Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:33:32 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.34] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b9) with ESMTP id 2480321 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:05:58 -0400 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id q.e4.3ae06372 (4328) for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:05:53 -0400 (EDT) From: VTAILJEFF@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:05:53 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Essential Buss versus Fuel Endurance X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113 Shannon & Hamid, I agree that a well designed modern electrical system could / should outlast the fuel load. I don't agree that you could successfully toubleshoot the problem while in flight (in all conditions) should a failure occur to a certainty. My radio shop can't do it on the ground after the fact and they designed and installed the system. Jeff -- the punk ;)