X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:59:04 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da06.mx.aol.com ([205.188.169.203] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5026958 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:54:54 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.169.203; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaout-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.6]) by imr-da06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p5L5sCf4000444 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:54:12 -0400 Received: from [10.79.12.139] (unknown [166.205.139.27]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id AC40BE0005F0; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:54:03 -0400 (EDT) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8C148) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-16--384040234 X-Original-Message-Id: <24D99CE2-6461-4A2F-BB85-07BB015D13EB@aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8C148) From: vtailjeff@aol.com Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L... X-Original-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:53:54 -1000 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 1:2:484368512:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 1 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d29064e0031fb5eeb X-AOL-IP: 166.205.139.27 --Apple-Mail-16--384040234 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If you do not know how to recognize and recover from a stall condition then y= ou should not be figuring this out in a IV. One reason the IV community has n= ot had any more loss of control accidents is in part because we keep preachi= ng it. Please do not encourage anyone to go out and stall a IV. This is the w= ork of a true test pilot like Len Fox or Dave Morss-- not the builder. We ar= e NOT test pilots.=20 Jeff Sent from my iPad On Jun 20, 2011, at 1:55 PM, H & J Johnson wrote: > Agreed, approach to stall is not the same as an all out stall. However, if= its a required proceedure on an aircraft that is concidered a 'slick' [cert= ified] airframe then shouldn't it be done on any aircraft? The answer in my= mind is, yes. Then comes the question of.. what is the stall?[what speed, i= n what configuration, at what weight, with what identifiable indicators? etc= ] In the case of the certified a/c I fly, there is an aural Warning [first i= ndicator for us] at that point it's max power, maintain pitch and fly out of= the stall. Alot of people in this conversation are saying.. " I don't know a= t what speed it stalls at" or " I'm not going to try and find out" etc. So i= n effect, they cannot perform this training proceedure [approach to stall] t= o a similar standard since it's never been tested on their airframe, sure yo= u can slow to 110-115knts and recover but what does that 'learn' you? Zilch.= . nadda.. nothing.. The approach to stall is a 'reactionary' training proce= edure required observance of a changing flight condition and 'action' to ini= tial a recovery, slowing down and then speeding up is not the same proceedur= e. >=20 > As I see it, the reality of experimental Aviation is that it is 'Experimen= tal' in nature. IF you start building a plane w/ the intent of flying it you= rself, you KNOW with a certainty that at some point either you or someone yo= u designate, is going to become a test pilot. If the certified world was to= take the same approach as is going on here in regards to stalling [avoidanc= e of the required testing] don't you think the FAA would decline to certify t= he airframe? Yet it seems to be the accepted norm for a large part of the L= ancair community to do this very thing while certifying their aircraft [yes f= light testing is infact a step in the certification process, the airframe is= signed off after the flight testing is complete]. The fact that 'they are k= illers at slow speed, and thats ok.' {Just don't fly slow and it won't be a p= roblem, [until at some point it is and you can't avoid it]} is tantamount to= 'kicking the can down the road'. Fly fast is all fine and dandy until you t= he day you can't or inadvertantly don't and aren't able to recognise the sig= ns of impending doom. Because you've never tested in that region of the enve= lope, now your a test pilot w/ the wife and kids onboard.=20 >=20 > http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/ac90-89a.pdf is good re= ading. Infact, as listed there, hrs 10-20 have a large part dedicated to sta= lls and stability tests. >=20 > WE as the original test pilots are responsible to certify that the aircraf= t is safe to fly in all corners of the envelope [to define the envelope]. T= his is why they mandate 25 or 40 hrs of TEST FLYING in a restricted area! Mo= st see this as just a temporary limitation to hold them back from enjoying t= he new plane. Something they just have to 'fly off' so they can start going p= laces w/ their new 'ride'. The fact that the general concensus is to take a r= ed marker and highlight the region of the envelope where lost of lift occurs= as 'danger do not enter' is kinda ridiculous [in my opinion]. There are peo= ple [on list I believe] who have put efforts into taming the stall on their a= ircraft and have done so successfully. Someone mentioned having plans for st= alls strips which produce buffet upon approach to stall. Others have tested t= heir airframes and made wing incidence or rigging adjustments and now are no= t uncomfortable w/ slower flight speeds. It's n ot that they fly slow all t= he time but they KNOW where the limitations are and how the airframe behaves= on approach to stall. >=20 > Honestly, if these airframes are that dangerous in the slow speed region o= f the envelope, I'd think there would be a concerted effort to address it [m= aybe that was what the FAA was getting at there a couple years back.. or who= m-ever it was that had started to push for some form of a limitaion against L= ancairs]. Heck, someone should put together a plan for a temporary spin chut= e attachment used for flight testing and send it around like was done w/ the= rudder cable lubricator. Lets be honest w/ ourselves and realize that 'yes,= as factory new [just built] airframes they are a bit of a handful' and addr= ess the issue such that they become 'less of a handful after flight testing a= nd airframe adjustments'. >=20 > I've not looked for an answer to this but I'm curious to know. How many c= rash's or deaths have been marked as 'due to loss of control while flight te= sting' vs ' simply loss of control'? I'm thinking the answer is the latter n= umber is the larger of the two. Doesn't that tell us something? Or were they= all just 'poor pilots', unlike 'me', cause that will never happen to 'me' ?= [I'm speaking figuratively here, I know I'm not Scott Crossfield, hence why= I train as much as I do ] I can't think 'poor skills' is the only answer. P= oor planning and decision making in regards to testing of [and knowing] the a= irframe limits? Maybe. Poor pilotages skills..? It just doesn't seem likely= . >=20 > Bottom line, in my opinion, avoidance of a problem is not a solution. >=20 > Ok, I see PETA's at the door.. I'll stop beating this dead horse now... >=20 > Jarrett Johnson >=20 > 235/320 55% [and holding] >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sky2high@aol.com > Date: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:00 am > Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generato= rs for L... > > Approach to stall is not Stall.=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > In a message dated 6/19/2011 6:56:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, =20 > > hjjohnson@sasktel.net writes:=20 > >=20 > > Grayhawk, I've got my own opinion of topic but it's been beat=20 > > enough that I=20 > > heard PETA is looking into this 'dead horse'.. I will correct=20 > > one thing =20 > > however, in the high performance world you still have to=20 > > demonstrate=20 > > approach to stall and recovery. I'm flying a Corporate Jet A=20 > > burner and have done =20 > > approach to stalls in the Sim AND the actualy a/c. Infact I have=20 > > to do it=20 > > every 6months.=20 > > Fwiw=20 > >=20 > > Jarrett Johnson=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > ----- Original Message ----- =20 > > From: Sky2high@aol.com =20 > > Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011 9:30 am =20 > > Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex=20 > > Generators for Lanca... =20 > > > Wolfgang,=20 > > >=20 > > > It is not disturbing. Lancairs demand respect. High=20 > > performance =20 > > > sometimes requires a tradeoff in low speed controlability. =20 > > Every=20 > > > amateur built has=20 > > > different flight characteristics (actually spam cans may differ=20 > >=20 > > > somewhat=20 > > > also). High performance jets don't require stall training =20 > > > either. =20 > > >=20 > > > Stalls should be avoided because slick airplanes speed response=20 > > is=20 > > > very =20 > > > quick. These airplanes generally don't stall in cruise - only=20 > > in=20 > > > the slow=20 > > > flight regime around the stinking airport. Why drag these in=20 > > > during approach =20 > > > and close to stall when turbulence, microbursts or sudden wind =20 > > > shifts=20 > > > (shear) leave you in the lurch. If it goes wrong, it goes =20 > > wrong=20 > > > very fast. It=20 > > > is the uninformed pilot that can lose control because of slow=20 > > > speed =20 > > > maneuvering that has led the way to distressing accident stats.=20 > >=20 > > >=20 > > > It is always interesting to look at the speed range of standard=20 > >=20 > > > aircraft. =20 > > > Most span cans have a minimal range. Lancairs and their ilk=20 > > have=20 > > > a rather=20 > > > broad range (max cruise to landing) and, as such, require =20 > > > compromises. I=20 > > > like to fly at max speeds and am willing to respect the=20 > > > limitations at=20 > > > lower speeds. This ain't no Cub (or LSA).=20 > > >=20 > > > Grayhawk =20 > > >=20 > > > In a message dated 6/18/2011 7:34:40 P.M. Central Daylight=20 > > Time, =20 > > > Wolfgang@MiCom.net writes:=20 > > >=20 > > > Is it just me or does anyone else find it just a bit disturbing=20 > > > that the =20 > > > Lancairs have such "fearsome" stall characteristics ?=20 > > >=20 > > > Wolfgang=20 > > > =20 > > >=20 > > > ----- Original Message -----=20 > > > From: _Sky2high@aol.com_ (Sky2high@aol.com) =20 > > > To: _lml@lancaironline.net_ (lml@lancaironline.net) =20 > > > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:46 PM=20 > > > Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex=20 > > > Generators for=20 > > > Lancair 4p =20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Bruce,=20 > > >=20 > > > Au contraire, mon ami......=20 > > >=20 > > > The Advanced Systems AOA does not require stalling the=20 > > aircraft. =20 > > > Read for=20 > > > theory and calibration: =20 > > > _http://www.advanced-flight-=20 > > > systems.com/Support/AOAsupport/AOA%20Manual%20rev4.pdf_=20 > > > (http://www.advanced-flight-=20 > > > systems.com/Support/AOAsupport/AOA%20Manual%20rev4.pdf)=20 > > >=20 > > > Grayhawk=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > In a message dated 6/17/2011 12:07:47 P.M. Central Daylight=20 > > Time,=20 > > > _BGray@glasair.org_ (BGray@glasair.org) writes:=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Every single AOA I know of requires you to stall the aircraft=20 > > to=20 > > > calibrate=20 > > > the AOA. =20 > > >=20 > > > Bruce=20 > > > WWW.Glasair.org =20 > > > -----Original Message-----=20 > > > From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf=20 > > Of=20 > > > Bob=20 > > > Rickard=20 > > > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:24 PM=20 > > > To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 > > > Subject: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators=20 > > > for Lancair=20 > > > 4p=20 > > >=20 > > > One of the main reasons all of us IV-P owners have a hell of a=20 > > > time=20 > > > getting insurance for our airplanes is because too many guys=20 > > > "explored" the stall=20 > > > characteristics of their airplane (and for many it was their=20 > > last=20 > > > flight).=20 > > > I fly another airplane that can fly comfortably at 60 degrees=20 > > > AOA, and =20 > > > have a good bit of time as an operational test pilot, but I will=20 > >=20 > > > never stall=20 > > > my IV-P intentionally. Or even get close. Like Colyn and =20 > > John,=20 > > > I'm 120 on=20 > > > downwind, 110 at the base turn and 100 on final until the =20 > > runway=20 > > > is =20 > > > assured. Unless we fly the pattern at 8000 feet AGL, a stall=20 > > > will probably be=20 > > > fatal for any of us. Please don't be the next one to prove=20 > > this=20 > > > point !=20 > > > =20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Bob Rickard=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > =20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > =20 > > >=20 > > > =20 > > --=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > For archives and unsub=20 > > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html=20 > > > -- >=20 > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm= l --Apple-Mail-16--384040234 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
If you do not know how to recognize and= recover from a stall condition then you should not be figuring this out in a= IV. One reason the IV community has not had any more loss of control accide= nts is in part because we keep preaching it. Please do not encourage anyone t= o go out and stall a IV. This is the work of a true test pilot like Len Fox o= r Dave Morss-- not the builder. We are NOT test pilots. 

=
Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 20, 2011, at 1= :55 PM, H & J Johnson <hjjoh= nson@sasktel.net> wrote:

Agreed, approach to stall is not the same as an all out stall. However,= if its a required proceedure on an aircraft that is concidered a 'slick' [c= ertified] airframe then shouldn't it be done on any aircraft?  The= answer in my mind is, yes. Then comes the question of.. what is the stall?[= what speed, in what configuration, at what weight, with what identifiab= le indicators? etc] In the case of the certified a/c I fly, t= here is an aural Warning [first indicator for us] at that point it's max pow= er, maintain pitch and fly out of the stall. Alot of people in this conversa= tion are saying.. " I don't know at what speed it stalls at" or " I'm not go= ing to try and find out" etc. So in effect, they cannot perform this trainin= g proceedure [approach to stall] to a similar standard since it's never= been tested on their airframe, sure you can slow to 110-115knts and recover= but what does that 'learn' you? Zilch.. nadda.. nothing..  The approac= h=20 to stall is a 'reactionary' training proceedure required observance of a cha= nging flight condition and 'action' to initial a recovery, slowing down= and then speeding up is not the same proceedure.

As I see it, the reality of experimental Aviation is that it is 'Experime= ntal' in nature. IF you start building a plane w/ the intent of flying it yo= urself, you KNOW with a certainty that at some point either you or someone y= ou designate, is going to become a test pilot.  If the certified world w= as to take the same approach as is going on here in regards to sta= lling [avoidance of the required testing] don't you think the FAA would= decline to certify the airframe?  Yet it seems to be the accepted norm= for a large part of the Lancair community to do this very thing while c= ertifying their aircraft [yes flight testing is infact a step in the&nb= sp;certification process, the airframe is signed off after the flight testin= g is complete]. The fact that 'they are killers at slow speed, and thats ok.' {Just don't fly slow and it won'= t be a problem, [until at some point it is and you can't avoid it]} is tantamount to 'kicking the can down the road'. Fly fast is all fine and d= andy until you the day you can't or inadvertantly don't and aren't able to r= ecognise the signs of impending doom. Because you've never tested in that re= gion of the envelope, now your a test pilot w/ the wife and kids onboard.&nb= sp;

 http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/ac90-89a.pdf is good reading. Infact, as listed there, hrs 10-20 have a large= part dedicated to stalls and stability tests.

WE as the original test pilots are responsible to certify that the aircraft is= safe to fly in all corners of the envelope [to define the envelope].  T= his is why they mandate 25 or 40 hrs of TEST FLYING in a restricted area! Mo= st see this as just a temporary limitation to hold them back from enjoying t= he new plane. Something they just have to 'fly off' so they can start g= oing places w/ their new 'ride'. The fact that the general concensus is to t= ake a red marker and highlight the region of the envelope where lost of lift= occurs as 'danger do not enter' is kinda ridiculous [in my opinion]. There a= re people [on list I believe] who have put efforts into taming the stall on t= heir aircraft and have done so successfully. Someone mentioned having p= lans for stalls strips which produce buffet upon approach to stall. Others h= ave tested their airframes and made wing incidence or rigging adju= stments and now are not uncomfortable w/ slower flight speeds.  It's n ot that they fly slow all the time but they KNOW where the limitations are a= nd how the airframe behaves on approach to stall.

Honestly, if these airframes are that dangerous in the slow speed region o= f the envelope, I'd think there would be a concerted effort to address it [m= aybe that was what the FAA was getting at there a couple years back.. or who= m-ever it was that had started to push for some form of a limitaion against L= ancairs]. Heck, someone should put together a plan for a temporary spin chut= e attachment used for flight testing and send it around like was done w/ the= rudder cable lubricator. Lets be honest w/ ourselves and realize that 'yes,= as factory new [just built] airframes they are a bit of a handful' and addr= ess the issue such that they become 'less of a handful after flight testing a= nd airframe adjustments'.

I've not looked for an answer to this but I'm curious to know.  How m= any crash's or deaths have been marked as 'due to loss of control while flig= ht testing' vs ' simply loss of control'?  I'm thinking the answer is t= he latter number is the larger of the two. Doesn't that tell us something? O= r were they all just 'poor pilots', unlike 'me', cause that will never happe= n to 'me' ? [I'm speaking figuratively here, I know I'm not Scott Crossfield= , hence why I train as much as I do ] I can't think 'poor skills' i= s the only answer. Poor planning and decision making in regards to test= ing of [and knowing] the airframe limits? Maybe. Poor pilotages skills..?&nb= sp; It just doesn't seem likely.

Bottom line, in my opinion, avoidance of a problem is not a solution.

=

Ok, I see PETA's at the door.. I'll stop beating this dead horse now...
Jarrett Johnson

235/320 55% [and holding]

----- Original Message -----

From: Sky2high@aol.com=

Date: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:00 am

Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vor= tex Generators for L...

> Approach to stall is not Stall.
>
>
> In a m= essage dated 6/19/2011 6:56:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
> hjjohnson@sasktel.net writes: >
> Grayhawk, I've got my own opinion of topic but it's been beat=
> enough that I
> heard PETA is looking into this 'dead horse= '..  I will correct
> one thing 
> however, in the h= igh performance world you still have to
> demonstrate
> approa= ch  to stall and recovery. I'm flying a Corporate Jet A
> burner= and have done 
> approach to stalls in the Sim AND the actualy a= /c.  Infact I have
> to do  it
> every 6months.
= > Fwiw
>
> Jarrett Johnson
>
>
> -----= Original Message ----- 
> From: Sky2high@aol.com 
> Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011 9:30 am=  
> Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs,  Vortex=
> Generators for Lanca... 
> > Wolfgang,
> >= ;
> > It is not disturbing.  Lancairs  demand respect.&n= bsp; High
> performance 
> > sometimes requires a = ; tradeoff in low speed controlability. 
> Every
> > a= mateur  built  has
> > different flight characteristics (= actually spam cans may  differ
>
> > somewhat
>= > also).  High performance jets  don't require stall training&= nbsp;
> > either. 
> >
> >  Stalls s= hould be avoided because slick airplanes speed response
> is
>= >  very 
> > quick.  These airplanes generally d= on't stall in  cruise - only
> in
> > the  slow <= br> > > flight regime around the  stinking airport.  Why drag th= ese in
> > during  approach 
> > and close to s= tall when turbulence, microbursts or sudden wind  
> > s= hifts
> > (shear) leave you in the lurch.  If it goes  w= rong, it goes 
> wrong
> > very fast.  It
>= ; > is the  uninformed pilot that can lose control  because of s= low
> > speed 
> > maneuvering that has led the way= to distressing  accident stats.
>
> >
> > I= t is always interesting to look at the speed range of  standard
>= ;
> > aircraft. 
> > Most span cans have a minimal&= nbsp; range.  Lancairs and their  ilk
> have
> > a= rather
> >  broad range (max cruise to landing) and, as such= , require 
> >  compromises.  I
> > like to fly at max speeds and am willing to  respect  th= e
> > limitations at
> > lower speeds.  This  a= in't no Cub (or LSA).
> >
> > Grayhawk 
> &g= t;
> > In a  message dated 6/18/2011 7:34:40 P.M. Central Day= light
> Time, 
> >  Wolfgang@MiCom.net writes:
> >
> > Is it ju= st me or does anyone else  find it just a bit disturbing
> > t= hat the 
> > Lancairs have  such "fearsome" stall charac= teristics ?
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > 
>= ; >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: &= nbsp; _Sky2high@aol.com_ (Sky2high@aol.com) 
> > To: = ; _lml@lancaironline.net_ (lml@lancaironline.net) 
&g= t; > Sent: Friday,  June 17, 2011 1:46  PM
> > Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Stall  Speeds,  Wing Cuffs, Vorte= x
> > Generators for
> > Lancair 4p 
> > <= br>> >
> > Bruce,
> >
> > Au contraire, m= on  ami......
> >
> > The Advanced Systems AOA does= not require stalling  the
> aircraft.  
> >= Read for
> > theory and calibration: 
> > _http://= www.advanced-flight-
> >  systems.com/Support/AOAsupport/AOA%2= 0Manual%20rev4.pdf_
> >  (http://www.advanced-flight-
> >  systems.com/Suppo= rt/AOAsupport/AOA%20Manual%20rev4.pdf)
> >
> > = Grayhawk
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 6/17/= 2011 12:07:47 P.M.  Central Daylight
> Time,
> > _BGray@glasair.org_ (BGray@glasair.org)   writes:
> > <= br>> >
> > Every single AOA  I know of requires  you to stall the a= ircraft
> to
> > calibrate
> > the  AOA.&nbs= p;
> >
> > Bruce
> > WWW.Glasair.org 
> >  -----Original  M= essage-----
> > From:  Lancair Mailing List  [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf
>= Of
> > Bob
> > Rickard
> >  Sent: Thursd= ay, June 16, 2011 3:24  PM
> > To:   lml@lancaironline.net
> > Subject: [= LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing   Cuffs, Vortex Generators
> &g= t; for Lancair
> > 4p
> >
> >  One of the= main  reasons all of us IV-P owners have a hell of a
> >&nbs= p; time
> > getting insurance for  our airplanes is because t= oo many  guys
> > "explored" the stall
> > characteristics of their airplane  (and for many it was their=
> last
> > flight).
> > I fly another  airp= lane that can fly comfortably at 60 degrees
> > AOA,  and&nbs= p;
> > have a good bit of time as an operational test pilot, but I= will
>
> > never  stall
> > my IV-P intenti= onally.  Or even get  close.  Like Colyn and 
> J= ohn,
> > I'm 120 on
> > downwind,  110 at the base t= urn and 100 on final until the 
> runway
> > is  <= br>> > assured.   Unless we fly the pattern at 8000 feet AGL= ,  a  stall
> > will probably be
> > fatal for= any of us.   Please don't be the next  one to prove
>= this
> > point !
> > 
> >
> > <= br>> > Bob Rickard
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
= > >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
= > > 
> --
>
>
>
> For archives= and unsub
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
>=20= 

--

For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
= --Apple-Mail-16--384040234--