Cheap Covering

[canuck_bob]

I need to recover my Flybaby. I have researched latex in depth but
was interested in other methods from the past.

Please don't bother with the debate about non standard experimental
methods. I understand that one of the fine approved methods are
excellent. I want to experiment and brainstorm options and I'm cheap
and broke due to the Wall Street thieves.

Here are some basic ideas.

No cyanide fumes, epoxies, chemicals requiring fresh air supply, and
the general cancer causing substances that pass as homebuilder
friendly. Benign cleanup of water or varsol paint thinners to avoid
nasty solvents. Life's short enough without all that crap. No Haz-
Mat shipping.

Available locally at paint, industrial, and home stores preferred.

Brush and roller friendly.

Standard dacron non-cert fabric from a homebuilder supplier.

Might have access to some powdered aluminum for UV protection, more
than willing to paint with a silver topcoat like Tremclad (believe it
gets its shine from aluminum already).

Willing to consider one seal coat of water borne STC approved product
if not horribly expensive.

Simple 2 colour scheme, maybe aluminum silver with flat black accents
in a British between war military look. Or classic fuselage one
colour wings another with matching metal fittings.

Once read a writeup by Veeduber about alternatives like varnish but
can't find it now.

I'm wondering about latex primer base with oil based enamel silver top
coat? I would prefer to avoid a latex top coat.

Any ideas or past experience welcome, both successful and not.

[Rich S.[_2_]]

On Aug 5, 5:45*pm, canuck_bob > wrote:
> I need to recover my Flybaby. *I have researched latex in depth but
> was interested in other methods from the past.
>
> Please don't bother with the debate about non standard experimental
> methods. *I understand that one of the fine approved methods are
> excellent. *I want to experiment and brainstorm options and I'm cheap
> and broke due to the Wall Street thieves.
>
> Here are some basic ideas.
>
> No cyanide fumes, epoxies, chemicals requiring fresh air supply, and
> the general cancer causing substances that pass as homebuilder
> friendly. *Benign cleanup of water or varsol paint thinners to avoid
> nasty solvents. *Life's short enough without all that crap. *No Haz-
> Mat shipping.
>
> Available locally at paint, industrial, and home stores preferred.
>
> Brush and roller friendly.
>
> Standard dacron non-cert fabric from a homebuilder supplier.
>
> Might have access to some powdered aluminum for UV protection, more
> than willing to paint with a silver topcoat like Tremclad (believe it
> gets its shine from aluminum already).
>
> Willing to consider one seal coat of water borne STC approved product
> if not horribly expensive.
>
> Simple 2 colour scheme, maybe aluminum silver with flat black accents
> in a British between war military look. *Or classic fuselage one
> colour wings another with matching metal fittings.
>
> * Once read a writeup by Veeduber about alternatives like varnish but
> can't find it now.
>
> I'm wondering about latex primer base with oil based enamel silver top
> coat? I would prefer to avoid a latex top coat.
>
> Any ideas or past experience welcome, both successful and not.

I had an Emeraude which had been recovered and finished with Sears
black latex primer; then finished with Dupont Dulux automotive enamel.
I don't know how much weight the finish contributed to the net, but
that was one of the heaviest Emeraudes around. The construction of the
plane was the same as Emeraudes which were much lighter and finished
with standard stuff like Poly-Fiber or Ceconite. With an O-200 for
power, it was *990 lbs* dry. After only ~five years since recovering,
the enamel was severely cracking.

IMHO it is false economy to use this method.. Yes, it works. No, it
will not last and *YES* it is heavy.

Rich S.

[Peter Dohm]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 5, 5:45 pm, canuck_bob > wrote:
>> I need to recover my Flybaby. I have researched latex in depth but
>> was interested in other methods from the past.
>>
>> Please don't bother with the debate about non standard experimental
>> methods. I understand that one of the fine approved methods are
>> excellent. I want to experiment and brainstorm options and I'm cheap
>> and broke due to the Wall Street thieves.
>>
>> Here are some basic ideas.
>>
>> No cyanide fumes, epoxies, chemicals requiring fresh air supply, and
>> the general cancer causing substances that pass as homebuilder
>> friendly. Benign cleanup of water or varsol paint thinners to avoid
>> nasty solvents. Life's short enough without all that crap. No Haz-
>> Mat shipping.
>>
>> Available locally at paint, industrial, and home stores preferred.
>>
>> Brush and roller friendly.
>>
>> Standard dacron non-cert fabric from a homebuilder supplier.
>>
>> Might have access to some powdered aluminum for UV protection, more
>> than willing to paint with a silver topcoat like Tremclad (believe it
>> gets its shine from aluminum already).
>>
>> Willing to consider one seal coat of water borne STC approved product
>> if not horribly expensive.
>>
>> Simple 2 colour scheme, maybe aluminum silver with flat black accents
>> in a British between war military look. Or classic fuselage one
>> colour wings another with matching metal fittings.
>>
>> Once read a writeup by Veeduber about alternatives like varnish but
>> can't find it now.
>>
>> I'm wondering about latex primer base with oil based enamel silver top
>> coat? I would prefer to avoid a latex top coat.
>>
>> Any ideas or past experience welcome, both successful and not.
>
> I had an Emeraude which had been recovered and finished with Sears
> black latex primer; then finished with Dupont Dulux automotive enamel.
> I don't know how much weight the finish contributed to the net, but
> that was one of the heaviest Emeraudes around. The construction of the
> plane was the same as Emeraudes which were much lighter and finished
> with standard stuff like Poly-Fiber or Ceconite. With an O-200 for
> power, it was *990 lbs* dry. After only ~five years since recovering,
> the enamel was severely cracking.
>
> IMHO it is false economy to use this method.. Yes, it works. No, it
> will not last and *YES* it is heavy.
>
> Rich S.
>
While I have no doubt that the paint combination was a poor choice and had a
poor lifespan, I really have trouble believing that the paint was much of
the added weight.

The best guess that I could make, and I admit to a lack of the necessary
experience and expertise, is that the choice of paint could have made the
aircraft 20 pounds heavier--or 30 pounds at the extreme.

The Continental O-200, instead of C-90 could have added a few
pounds--especially if the original did not have electric start. But a
couple of radios don't weigh very much and that still leaves more than 100
pounds not accounted for.

So, I suspect that there may be more to the story...

Peter

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:27:38 -0700 (PDT), "Rich S."
> wrote:


>>
>> Any ideas or past experience welcome, both successful and not.
>
>I had an Emeraude which had been recovered and finished with Sears
>black latex primer; then finished with Dupont Dulux automotive enamel.
>I don't know how much weight the finish contributed to the net, but
>that was one of the heaviest Emeraudes around. The construction of the
>plane was the same as Emeraudes which were much lighter and finished
>with standard stuff like Poly-Fiber or Ceconite. With an O-200 for
>power, it was *990 lbs* dry. After only ~five years since recovering,
>the enamel was severely cracking.
>
>IMHO it is false economy to use this method.. Yes, it works. No, it
>will not last and *YES* it is heavy.
>
>Rich S.

I'm convinced that finishes like razorback and ceconite over polyester
would not be certified with the hindsight to see their faults.

my aircraft was covered in Stits, or Polyfiber as it is now know, back
in 1983~4. despite thinking that it was good for maybe another 4 years
for all of the past 10 or 12 years the bloody stuff just will not die.
it is painted in polytone which will remain repairable for the life of
the finish. just wipe back with a rag soaked in MEK, do the repair and
rebuild the finish.
no cracking of the polytone except where the builder failed to use the
pinked tapes over structure that should have been reinforced.

for what it cost it has to be the cheapest fabric covering going. it
just lasts and lasts and lasts.

Stealth Pilot

[Mike[_19_]]

Look into Stewart Systems.
Water clean-up.
Water based.
Apply with roller or brush thru many coatings
No fumes.
EZ repairs

I'm looking at it. Anything you find out is appreciated - Mike

[canuck_bob]

I appreciate the advice regarding Stits. My plane was originally
covered in Stits, nice choice.

The simple fact is that my plane has sat in my little hangar for years
and I will not fly it unless I can do it cheap. My budget for a
complete refurbish would not cover the expense of a certified system.
Costs skyrocket here in Canada with exchange, duty, broker fees,
hazmat shipping. Faced with not flying or accepting a cheap
alternative the decision is easier to make.

The Hipec System is produced locally so I am researching it. Thanks
for the line on the Stewart System they have a Canadian supplier and
ship without hazmat it appears.

To answer Mike.

There are lots of successful latex paint jobs, and lots of duds as
well. A Pietenpol builder actually did controlled tests of the UV
blocking effects of different latex paints and found colour was not an
issue. Almost everyone uses an accepted fabric from suppliers and one
of the accepted glue systems, often from Polyfibre. Top quality white
primers are fine for the base coat and the mechanical bond is reported
to be fine. Failures come from applying the coats too thick leading
to cracking later and sloppy colour coat application.

I found Veeduber's thread on flying on the cheap and am looking into
earlier practices of using varnish. I am going to locate some fabric
samples and experiment. I'm thinking a guy should be able to tint a
good exterior varnish with silver tint (aluminum paste ?) for UV
protection.

The most common complaint is the one Rich voices. Auto poly paints,
even with plasticizers, often fail by cracking and delaminatining and
peeling.

I would appreciate any experiences with alternative methods please.

[Bob]

On Aug 7, 11:17*am, canuck_bob > wrote:

> I found Veeduber's thread on flying on the cheap and am looking into
> earlier practices of using varnish. *I am going to locate some fabric
> samples and experiment. *I'm thinking a guy should be able to tint a
> good exterior varnish with silver tint (aluminum paste ?) for UV
> protection.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bob,

I think it would be wise to take any of my earlier posts with a grain
of salt and to proceed as you've outlined above.

All finishes shrink to some degree. It will take some experimentation
to confirm the practicality of any particular product.

Personally, I've been experimenting with water-based varnish. I only
have about 18 months of data but its characteristics are a virtual
match to your stated requirements (availability, low-cost, etc.) The
points about which I can not comment have to do with its durability
after long-term exposure to sunlight. Right now I have a test panel
on the roof of my garage and another inside of it. I would like to
gather five years of data before determining its usefulness but
there's a high probability I may not live that long.

I've not done any experiments with colored water-based varnish but I'm
confident that artist's colors as used for watercoloring and other
water-based use... possibly some screen-printing inks?.... should
prove acceptable.

-R.S.Hover

[Brian Whatcott]

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> I'm convinced that finishes like razorback and ceconite over polyester
> would not be certified with the hindsight to see their faults.
>
> my aircraft was covered in Stits, or Polyfiber as it is now know, back
> in 1983~4. despite thinking that it was good for maybe another 4 years
> for all of the past 10 or 12 years the bloody stuff just will not die.
> it is painted in polytone which will remain repairable for the life of
> the finish. just wipe back with a rag soaked in MEK, do the repair and
> rebuild the finish. /snip/
> Stealth Pilot

Is polyfiber a proprietary name for polyester 1.8 ounce heat shrinkable
cloth - also found in drapers as polyester lining material?


Brian W

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:05:28 -0500, brian whatcott
> wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>> I'm convinced that finishes like razorback and ceconite over polyester
>> would not be certified with the hindsight to see their faults.
>>
>> my aircraft was covered in Stits, or Polyfiber as it is now know, back
>> in 1983~4. despite thinking that it was good for maybe another 4 years
>> for all of the past 10 or 12 years the bloody stuff just will not die.
>> it is painted in polytone which will remain repairable for the life of
>> the finish. just wipe back with a rag soaked in MEK, do the repair and
>> rebuild the finish. /snip/
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>Is polyfiber a proprietary name for polyester 1.8 ounce heat shrinkable
>cloth - also found in drapers as polyester lining material?
>
>
>Brian W

no. and the difference is a very important one.
when polyester fabric is woven the yarn is first stretched slightly at
an elevated temperature. after weaving the cloth is passed through
another heat process to cause the yarn to shrink and better bed in
with the weave. it makes a better fabric for your dresses.

polyfiber grabs the woven cloth before the second heat process.
it is called the greiged state.
after you glue the fabric to the aircraft structure you go over it
with an iron. the ironing causes the fabric to shrink as per the post
weave process for dress fabric. it is that shrink that taughtens up
the fabric, something done by the dope when a natural fiber is used.

so if you buy store dress material you will not in theory have any
method of taughtening it other than to use dope.
if you can buy the drapers polyester lining material in the greiged
state then theoretically it would be usable.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 11:17:37 -0700 (PDT), canuck_bob
> wrote:

>I appreciate the advice regarding Stits. My plane was originally
>covered in Stits, nice choice.
>
>The simple fact is that my plane has sat in my little hangar for years
>and I will not fly it unless I can do it cheap. My budget for a
>complete refurbish would not cover the expense of a certified system.
>Costs skyrocket here in Canada with exchange, duty, broker fees,
>hazmat shipping. Faced with not flying or accepting a cheap
>alternative the decision is easier to make.
>
>The Hipec System is produced locally so I am researching it. Thanks
>for the line on the Stewart System they have a Canadian supplier and
>ship without hazmat it appears.
>
>To answer Mike.
>
>There are lots of successful latex paint jobs, and lots of duds as
>well. A Pietenpol builder actually did controlled tests of the UV
>blocking effects of different latex paints and found colour was not an
>issue. Almost everyone uses an accepted fabric from suppliers and one
>of the accepted glue systems, often from Polyfibre. Top quality white
>primers are fine for the base coat and the mechanical bond is reported
>to be fine. Failures come from applying the coats too thick leading
>to cracking later and sloppy colour coat application.
>
>I found Veeduber's thread on flying on the cheap and am looking into
>earlier practices of using varnish. I am going to locate some fabric
>samples and experiment. I'm thinking a guy should be able to tint a
>good exterior varnish with silver tint (aluminum paste ?) for UV
>protection.
>
>The most common complaint is the one Rich voices. Auto poly paints,
>even with plasticizers, often fail by cracking and delaminatining and
>peeling.
>
>I would appreciate any experiences with alternative methods please.

tell me why you are contemplating replacing the stits.
what is wrong with it?

I ask because the damn stuff doesnt deteriorate in a hangar. if it is
just the paint finish that is stuffed then that can be repaired.
you can spray rejuvinator over it to replasticise the finish.
you can wipe the finish off with mek if it is polytone.

are you sure you need to replace the stits at all?
Stealth Pilot

[jerry wass]

brian whatcott wrote:
> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>> I'm convinced that finishes like razorback and ceconite over polyester
>> would not be certified with the hindsight to see their faults.
>>
>> my aircraft was covered in Stits, or Polyfiber as it is now know, back
>> in 1983~4. despite thinking that it was good for maybe another 4 years
>> for all of the past 10 or 12 years the bloody stuff just will not die.
>> it is painted in polytone which will remain repairable for the life of
>> the finish. just wipe back with a rag soaked in MEK, do the repair and
>> rebuild the finish. /snip/
>> Stealth Pilot
>
> Is polyfiber a proprietary name for polyester 1.8 ounce heat shrinkable
> cloth - also found in drapers as polyester lining material?
>
>
> Brian W

Yes, probably, but what you find in "cloth stores" has already been heat
shrunk!--Jerry

[canuck_bob]

I purchased the plane and found some questionable airframe problems
under close inspection. Then we adopted 2 girls from China and all
airplane activity ceased for a few years ( we got little Anna when I
turned 50 and actually thought I could adopt a second girl, raise two
infants, work and put hundreds of hours into a plane project, isn't
denial a wonderful thing).

With the problems I found on the fuselage and my new family to
consider I've decided to completely refurbish the plane and bring it
up to proper standards before flying it now. I'm glad I decided this
after pulling the fuselage fabric. My plane was built in the 60's and
I want to refurbish it and keep it flying for another 50 years. Also
it was very overbuilt so I can reduce weight dramatically and am
trying to get its empty weight down to 600#s like Pete Bowers
prototype.

To me the plane is a valued antique that represents all that I admire
from the early days of amateur built airplanes movement. Nothing
represents those days better than a Fly Baby or a Tailwind.

As the mechanic in charge I had to ground the airplane, tough
decision. I believe more of us need to be prepared to ground our
planes when they need it. I once read a discussion with a NASA safety
expert. He said they found out through research that the second a
pilot gets that little gut feeling that someting might happen the
proper evasive procedure should be instituted immediately.


>
> tell me why you are contemplating replacing the stits.
> what is wrong with it?
>
> I ask because the damn stuff doesnt deteriorate in a hangar. if it is
> just the paint finish that is stuffed then that can be repaired.
> you can spray rejuvinator over it to replasticise the finish.
> you can wipe the finish off with mek if it is polytone.
>
> are you sure you need to replace the stits at all?
> Stealth Pilot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[canuck_bob]

Yes, probably, but what you find in "cloth stores" has already been
heat
shrunk!--Jerry

I have found some have had luck with finding shrinkable drapery
linings and sheer fabric. It comes in 108-110 inch widths but would
need to be tested before buying any quantity. One guy took a small
swatch home and cut it to 10" then ironed it. It shrunk in length to
about 9" or 10% shrinkage. It weighed about 2oz. per yard. A good
indication is if the specs call for dry clean only. Seems the
offshore supplied stuff might be more likely to shrink.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

canuck_bob wrote:
> Yes, probably, but what you find in "cloth stores" has already been
> heat
> shrunk!--Jerry
>
> I have found some have had luck with finding shrinkable drapery
> linings and sheer fabric. It comes in 108-110 inch widths but would
> need to be tested before buying any quantity. One guy took a small
> swatch home and cut it to 10" then ironed it. It shrunk in length to
> about 9" or 10% shrinkage. It weighed about 2oz. per yard. A good
> indication is if the specs call for dry clean only. Seems the
> offshore supplied stuff might be more likely to shrink.


Ask for it "in the griege" (pronounced "gray".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/griege

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:45:37 -0700 (PDT), canuck_bob
> wrote:

>
>I purchased the plane and found some questionable airframe problems
>under close inspection. Then we adopted 2 girls from China and all
>airplane activity ceased for a few years ( we got little Anna when I
>turned 50 and actually thought I could adopt a second girl, raise two
>infants, work and put hundreds of hours into a plane project, isn't
>denial a wonderful thing).
>
>With the problems I found on the fuselage and my new family to
>consider I've decided to completely refurbish the plane and bring it
>up to proper standards before flying it now. I'm glad I decided this
>after pulling the fuselage fabric. My plane was built in the 60's and
>I want to refurbish it and keep it flying for another 50 years. Also
>it was very overbuilt so I can reduce weight dramatically and am
>trying to get its empty weight down to 600#s like Pete Bowers
>prototype.
>
>To me the plane is a valued antique that represents all that I admire
>from the early days of amateur built airplanes movement. Nothing
>represents those days better than a Fly Baby or a Tailwind.
>
>As the mechanic in charge I had to ground the airplane, tough
>decision. I believe more of us need to be prepared to ground our
>planes when they need it. I once read a discussion with a NASA safety
>expert. He said they found out through research that the second a
>pilot gets that little gut feeling that someting might happen the
>proper evasive procedure should be instituted immediately.
>
>
with a 25 year old W8 Tailwind I face a similar choice in the
forseeable future. Luckily for me tube structures in fuselages last
longer than wood ones.
like you I think that they are worth restoring.
Stealth Pilot

[canuck_bob]

Thanks Cavelamb, I'm trying my local fabric stores this week. /that
tip will be very helpful.

Stealth Pilot I originally bought the Fly Baby to have a plane to fly
that was in fact a full kit for systems. It dawned on me that a
flying plane would be a cheaper source of parts for a project rather
than sourcing individually. Then I started to understand the design
and the history of the aircraft and the building movement in North
America and fell for the design.

Ron's site really helped to see all this. Then I looked at the
Tailwind as a possible project and realized it started the movement to
legitamacy when it was the first homebuilt licenced to carry a
passenger.

I would like to see the EAA start an Antique Homebuilt category and
start elevating the status of these old homebuilts. But their
direction and goals are focused at the other end of the spectrum from
the Fly Baby and what it represents. They no longer support or
endorse the working guy who has to build and fly cheap, cheap like an
older used car cheap. You know guys like Poberezny and his buddies
meeting in a basement redesigning Corben planes because they wanted to
experiment and build cheap while feeding a family. Cheap has become
$40,000 and affordable $80-120,000 according to our GA savior LSA.

[Peter Dohm]

"canuck_bob" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Cavelamb, I'm trying my local fabric stores this week. /that
> tip will be very helpful.
>
> Stealth Pilot I originally bought the Fly Baby to have a plane to fly
> that was in fact a full kit for systems. It dawned on me that a
> flying plane would be a cheaper source of parts for a project rather
> than sourcing individually. Then I started to understand the design
> and the history of the aircraft and the building movement in North
> America and fell for the design.
>
> Ron's site really helped to see all this. Then I looked at the
> Tailwind as a possible project and realized it started the movement to
> legitamacy when it was the first homebuilt licenced to carry a
> passenger.
>
> I would like to see the EAA start an Antique Homebuilt category and
> start elevating the status of these old homebuilts. But their
> direction and goals are focused at the other end of the spectrum from
> the Fly Baby and what it represents. They no longer support or
> endorse the working guy who has to build and fly cheap, cheap like an
> older used car cheap. You know guys like Poberezny and his buddies
> meeting in a basement redesigning Corben planes because they wanted to
> experiment and build cheap while feeding a family. Cheap has become
> $40,000 and affordable $80-120,000 according to our GA savior LSA.

You have a lot of good points there, and it's really interesting to note
that the Tailwind is still the plane to try to beat for efficiency.

Some of the kits can give it a run; but you are right about the price.

A lot of the problem is simply that a kit is about the least expensive form
that can fit into a business plan that includes an advertising budget, and
organized fly-in events require a lot of funding. The general security
madness also seems to add to the subsequent cost of basing and operation,
even if it does also have some efficacy in reducing the incidence of theft.

Actually, a lot of plans are still out there, all types of engines have
gotten lighter for their power output, and the same basic principles of
flight still work. So, perhaps the best that we can do is to try to
convince the EAA to roll Sport Pilot into Sport Aviation and to bring back
Experimenter as their seperate magazine. It was far from perfect; but it
could still be the best solution.

Peter

[Morgans[_7_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote

> with a 25 year old W8 Tailwind I face a similar choice in the
> forseeable future. Luckily for me tube structures in fuselages last
> longer than wood ones.
> like you I think that they are worth restoring.

I would like to be able to buy a non used, legal set of W-8 plans to build,
somehow. The W-8 should be able to build light enough for the Light Sport
rule, if built lightly with the right engine. The W-10 plans currently for
sale seem to be a bit more heavy to fit the rule.

What is so much different between the two, if you know what is different?
--
Jim in NC

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 20:29:17 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote
>
>> with a 25 year old W8 Tailwind I face a similar choice in the
>> forseeable future. Luckily for me tube structures in fuselages last
>> longer than wood ones.
>> like you I think that they are worth restoring.
>
>I would like to be able to buy a non used, legal set of W-8 plans to build,
>somehow. The W-8 should be able to build light enough for the Light Sport
>rule, if built lightly with the right engine. The W-10 plans currently for
>sale seem to be a bit more heavy to fit the rule.
>
>What is so much different between the two, if you know what is different?

Jim I hope that that email address works.
christmas is coming early this year. :-)
Stealth Pilot

[Morgans[_7_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote

>
> Jim I hope that that email address works.
> christmas is coming early this year. :-)

It works, but you do have to take the "JUNK" out.

You have my interest peaked, now! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:02:43 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote
>
>>
>> Jim I hope that that email address works.
>> christmas is coming early this year. :-)
>
> It works, but you do have to take the "JUNK" out.
>
>You have my interest peaked, now! <g>

Jim
> bounced
whot did I do wrong?
Stealth Pilot

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:02:43 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote
>>
>>>
>>> Jim I hope that that email address works.
>>> christmas is coming early this year. :-)
>>
>> It works, but you do have to take the "JUNK" out.
>>
>>You have my interest peaked, now! <g>
>
> Jim
> > bounced
> whot did I do wrong?
> Stealth Pilot

You left on the "n" in Morgan, but you seem to have fixed that, at some
time. ;-)