X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 00:20:10 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1220901@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <5zq@cox.net>
Received: from eastrmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.240.37] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2)
  with ESMTP id 1220210 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 06:42:11 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.240.37; envelope-from=5zq@cox.net
Received: from eastrmwml08.mgt.cox.net ([172.18.52.65])
          by eastrmmtao02.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP
          id <20060701104123.XFDV15470.eastrmmtao02.cox.net@eastrmwml08.mgt.cox.net>;
          Sat, 1 Jul 2006 06:41:23 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <9216730.1151750483559.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml08.mgt.cox.net>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 6:41:23 -0400
From:  <5zq@cox.net>
X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 396 batteries
X-Original-Cc: John Huft <aflyer@lazy8.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Sensitivity: Normal


---- John Huft <aflyer@lazy8.net> wrote: 
> On the other hand, I wouldn't buy one...the 496 will be announced soon.



John,

I'm also planning to purchase a 396, probably at OSH.  Is your 496 comment really true? Do you have any information on a 496 and what it's capabilities will be as opposed to the 396? Any info on a timetable? 

I'm sure that there are others in my same situation. How about some data to help us out. Thanks

Bill Harrelson
N5ZQ 320 1200 hrs
N6ZQ  IV   7.0779%