcom.com
says...
The bias I have against 2 strokes isn't really fair because I used to
really torture them on the dirt bikes. Heavy porting and compression
mods, dirty/hot operating conditions, over-rev'd most of the time,
serious physical pounding over rough terrain. We would run good fuel
and oil and when they seized it just meant it was time to rebuild them
again. I guess the only real difference is that when they failed, it
was almost always a sudden and total failure... very little or no
warning and no real way to determine ahead of time that the engine was
nearing "shop time" again, except maybe a compression check. I'm sure
that when built with more of a margin and run more consistently within
operating limits that they are fine for there given lifespan.
You just don't see the average Rotax running 14:1 compression on
alcohol and castor at 12,000 rpm on a peaky pipe. They are VERY
conservative as 2 strokes go. For the operator that pays attention and
knows the machine, I'm sure that they give there little hints when they
need attention too. I guess I would go so far as to say that the care
and feeding of the "average" 2 stroke is probably a little more
critical than the "average" 4 stroke.
I miss that alcohol/castor exhaust smell
Jim VanDervort
John R. Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, David Ohnsager wrote:
Alan Abell wrote:
At OSH this year, I had the opportunity to tour the ultralight area in
the company of three other pilots, one pro-ultralights, one
even if it IS a much bigger tank! ) and is a lot more comfortable. It
is
also a lot more expensive to own and fly.
Clearly they are designed and built for different missions. The best
type of airplane is the one that fits your mission best! The Kitfox
is better for some things and the Stinson is better for others.
John
How fast is a Kitfox? On how much power? How short of a runway can it
use?
My T'craft does almost 100 MPH on 65 HP. I can use a 900 foot strip
easily.
No, I DO use a 900 foot strip with a ditch at one end and a fence at the
other.
I don't use it all, but it is nice to have some extra at each end.
John R. Johnson
On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Jim VanDervort wrote:
> How fast is a Kitfox? On how much power? How short of a runway can it
> use?
> My T'craft does almost 100 MPH on 65 HP. I can use a 900 foot strip
> easily.
> No, I DO use a 900 foot strip with a ditch at one end and a fence at the
> other.
> I don't use it all, but it is nice to have some extra at each end.
>
I have seen several Kitfoxes flown, and inspected several of them. One
of our chapter members has built four or five of them!
They seem to do from 85 to 110 mph depending on the model and the engine.
Power ranged from 65 HP Rotax to 80 HP Rotax. The fellow in our EAA
chapter who builds so many flies them from an 800 foot grass strip in
his yard with reasonable leeway!
The Taylorcraft tends to be far more reliable than the Kitfox. HOwever,
the Kitfox can be loaded on a trailer and brought home so it doesn't
NEED a hangar. They do tend to be hangared anyway though, for convenience.
That may be much more important where hangar rents are astronomical.
Here in Southern Illinois, hangar rents are usually under $70 a month.
I personally feel much more comfortable in the Taylorcraft than in the
Kitfox. Everything in the T-craft is more substantial. Of course, I
learned to fly many years ago in a Taylorcraft and may be biased. :-)
John
Mark Ambrose
"John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Jim VanDervort wrote:
>> How fast is a Kitfox? On how much power? How short of a runway can it
>> use?
>> My T'craft does almost 100 MPH on 65 HP. I can use a 900 foot strip
>> easily.
>That may be much more important where hangar rents are astronomical.
>Here in Southern Illinois, hangar rents are usually under $70 a month.
>
>I personally feel much more comfortable in the Taylorcraft than in the
>Kitfox. Everything in the T-craft is more substantial. Of course, I
>learned to fly many years ago in a Taylorcraft and may be biased. :-)
>
>John
>
Actually I think you both miss the point entirely. Performance alone is
not the sole reason to go experimental over certified. In actual point of
fact I don't think you'll find much dispute that experimentals "as a
whole" out perform similar certified aircraft. Experimentals give the
builder a satisfaction of building something with your own hands then
flying it. Unless you restore a certified aircraft you won't get that
feeling. The most important reason for me to go experimental is to get
away from the FAA AD's and annual inspection costs. Plus I can tinker to
my hearts content without the feds looking over my shoulder constantly.
Homebuilts tend to be a lot cheaper to repair than the certified's. In the
final analysis it's preference. Apples to oranges.
Mark Ambrose
Maryland
John R. Johnson
On 24 Sep 1996, Mark Ambrose wrote:
<snip>
>
> Actually I think you both miss the point entirely. Performance alone is
> not the sole reason to go experimental over certified. In actual point of
> fact I don't think you'll find much dispute that experimentals "as a
> whole" out perform similar certified aircraft. Experimentals give the
> builder a satisfaction of building something with your own hands then
> flying it. Unless you restore a certified aircraft you won't get that
> feeling. The most important reason for me to go experimental is to get
> away from the FAA AD's and annual inspection costs. Plus I can tinker to
> my hearts content without the feds looking over my shoulder constantly.
> Homebuilts tend to be a lot cheaper to repair than the certified's. In the
> final analysis it's preference. Apples to oranges.
>
with my certified aircraft as I have with my homebuilts. Of course, I
personally restore my certified aircraft when I get them. I have never
owned one that I didn't go through completely and put back to the
original certified standard. As far as AD's go, I have seen more AD's
and Service Directives on Homebuilts than I have on Taylorcrafts! I
am not aware on an AD on my personal certified aircraft since the strut
attach fitting AD in 1937. Also, if you keep a logbook of your mechanic
time, the FAA will allow you to count the time you spend working on your
certified aircraft under the supervision of the A & P who signs your work
off for you toward your experience requirement for you own A&P license.
The FAA is much less sanguine about counting time spent building a
homebuilt, because it is not supervised time. Also, many homebuilts do
not use standard aircraft processes.
John
Mark Ambrose
>On 24 Sep 1996, Mark Ambrose wrote:
><snip>
>>
Then John wrote:
>I don't know about that Mark. I have found just as little FAA problems
>with my certified aircraft as I have with my homebuilts. Of course, I
>personally restore my certified aircraft when I get them. I have never
>owned one that I didn't go through completely and put back to the
>original certified standard. As far as AD's go, I have seen more AD's
>and Service Directives on Homebuilts than I have on Taylorcrafts! I
>am not aware on an AD on my personal certified aircraft since the strut
>attach fitting AD in 1937. Also, if you keep a logbook of your mechanic
>time, the FAA will allow you to count the time you spend working on your
>certified aircraft under the supervision of the A & P who signs your work
>off for you toward your experience requirement for you own A&P license.
>The FAA is much less sanguine about counting time spent building a
>homebuilt, because it is not supervised time. Also, many homebuilts do
>not use standard aircraft processes.
>
>John
>
And Mark replied:
John,
I,m sure you're right about the T-craft. Some friends of mine have been
after me for years to trade in my RANS S-7 and restore a Taylorcraft or
some similar aircraft. I guess after spending years in the certified end
of things I got somewhat discourged about the cost of keeping a certified
aircraft. A friend of mine owns a RANS homebuilt (we fly to Florida
together each year) and a 1959 Cessna 172. Both cost about the same
initially. But the Cessna ate him alive in annuals, hangar costs and
insurance. He figured it cost him about $400 a month just to have the
Cessna sit on the ground. He finally sold the Cessna and used to money to
put a Rotax 912 in his RANS S-6. I'm in the process of doing the same to
my RANS S-7. I guess for the same amount of money I could have bought a 40
year old tube and fabric aircraft with roughly the same performance as my
brand new RANS S-7. But I'd still be paying someone to perform my annuals
for me. And I'd still have a 40 year old airframe that's too heavy to
install a ballistic 'chute in.
Mark
Jim VanDervort
John R. Johnson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Jim VanDervort wrote:
How fast is a Kitfox? On how much power? How short of a runway can it
use?
My T'craft does almost 100 MPH on 65 HP. I can use a 900 foot strip
easily.
the
other.
I don't use it all, but it is nice to have some extra at each end.
I have seen several Kitfoxes flown, and inspected several of them. One
of our chapter members has built four or five of them!
They seem to do from 85 to 110 mph depending on the model and the
engine.
Power ranged from 65 HP Rotax to 80 HP Rotax. The fellow in our EAA
chapter who builds so many flies them from an 800 foot grass strip in
his yard with reasonable leeway!
The Taylorcraft tends to be far more reliable than the Kitfox.
HOwever,
the Kitfox can be loaded on a trailer and brought home so it doesn't
NEED a hangar. They do tend to be hangared anyway though, for
convenience.
That may be much more important where hangar rents are astronomical.
Here in Southern Illinois, hangar rents are usually under $70 a month.
I personally feel much more comfortable in the Taylorcraft than in the
Kitfox. Everything in the T-craft is more substantial. Of course, I
learned to fly many years ago in a Taylorcraft and may be biased. :-)
John
Your comments tell it the way I feel. I own 5 aircraft - 172, Pietenpol,
Tailwind,
and two T'crafts. I STILL feel best and safest in a T'craft.
John R. Johnson
On 25 Sep 1996, Mark Ambrose wrote:
<snip>
> insurance. He figured it cost him about $400 a month just to have the
> Cessna sit on the ground. He finally sold the Cessna and used to money to
> put a Rotax 912 in his RANS S-6. I'm in the process of doing the same to
> my RANS S-7. I guess for the same amount of money I could have bought a 40
> year old tube and fabric aircraft with roughly the same performance as my
> brand new RANS S-7. But I'd still be paying someone to perform my annuals
> for me. And I'd still have a 40 year old airframe that's too heavy to
> install a ballistic 'chute in.
>
I guess a lot depends on where you are. I fly a Stinson Reliant, which
is a little heavy for a ballistic chute. :-) This year I had a lot of
work which I let go and had my IA do for me at the annual. It was the
most expensive annual I have ever had in forty years of flying! It cost
me $654.20, but that did include some repair on the leading edge of the
wing, and a complete overhaul of the vacuum flap system, with new hoses.
He also did a lot of work on my aging Scintilla Vertex magneto.
My insurance is about the same as insuring a much less expensive homebuilt.
Liability insurance doesn't vary much with aircraft type. Hull is high
on any non standard aircraft. They blame it on a small risk pool!
I would rather have a 60 year old airframe that was build like mine was,
than a new RANS! I think it is a LOT safer. One AD in 60 years! No
airframe failures or cracked tubing in 60 years. I'll take the old
airframe, thanks!
John
WILLIAM BERLE
The Taylorcraft is a great airplane in so many ways, and has so few
serious compromises. It performs equal or better than a Kitfox in most
parameters, is much more substantial structurally, and is much much
more reliable.
The T-craft has a few things that are not so great about it, namely the
poor visibility and the narrow cabin. Visibility was less of a concern
in 1935 when it was originally laid out, and nowdays we T-craft lovers
always wish there was more visibility. The narrow cabin was considered
acceptable because the slight increase in drag from a wide fuselage
mattered more with only 37 horsepower than it eventually did with 65
and 85.
Interestingly, the Kitfox/Avid designs solved most of the visibility
issue, but they were designed around about 40 horsepower also, and so
the fuselage width was also less then luxurious.
The T-craft and Avid/Kitfox were designed to two nearly opposite
requirements and intended buyers, and designed fifty years, a
depression, and triple inflation apart. The Kitfox could not have
passed the same certification that the T-craft did, but the T-craft
could never be produced and sold today as cheaply as the Kitfox. This
is proven out by the lesser reliability and overall strength of the
cheap and successful Kitfox, and the $50,000 (when the company was not
bankrupt) price of a T-craft today.
The wrinkle in this is that nobody ever figured that 50 year old
T-crafts would still be as cheap, reliable, and functional as they have
proven to be. So the competition for the average guy's money is between
a 50 year old $10,000 T-craft and a new $20,000 Kitfox or Avid
unassembled kit. If it were not for the long term quality and
dependability of the T-craft, there would not even be a choice.
The folding wings of the Kitfox are a definite advantage. Building an
aircraft yourself and customizing it is a great joy and a huge reward
in itself. The Continental engines of the T-crafts are a huge
advantage, and it is no coincidence that both Avid and Kitfox have
newer designs that can use these engines. There is also a great joy in
having a 50 year old relic that has still not been shown obsolete in
its class. Bottom line is that you choose the parameters that reflect
your needs or desires, and go with the one that meets them best.
Bill Berle
T-craft lover
John R. Johnson
On 25 Sep 1996, WILLIAM BERLE wrote:
> The Taylorcraft is a great airplane in so many ways, and has so few
> serious compromises. It performs equal or better than a Kitfox in most
> parameters, is much more substantial structurally, and is much much
> more reliable.
>
> The T-craft has a few things that are not so great about it, namely the
> poor visibility and the narrow cabin. Visibility was less of a concern
> in 1935 when it was originally laid out, and nowdays we T-craft lovers
> always wish there was more visibility. The narrow cabin was considered
> acceptable because the slight increase in drag from a wide fuselage
> mattered more with only 37 horsepower than it eventually did with 65
> and 85.
<snip>
All very true, Bill. There was a lovely civilian Taylorcraft that did
overcome the visibility and narrow cockpit problems. My favorite all
time T-Craft was the DCO model. This received its type certificate
early in the War, and most of them were built, either for the Civilian
Pilot Training Program, or as aerial observers. The aerial observer
variant had the back of the fuselage cut down and big windows put in.
It was also fitted with spoilers for short field operation to kill the
nortorious "T-Craft float." The back seat was on a swivel so the
non-flying observer could look around 360 degrees. The military
designation was L-2, and most built were in the L-2M designation.
You soloed it from the front seat and sat out in front of the wing,
which was just above eye level. This provided excellent visibility.
It was a little slower than the side by each version. All of the
early 65 HP small tandem aircraft, T-Craft, Cub, and Champ were a
little bit slower than their side by side variants. The widest part
of the fuselage should be under the wing for minimum drag. The
tandem fuselages were too skinny!
The DCO Taylorcraft was later built, with very few differences by
Interstate as the Cadet. The same airplane was upgraded to a much
larger engine and built many years later as the Artic Tern. Now
there is a desireable little airplane. Sort of a Super Cub that
really flies well also!
John
Jim Root
John R. Johnson wrote:
> ....is a little heavy for a ballistic chute. :-) This year I had a lot of
> work which I let go and had my IA do for me at the annual. It was the
> most expensive annual I have ever had in forty years of flying! It cost
> me $654.20, but that did include some repair on the leading edge of the
> wing, and a complete overhaul of the vacuum flap system, with new hoses.
> He also did a lot of work on my aging Scintilla Vertex magneto.
What did you catch your IA doing? I co-owned a C172 for a few years and
the cheapest annual I ever got was about $700 and that was because my
partner and I removed all the inspection plates and there was little or
no repair to be made. I one time had to spend $600 for a muffler another
time $550 for a carb heat box (basically a alluminum bread pan with a
top and flapper in it) Then there was the worn seat rails $1200 per seat
and finally the major on the engine $17,000. No I don't own a certified
airplane any more and I'm looking forward to completing my Zenith.
John R. Johnson
I am not surprised Jim. You couldn't pay my IA enough to get him to do
an annual on a 172! He also charges more for airplanes built after WWII.
John
On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Jim Root wrote:
<snip>
> What did you catch your IA doing? I co-owned a C172 for a few years and
> the cheapest annual I ever got was about $700 and that was because my
> partner and I removed all the inspection plates and there was little or
> no repair to be made. I one time had to spend $600 for a muffler another
Mine doesn't need mufflers ...
> time $550 for a carb heat box (basically a alluminum bread pan with a
> top and flapper in it) Then there was the worn seat rails $1200 per seat
Carb heat box on mine seems pretty durable. It hasn't worn so you would
notice it in fifty some odd years.
> and finally the major on the engine $17,000. No I don't own a certified
> airplane any more and I'm looking forward to completing my Zenith.
A zero timed majored engine for mine was quoted at $10,500, but he would
allow me $2,500 off of that if I had a core.
Them newfangled aereoplanes like Cessna's and Piper's are expensive.
Stick to something solid and reliable like Stinson or Howard or Travelair
or .....
John
Bela P. Havasreti
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
On Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:02:00 -0500, "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu>
wrote:
<snip>
>Them newfangled aereoplanes like Cessna's and Piper's are expensive.
>Stick to something solid and reliable like Stinson or Howard or Travelair
>or .....
>
>John
Agreed.... T-6 parts are cheaper than Cessna / Piper / Beech parts.
(Shhhhh.... don't tell Banaire or Lance aircraft that!) 8^)
Bela P. Havasreti CP-ASEL-I
SNJ-5 BuNo 91077 Basket case
NATA member #1742
QDurham
<< + 9/64times sin to the fourth power times theta over 2 etctrata. >>
QDurham
You wrote <<All of the
early 65 HP small tandem aircraft, T-Craft, Cub, and Champ were a
little bit slower than their side by side variants. The widest part
of the fuselage should be under the wing for minimum drag. The
tandem fuselages were too skinny! >>
I'd be interested in howcome!
Quent
John R. Johnson
because air doesn't like to change directions and increases the drag
whenever you ask it to do so. You always get more drag from a surface
that is decreasing in cross section area than you do from one that is
increasing in cross section area slowly. If you look at a modern
airfoil and compare it to early ones, you will see that the point of
maximum thickness has moved steadily back over the years. It is
just aerodynamics.
John
WILLIAM BERLE
In <52f68l$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> qdu...@aol.com (QDurham) writes:
><< + 9/64times sin to the fourth power times theta over 2 etctrata. >>
However, I claim... Gwen to you with the Taffly Way, for the Atlas
cement and the trial ticket