X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:17:48 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6008740 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:30:12 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=K++g7lqI c=1 sm=0 a=+kuJ7Sa7hUpxs7xJxzDFzQ==:17 a=AeF9CLZUGkAA:10 a=8X9b84lgpr4A:10 a=zTVDa7HKqxcA:10 a=doupyKFmAAAA:8 a=jTVtgW7wXxEA:10 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=G50zkmLvAAAA:8 a=KNfte85PAAAA:8 a=5Up8faWwAAAA:8 a=XUf726FE9dRlp9LES2oA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=8m6LRutVOowA:10 a=v6MMM96S_sUA:10 a=bMOBiTJcIszDfNNU:21 a=WrRn-CeSMBnPhVfW:21 a=1IlZJK9HAAAA:8 a=bIBIODz9cN4vJI0cdDEA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=Z1BvOZmT1TIA:10 a=8dx1AhGoyXXamlX9:21 a=dX7dyFPtSDVJsHiv:21 a=NO_6dzZ4CetYodP_:21 a=+kuJ7Sa7hUpxs7xJxzDFzQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 76.179.81.18 Received: from [76.179.81.18] ([76.179.81.18:54691] helo=WilliamHP) by cdptpa-oedge01.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id F1/72-25866-15371F05; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:29:38 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <662A4760B5954D08B15F8CF83785B2EE@WilliamHP> From: "Bill Wade" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Fw: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:29:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0077_01CDF0A7.54EFD1A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0077_01CDF0A7.54EFD1A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In this discussion I=E2=80=99m surprised that Canards haven=E2=80=99t = been mentioned. It=E2=80=99s well known they=E2=80=99re more efficient- = surely that=E2=80=99s due to the fact that they were designed from the = ground up to fly backwards. Also, given the fact that there=E2=80=99s a reversal of the Coriolis = effect between the two hemispheres why hasn=E2=80=99t there been a = discussion of ETE- Equitorial Transition Effect? That=E2=80=99s the = warping of the space/time continuum as you approach the Equator and then = experience the reversal during passage. This is distinct from ETA- = Everyone=E2=80=99s Talking Australian, a spatial and temporal dissonance = caused by situations such as: What=E2=80=99s a Goanna- is that what=E2=80=99s eating my Marmite (a = cute, fuzzy marsupial). Is it polite to play your Didgeridoo in public or it only for consenting = adults?=20 You get the idea... Cheers- Bill Wade From: Frederick Moreno=20 Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:40 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Subject: [LML] Fw: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 As a Yankee resident in Australia, I can confirm that Dominic = speaks the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.=20 I myself am the recipient of a grant from Prime Minister Julia = Gillard's Labor Government that is paying for research to use cattle = farts (methane, potent global warming gas and primary constituent of = natural gas which is, of course natural when it comes from cows, but I = digress) as an alternate fuel for use in aircraft. =20 If I can make it work, sport aviators will be granted permission = to fly forwards again. So far so good. Lightness of fuel makes for = dramatic baggage increase while staying within the W and B restrictions = of my Lancair IV. =20 The current challenge is not the methane collection and routing = via hose (a very, very long hose) to my airplane. Rather it is getting = regulatory approval for Phase 1 test flights. My submission to the = relevant authorities (CASA, EPA, NRDC, Animal Anti-Defamation league, = State EPA, local town council, Sheep and Cattle Growers Association - = the only supporters as they get paid for the fuel) was 2523 pages long, = and I am still waiting, waiting, waiting.... Yankee innovation will no doubt prevail, and I will have the = Australian sport aircraft fleet in the air soon. Wait for the press = release.=20 Fearless Fred=20 PS : no electric airplanes are allowed nearby when fully fueled, = for obvious reasons. =20 -------Original Message------- From: Dominic V. Crain Date: 12/01/2013 8:03:45 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 Well, flying backwards in Australia is not a lotta fun.=20 This has been government policy since 2007. In fact not only must aviators fly backwards to help save and/or = create fuel, but cars must also be driven backwards, or if incapable, = not be driven at all. This has the beneficial effect of shutting down all refineries in = Australia. (according to the Govt.) This now requires all Lancair owners to determine if their = aircraft is more or less efficient than previously thought. As they are all left languishing in the hangars, this remains a = moot point. Being in the hangar, it is clear they use no fuel, so they are = considered efficient. But because they are not flying backwards, they are less = efficient. This is the point to give up! Cheers Dominic V. Crain domcrain@tpg.com.au Phone 03-94161881 Mobile 0412-359320 VH-CZJ On 12/01/2013, at 8:46 AM, "Danny" wrote: You guys are too damn funny. I love it, seriously. Keep em = comin. Danny LNC2-360 N 38=C2=B0 43' 25.7" W 77=C2=B0 30' 38.6" Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. From: Douglas Brunner [mailto:douglasbrunner@earthlink.net]=20 Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:31 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 Tim, I think we should do more research on the concept of backward = flight and the resultant creation of avgas =C2=96 this might be the = solution to our problems when lead is removed from avgas. There are a = couple of interesting issues: 1) When you fly backwards in Denmark you get back liters of = fuel =C2=96 in the US gallons. Come to the US to do your backwards = flying since gallons are bigger than liters! 2) If you fly backwards in Australia the optical isomers are = reversed. Instead of D-Octane you get L-Octane. (Organic chemistry = joke) 3) If you fly backward =C2=93rich of peak=C2=94 you get more = gas and your engine runs cooler! Please fax me some more paper so I can complete my calculations. = (Since I started getting people to fax me paper, I haven=C2=92t had to = buy a single sheet!) From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On = Behalf Of Tim J=C3=B8rgensen Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:43 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 I am disappointed in your response. It is jaded in many ways with = mis-information to give the 235 a bad rap and to justify only the = 320/360. =20 You are right, Gary. I am disappionted in my response too. It was written off the top of my head and was factually wrong in = several places. I hereby give my heartfelt apologies to anyone who might = have been offended by these thoughtless accusations. =20 From here it reads like you are in need of more information and = flying experience in both the 235 and the 320/360. =20 Yes, certainly. After reading your reply, I obviously felt = compelled to do some research and come back with an unjaded and = factually accurate statement, in order to correct my mistakes once and = for all. I have dug out the actual w&b sheet for the 235/320 in question. I = have also read my actual notes from my actual conversation with Lancair = (Ross), regarding factory recommended max. weights for the various LNC2 = models. =20 The factually correct and unjaded numbers are: =20 Lancair 235, max. take off & landing weight is 1400 lbs. This = number never was and never will be raised. =20 Lancair 320/360 MKI (small tail), max. take off weight 1685 lbs. = Max. landing weight 1685 lbs. =20 Lancair 320/360 MKII (Dundee tail), max. take off weight was = initially 1685 lbs. but this was, by the factory, later raised to 1790 = lbs. with 1685 lbs. left as max. landing weight, though. =20 I am utterly sorry about last days wrong, jaded and irresponsible = statements. It won=C2=B4t happen again. Never. Sorry. =20 The now corrected numbers obviously pose some factually correct = and unjaded challenges for my friendly but slightly depressed 235/320 = friend: =20 Gross wt. 1400 lbs. Empty wt. 1010 lbs. Pilot wt. 220 lbs. 45 min. fuel reserve 39 lbs. Wife (small model) 132 lbs. =20 Luggage and fuel for flight planning max. -1 lbs. =20 His factually correct and unjaded options are: =20 Hmmmm, this is really not getting easier....... Okay: =20 If he wants to maintain the 1.7 hour operation time and the = legally required 45 min. reserve, he should try the obvious first. If, = for some unimaginable reason, his wife is not able to shed the 90 = pounds, things get slightly more un-obvious:=20 =20 He could fly backwards for 1.15 minutes, burning -1 lbs. of fuel. = This might not be his best option, the visibility is rather poor, which = dramatically increases the risk of a tail first head-on collision. He = would also have to buy a new propeller with opposite twist. Hmmm... = Expensive, but surely doable........ =20 If, for some reason, he is inclined towards forward flight, he = will have a 43.85 min. operation time, wife included but without luggage = and reserve fuel. =20 If he decides to get a real wife (132 lbs. seems rather unreal for = a wife), it will cut deeply into this operation time, perhaps even = forcing him back into hindflight.=20 =20 He could, and now for better reason than ever, ditch the bitch and = end up with a nice single seater with a 2.52 hrs. operation time, still = maintaining a 45 min. reserve but without luggage. This could be the = preferable option. As a side effect, warm food might await his return.=20 =20 Invite me for a ride (or his mum in law) and get a polite though = heartfelt "no thanks". I might be tempted to encourage his mum in law to = go, though........ Be a true experimenter, you know......... =20 Well, that pretty much sums up the correct and unjaded numbers = issue for this particular 235/320. My new honest, unjaded, numbers only = based opinion is: =20 Back in the 80=C2=B4s, Lance stated an empty weight of 800 lbs. I = believe we can all laugh at that joke. You might be able to find a 950 lbs. 235/235. I have not heard of = any, but they might be around. That will give you 450 lbs. of payload, = unless you want to experiment with the firm weight limit set by the = factory. I would not do that, but opinions may vary. Can you live with = those numbers? Is the aircraft well built? If so, go ahead. It is a nice = aircraft, but it will not turn into a 320/360, no matter how much money = you throw after it. =20 If you want to throw 15k in a 235/320, write a check! If you use = 100 dollar bills, it will exceed gross weight....... =20 When your machine is up and flying with significantly more hours = than just the required test flight period, then I believe you will come = to understand more about them...well the 360 anyway. Unless someone is, = or has been a 235 owner/flyer (and that applies to every other model = too), then that person may be speaking out of turn. =20 You are so right. Some Lancair stick time will probably take my = mathematic skills to a new level. I, for one, would appreciate that = change; 2 + 2 has been 4 for way too long! =20 Now, Gary, this message is clearly meant as a joke. The numbers = are correct, but I happen to like jokes. Sorry, I just can=C2=B4t help = it. I do not have anything against 235 owners, their planes or their = wives, nor do I wish to contribute to any kind of bad rap to these. I = would also like to state, that no animals were harmed during the writing = of this message, nor will they be until the message is sent. =20 The thing is, Paul Besing asked a question on LML. He asked about = the pro=C2=B4s and con=C2=B4s regarding the differences between a 235 = and a 320 and the money involved. Paul is entitled to some answers from = people who have been here, there or in both places. I have built a = 360MKIIOB and I have overseen the building of a 235/320 and done the w&b = too. I have made paperwork for both and I have talked to Lancair about = both. I also have an opinion about both, which obliges me to give the = man an honest answer. I am well aware, that answering this kind of questions sometimes = renders you unpopular, but choosing not to answer at all would be = downright selfish and rude. I will pick unpopular over selfish and rude = any second. =20 If you wish to contribute to the debate, it would be helpful if = you would publish some numbers for your particular 235. You also claim, that the gross weight was actually raised to 1500 = lbs. at some point. Now, if you are able to document this, many people = would be significantly less depressed. I know at least one....... =20 Cheers Tim Jorgensen =20 =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0077_01CDF0A7.54EFD1A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
  In this discussion I=E2=80=99m surprised that Canards = haven=E2=80=99t been=20 mentioned. It=E2=80=99s well known they=E2=80=99re more efficient- = surely that=E2=80=99s due to the fact=20 that they were designed from the ground up to fly backwards.
 
  Also, given the fact that there=E2=80=99s a reversal of the = Coriolis effect=20 between the two hemispheres why hasn=E2=80=99t there been a discussion = of ETE-=20 Equitorial Transition Effect? That=E2=80=99s the warping of the = space/time continuum as=20 you approach the Equator and then experience the reversal during = passage. This=20 is distinct from ETA- Everyone=E2=80=99s Talking Australian, a spatial = and temporal=20 dissonance caused by situations such as:
 
What=E2=80=99s a Goanna- is that what=E2=80=99s eating my Marmite = (a cute, fuzzy=20 marsupial).
 
Is it polite to play your Didgeridoo in public or it only for = consenting=20 adults?
 
You get the idea...  Cheers- Bill Wade
 
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:40 AM
Subject: [LML] Fw: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice = LNC2
 
As a Yankee resident in  Australia, I can confirm = that =20 Dominic speaks the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the = truth.=20
 
I myself am the recipient of a grant  from Prime = Minister Julia=20 Gillard's Labor Government that is paying for research to use = cattle farts=20 (methane, potent global warming gas and primary constituent of = natural gas=20 which is, of course natural when it comes from cows, but I = digress) as an=20 alternate fuel for use in aircraft. 
 
If I can make it work, sport aviators will be granted = permission to=20 fly forwards again.  So far so good.  Lightness of fuel = makes=20 for dramatic baggage increase while staying within the W and B=20 restrictions of my Lancair IV. 
 
The current  challenge is not the methane collection and = routing=20 via  hose (a very, very long hose) to my airplane.  = Rather it is=20 getting regulatory approval for Phase 1 test flights.  My = submission=20 to the relevant authorities (CASA, EPA, NRDC, Animal = Anti-Defamation=20 league, State EPA, local town council, Sheep and Cattle Growers=20 Association - the only supporters as they get paid for the = fuel)  was=20 2523 pages long, and I am still waiting, waiting, = waiting....
 
Yankee innovation will no doubt prevail, and I will have the=20 Australian sport aircraft fleet in the air soon.  Wait for = the press=20 release.
 
 
Fearless Fred
 
PS : no electric airplanes are allowed nearby  when = fully =20 fueled, for obvious reasons. 
 
 
-------Original = Message-------
 
From: Dominic V. Crain
Date: = 12/01/2013=20 8:03:45 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: = [LML] Re:=20 Purchase Advice LNC2
 
Well, flying backwards in Australia is not a = lotta fun.=20
This has been government policy since 2007.
In fact not only must aviators fly backwards to help save = and/or=20 create fuel, but cars must also be driven backwards, or if = incapable, not=20 be driven at all.
This has the beneficial effect of shutting down all = refineries in=20 Australia. (according to the Govt.)
This now requires all Lancair owners to determine if their = aircraft=20 is more or less efficient than previously thought.
As they are all left languishing in the hangars, this remains = a moot=20 point.
Being in the hangar, it is clear they use no fuel, so they = are=20 considered efficient.
But because they are not flying backwards, they are less=20 efficient.
This is the point to give up!
Cheers
 
Dominic V. Crain
Phone 03-94161881
Mobile 0412-359320
 
VH-CZJ
 
On 12/01/2013, at 8:46 AM, "Danny" <danny@n107sd.com> = wrote:
 
You guys are too = damn=20 funny.  I=20 love it, seriously.  Keep em=20 comin.
 
Danny
LNC2-360
N 38=C2=B0 43'=20 25.7"
W 77=C2=B0 30'=20 38.6"
Nothing is = foolproof to a=20 sufficiently talented fool.
 
From: Douglas Brunner=20 [mailto:douglasbrunner@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, = 2013 12:31=20 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase = Advice=20 LNC2
  Tim,   I=20 think we should do more research on the concept of backward flight = and the=20 resultant creation of avgas =C2=96 this might be the solution to = our problems=20 when lead is removed from avgas.  There are a couple of = interesting=20 issues:   1)     =  When=20 you fly backwards in Denmark you get back liters of fuel =C2=96 in = the US=20 gallons.  Come to the US to do your backwards flying since = gallons=20 are bigger than liters! 2)     =  If=20 you fly backwards in Australia the optical isomers are = reversed. =20 Instead of D-Octane you get L-Octane.  (Organic chemistry=20 joke) 3)     =  If=20 you fly backward =C2=93rich of peak=C2=94 you get more gas and = your engine runs=20 cooler!   Please=20 fax me some more paper so I can complete my = calculations.  =20 (Since I started getting people to fax me paper, I haven=C2=92t = had to buy a=20 single sheet!)    
From: Lancair Mailing List = [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tim=20 J=C3=B8rgensen
Sent: Friday, January 11, = 2013 9:43=20 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Purchase = Advice=20 LNC2
 
I am=20 disappointed in your response.  It is jaded in many ways with = mis-information to give the 235 a bad rap and to justify only the=20 320/360.
 
You are = right,=20 Gary. I am disappionted in my response too.
It was = written off=20 the top of my head and was factually wrong in several places. I = hereby=20 give my heartfelt apologies to anyone who might have been offended = by=20 these thoughtless accusations.
 
From = here it=20 reads like you are in need of more information and flying = experience in=20 both the 235 and the 320/360.
 
Yes, = certainly.=20 After reading your reply, I obviously felt compelled to do some = research=20 and come back with an unjaded and factually accurate statement, in = order=20 to correct my mistakes once and for all.
I have = dug out the=20 actual w&b sheet for the 235/320 in question. I have also read = my=20 actual notes from my actual conversation with Lancair (Ross), = regarding=20 factory recommended max. weights for the various LNC2=20 models.
 
The = factually=20 correct and unjaded numbers are:
 
Lancair = 235, max.=20 take off & landing weight is 1400 lbs. This number never was = and never=20 will be raised.
 
Lancair = 320/360=20 MKI (small tail), max. take off weight 1685 lbs. Max. landing = weight 1685=20 lbs.
 
Lancair = 320/360=20 MKII (Dundee tail), max. take off weight was initially 1685 lbs. = but this=20 was, by the = factory,=20 later raised to 1790 lbs. with 1685 lbs. left as max. landing = weight,=20 though.
 
I am = utterly sorry=20 about last days wrong, jaded and irresponsible statements. It = won=C2=B4t happen=20 again. Never. Sorry.
 
The now = corrected=20 numbers obviously pose some factually correct and unjaded = challenges for=20 my friendly but slightly depressed 235/320 = friend:
 
Gross=20 = wt.           &nbs= p;         =20 1400 lbs.
Empty=20 = wt.           &nbs= p;        =20 1010 lbs.
Pilot=20 = wt.           &nbs= p;            = ; =20 220 lbs.
45 min. = fuel=20 = reserve           39=20 lbs.
Wife = (small=20 model)           = 132=20 lbs.
 
Luggage = and fuel=20 for flight planning max. -1 = lbs.
 
His = factually=20 correct and unjaded options = are:
 
Hmmmm, = this is=20 really not getting easier.......=20 Okay:
 
If he = wants to=20 maintain the 1.7 hour operation time and the legally required 45 = min.=20 reserve, he should try the obvious first. If, for some = unimaginable=20 reason, his wife is not able to shed the 90 pounds, things get = slightly=20 more un-obvious:
 
He could = fly=20 backwards for 1.15 minutes, burning -1 lbs. of fuel. This might = not be his=20 best option, the visibility is rather poor, which dramatically = increases=20 the risk of a tail first head-on collision. He would also have to = buy a=20 new propeller with opposite twist. Hmmm... Expensive, but surely=20 doable........
 
If, for = some=20 reason, he is inclined towards forward flight, he will have a = 43.85 min.=20 operation time, wife included but without luggage and reserve=20 fuel.
 
If he = decides to=20 get a real wife (132 lbs. seems rather unreal for a wife), it will = cut=20 deeply into this operation time, perhaps even forcing him back = into=20 hindflight.
 
He = could, and now=20 for better reason than ever, ditch the bitch and end up with a = nice single=20 seater with a 2.52 hrs. operation time, still maintaining a 45 = min.=20 reserve but without luggage. This could be the preferable option. = As a=20 side effect, warm food might await his return.=20
 
Invite = me for a=20 ride (or his mum in law) and get a polite though heartfelt "no = thanks". I=20 might be tempted to encourage his mum in law to go, though........ = Be a=20 true experimenter, you = know.........
 
Well, = that pretty=20 much sums up the correct and unjaded numbers issue for this = particular=20 235/320. My new honest, unjaded, numbers only based opinion=20 is:
 
Back in = the 80=C2=B4s,=20 Lance stated an empty weight of 800 lbs. I believe we can all = laugh at=20 that joke.
You = might be able=20 to find a 950 lbs. 235/235. I have not heard of any, but they = might be=20 around. That will give you 450 lbs. of payload, unless you want to = experiment with the firm weight limit set by the factory. I would = not do=20 that, but opinions may vary. Can you live with those numbers? Is = the=20 aircraft well built? If so, go ahead. It is a nice aircraft, but = it will=20 not turn into a 320/360, no matter how much money you throw after=20 it.
 
If you = want to=20 throw 15k in a 235/320, write a check! If you use 100 dollar = bills, it=20 will exceed gross = weight.......
 
When = your machine=20 is up and flying with significantly more hours than just the = required test=20 flight period, then I believe you will come to understand more = about=20 them...well the 360 anyway.  Unless someone is, or has been a = 235=20 owner/flyer (and that applies to every other model too), then that = person=20 may be speaking out of turn.
 
You are = so right.=20 Some Lancair stick time will probably take my mathematic skills to = a new=20 level. I, for one, would appreciate that change; 2 + 2 has been 4 = for way=20 too long!
 
Now, = Gary, this=20 message is clearly meant as a joke. The numbers are correct, but I = happen=20 to like jokes. Sorry, I just can=C2=B4t help it. I do not have = anything against=20 235 owners, their planes or their wives, nor do I wish to = contribute to=20 any kind of bad rap to these. I would also like to state, that no = animals=20 were harmed during the writing of this message, nor will they be = until the=20 message is sent.
 
The = thing is, Paul=20 Besing asked a question on LML. He asked about the pro=C2=B4s and = con=C2=B4s=20 regarding the differences between a 235 and a 320 and the money = involved.=20 Paul is entitled to some answers from people who have been here, = there or=20 in both places. I have built a 360MKIIOB and I have overseen the = building=20 of a 235/320 and done the w&b too. I have made paperwork for = both and=20 I have talked to Lancair about both. I also have an opinion about = both,=20 which obliges me to give the man an honest = answer.
I am = well aware,=20 that answering this kind of questions sometimes renders you = unpopular, but=20 choosing not to answer at all would be downright selfish and rude. = I will=20 pick unpopular over selfish and rude any = second.
 
If you = wish to=20 contribute to the debate, it would be helpful if you would publish = some=20 numbers for your particular 235.
You also = claim,=20 that the gross weight was actually raised to 1500 lbs. at some = point. Now,=20 if you are able to document this, many people would be = significantly less=20 depressed. I know at least one.......
 
Cheers
Tim=20 Jorgensen
 
=
 
 
= ------=_NextPart_000_0077_01CDF0A7.54EFD1A0--