Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:28:54 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from esmtp.cave.com ([66.35.72.5] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 657468 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:19:13 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.35.72.5; envelope-from=lancair@ustek.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([66.35.73.227]) by esmtp.cave.com (VisNetic.MailServer.v7.2.4.1) with ESMTP id CQN38002 for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:18:36 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <42026AFF.4030105@ustek.com> X-Original-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:18:39 -0500 From: N301ES Reply-To: lancair@ustek.com Organization: USTEK Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: MT vs Hartzell References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050307010203020204030205" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050307010203020204030205 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks to all for your comments on the props. Seems that it is not a simple decision. The performances, weights and costs are all similar. Some say that the composite prop is smoother. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Robert M. Simon, N301ES --------------050307010203020204030205 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks to all for your comments on the props. Seems that it is not a simple decision. The performances, weights and costs are all similar. Some say that the composite prop is smoother. Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Robert M. Simon, N301ES

--------------050307010203020204030205--