X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 00:20:10 -0400 Message-ID: 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 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 396 batteries X-Original-Cc: John Huft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Sensitivity: Normal ---- John Huft 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%