Old Timers


Jim Patillo
 

Its kind of interesting that none "not one of the guys" with over 500
hours on the LS1 spar clock have spoken up. What does this mean?

Jim P. Heading for
Watsonville Airshow this Weekend!


JohntenHave <Jtenhave@...>
 

Well Jim,

As OJ once said, "I will have stab at this one"

You get marks for optimism! That said, yours is one of the failed
airframes which has been subsequently repaired. At least half of your
canard spar is sound - so far! Here is the question you should ask,
then answer, Jim.

"What would responsible advice be to someone who had an identical
failure to yours but had yet to detect it?"

In the absence of positive proof to the contrary, there is a real
risk
that there are more of these spars out there. I agree that this is an
issue of uncertainty but that is the nature of the beast.

In no particular order I suggest that the silence (and I agree, it is
deafening)could be due to:

a. the fact I am completely wrong in interpreting two primary
structural failures in a fleet of (how many?) flying airframes as
flight critical safety issues which would ground civilian fleets.
(anyone want to put bet with their life?)

b. Different risk perceptions between engineers and pilots.

c. Lack of understanding of failure consequences.

d. Failure to admit that the Q-200 airframe is not as safe as
previously assumed.

e. The problem is not correctly understood.

f. The SMS*

g. don't give a damn

You make a good point about high hour airframes but let me qualify
it.

500 hrs + may mean that they have inadvertently verified their spars
as sound OR they may not have overloaded their airframes as you have
done and the residual structure may still be holding. It may also be
that their flaws are located in an area closer to the neutral axis
and
therefore the defect is progressing at a slower rate. It may also be
that the failure mechanism in James's airframe differs from yours,
but
that will be cold comfort as a new Q 200 speed record is set in the
vertical.....

What does this mean? It might mean this is just too hard so let's
not
look and maybe it will go away. It might mean that the Q-200 is a
high
risk airframe to fly but owners do not want the face the hard facts.

This can be fixed guys, but before it is fixed the problem needs to
be
acknowledged, defined, the cause verified and repair schemes
developed.

In the meantime it is terribly unwise to overload this airframe, the
faith you place in it is not justified.

Regards

John

* Stunned Mullet Syndrome



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@m...> wrote:

Its kind of interesting that none "not one of the guys" with over
500
hours on the LS1 spar clock have spoken up. What does this mean?

Jim P. Heading for
Watsonville Airshow this Weekend!


Allan <afarr@...>
 

Have there been any similar failures with the GU canard?

Allan F.

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
JohntenHave
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 5:52 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Old Timers



Well Jim,

As OJ once said, "I will have stab at this one"

You get marks for optimism! That said, yours is one of the failed
airframes which has been subsequently repaired. At least half of your
canard spar is sound - so far! Here is the question you should ask,
then answer, Jim.

"What would responsible advice be to someone who had an identical
failure to yours but had yet to detect it?"

In the absence of positive proof to the contrary, there is a real
risk
that there are more of these spars out there. I agree that this is an
issue of uncertainty but that is the nature of the beast.

In no particular order I suggest that the silence (and I agree, it is
deafening)could be due to:

a. the fact I am completely wrong in interpreting two primary
structural failures in a fleet of (how many?) flying airframes as
flight critical safety issues which would ground civilian fleets.
(anyone want to put bet with their life?)

b. Different risk perceptions between engineers and pilots.

c. Lack of understanding of failure consequences.

d. Failure to admit that the Q-200 airframe is not as safe as
previously assumed.

e. The problem is not correctly understood.

f. The SMS*

g. don't give a damn

You make a good point about high hour airframes but let me qualify
it.

500 hrs + may mean that they have inadvertently verified their spars
as sound OR they may not have overloaded their airframes as you have
done and the residual structure may still be holding. It may also be
that their flaws are located in an area closer to the neutral axis
and
therefore the defect is progressing at a slower rate. It may also be
that the failure mechanism in James's airframe differs from yours,
but
that will be cold comfort as a new Q 200 speed record is set in the
vertical.....

What does this mean? It might mean this is just too hard so let's
not
look and maybe it will go away. It might mean that the Q-200 is a
high
risk airframe to fly but owners do not want the face the hard facts.

This can be fixed guys, but before it is fixed the problem needs to
be
acknowledged, defined, the cause verified and repair schemes
developed.

In the meantime it is terribly unwise to overload this airframe, the
faith you place in it is not justified.

Regards

John

* Stunned Mullet Syndrome



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@m...> wrote:

Its kind of interesting that none "not one of the guys" with over
500
hours on the LS1 spar clock have spoken up. What does this mean?

Jim P. Heading for
Watsonville Airshow this Weekend!



Quickie Builders Association WEB site
HYPERLINK "http://www.quickiebuilders.org"http://www.quickiebuilders.org






_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HYPERLINK
"mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe"Q-LIST-unsubscrib
e@...

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005


Larry Severson
 

At 06:10 PM 5/25/2005 +1200, you wrote:
Have there been any similar failures with the GU canard?
Mine broke, but out near the tip. When I went off the runway, one of the
gear went into a depression. Definitely not the same.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Jim Patillo
 

John,

Knock it off with the "optimism" crap and other negative and pompous
remarks you're making to me and others! I'm really getting tired of
it. As I told you in my e-mail stop the sophmoric stuff. Use those
comments somewhere else.

I too believe there may be a problem but with a lot more emperical
data on this airframe/spar than you posess. We pilots flying LS1s'are
living in the environment, you are viewing it from a distance. You
make the coment "at least half of your spar "is sound so far", you
don't know that so don't make that statement.

The point is I didn't "overload" my airframe before I had a failure.
The airframe never saw loads above those published during those
initial hours and I was very sensitive to the loads on my plane, CG
and otherwise during the flight test phases. It's never had a hard
landing or even been sideways on the runway. Since that time several
of us have flown regulary with higher gross weights. Bob Farnam, Bob
Malechek, Phil Lankford with a "K", myself and others. Why haven't
more of those airframes failed?

The QAC/Designer/Engineer "Tom Jewett" died in the crash of Big Bird
on or just before the time of the Q200 so who knows how they came up
with a design load. Gene Sheehan certainly wasn't capable. Knowing
that group at the time, they may have arbitrarily "picked a safe
number" until they had more time to quantify.

I suspect the reason you haven't heard from any "old timers" is they
have been paying attention and checking their spars and don't even
want to enter this kind of exchange with someone who "isn't involved"
directly. Isn't it interesting you are now raising and making a big
deal out of these concerns two years after I made them public. Where
were you then when Bob Farnam and I came up with the fix for the
spar? Where were you when I did the initial flight testing? Where
were you when I wrote the article to alert others to the possible
problem? What has prompted you to come out on this subject again??

That said, You've raised concerns that are valid and people are
listening. For that I thank you. Now if you're so capable come up
with a plan of assessment that is simple and can be done reasonably
easy and I don't mean static loading it til you really do overstress
the frame!

Jim

"JohntenHave" <Jtenhave@m...> wrote:
Well Jim,

As OJ once said, "I will have stab at this one"

You get marks for optimism! That said, yours is one of the failed
airframes which has been subsequently repaired. At least half of
your
canard spar is sound - so far! Here is the question you should
ask,
then answer, Jim.

"What would responsible advice be to someone who had an identical
failure to yours but had yet to detect it?"

In the absence of positive proof to the contrary, there is a real
risk
that there are more of these spars out there. I agree that this is
an
issue of uncertainty but that is the nature of the beast.

In no particular order I suggest that the silence (and I agree, it
is
deafening)could be due to:

a. the fact I am completely wrong in interpreting two primary
structural failures in a fleet of (how many?) flying airframes as
flight critical safety issues which would ground civilian fleets.
(anyone want to put bet with their life?)

b. Different risk perceptions between engineers and pilots.

c. Lack of understanding of failure consequences.

d. Failure to admit that the Q-200 airframe is not as safe as
previously assumed.

e. The problem is not correctly understood.

f. The SMS*

g. don't give a damn

You make a good point about high hour airframes but let me qualify
it.

500 hrs + may mean that they have inadvertently verified their
spars
as sound OR they may not have overloaded their airframes as you
have
done and the residual structure may still be holding. It may also
be
that their flaws are located in an area closer to the neutral axis
and
therefore the defect is progressing at a slower rate. It may also
be
that the failure mechanism in James's airframe differs from yours,
but
that will be cold comfort as a new Q 200 speed record is set in the
vertical.....

What does this mean? It might mean this is just too hard so let's
not
look and maybe it will go away. It might mean that the Q-200 is a
high
risk airframe to fly but owners do not want the face the hard facts.

This can be fixed guys, but before it is fixed the problem needs to
be
acknowledged, defined, the cause verified and repair schemes
developed.

In the meantime it is terribly unwise to overload this airframe,
the
faith you place in it is not justified.

Regards

John

* Stunned Mullet Syndrome



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@m...> wrote:

Its kind of interesting that none "not one of the guys" with over
500
hours on the LS1 spar clock have spoken up. What does this mean?

Jim P. Heading for
Watsonville Airshow this Weekend!


Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
 

Ok, I will. My spars were yellow. I've made many a hard landing with no detectable degradation of the canard.
I calculated that if you load the plane to gross weight the canard has the equivalent of 4G load on it just sitting on the ground. It is being static tested before you start the engine and if it doesn't break on the ground your good to fly. Better land nice tho! Hey, go pick up a Cessna by the wing tips and see what happens...
Mike Q200 1000 hours.



Jim Patillo wrote:

Its kind of interesting that none "not one of the guys" with over 500 hours on the LS1 spar clock have spoken up. What does this mean?
Jim P. Heading for Watsonville Airshow this Weekend!



REBECCA SIMPSON
 

All,

Please forgive as I am new to this and still learning. I did not build but bought a highly modified TW plane that is said to be a combination of DF/Q2/Cessna ? It is a trike with an LS1 so I have been watching all posts on both pages and now have some questions.

1) Has this only happened to LS1 canards ?
2) Has this only been Q200 s ?
3) What is the configuration of the planes with failures (tri or taildraggers) ?
4) Is the over board Muff heat being dumped just infront of the area failing ?

On either this page or the Dfly page there was a recent post regarding paint color and caution based on the foam will deteriate at 180 F so UV relate heat becomes an issue with dark colors. If this failure is on Q200 s that many have the O235 with an operating oil temp around 212 F could there be heat damage occuring to the internal foam thereby weaking the canard interior strength allowing the failure ?

As stated I am new and ignorant on most matters as well as the specifics of the planes that have had failures. Just some questions based on high level knowledge - trying to see if there is a correlation that can be built.

Thanks,
Tad Simpson
N1007P
Still Learning



Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!


HawkiDoug <hawkidoug@...>
 

Some answers for Tad.

The failures are on LS1 tail dragger canards. They have the tubular carbon fiber spar that is failing. It is failing inside the fuselage, so I doubt it is heat related. The GU canard did not have a carbon fiber spar.

Can you take some photo's of you plane and upload them to the photo's area of this list for all to see. Generally we don't put "like a Cessna" in the same sentence with a Q or a DFly. It would be interesting to see what you have.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974

----- Original Message -----
From: "REBECCA SIMPSON" <rebeccaandtad_simpson@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Old Timers


All,

Please forgive as I am new to this and still learning. I did not build but bought a highly modified TW plane that is said to be a combination of DF/Q2/Cessna ? It is a trike with an LS1 so I have been watching all posts on both pages and now have some questions.

1) Has this only happened to LS1 canards ?
2) Has this only been Q200 s ?
3) What is the configuration of the planes with failures (tri or taildraggers) ?
4) Is the over board Muff heat being dumped just infront of the area failing ?

On either this page or the Dfly page there was a recent post regarding paint color and caution based on the foam will deteriate at 180 F so UV relate heat becomes an issue with dark colors. If this failure is on Q200 s that many have the O235 with an operating oil temp around 212 F could there be heat damage occuring to the internal foam thereby weaking the canard interior strength allowing the failure ?

As stated I am new and ignorant on most matters as well as the specifics of the planes that have had failures. Just some questions based on high level knowledge - trying to see if there is a correlation that can be built.

Thanks,
Tad Simpson
N1007P
Still Learning



Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!





Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links






JohntenHave <Jtenhave@...>
 

Tad,

the answers you seek :

--- In Q-LIST@..., REBECCA SIMPSON
<rebeccaandtad_simpson@y...> wrote:
All,

Please forgive as I am new to this and still learning. I did not
build but bought a highly modified TW plane that is said to be a
combination of DF/Q2/Cessna ? It is a trike with an LS1 so I have
been watching all posts on both pages and now have some questions.

1) Has this only happened to LS1 canards ?
Yes, specifically those with carbon tube spars

2) Has this only been Q200 s ?
Yes, so far because with only one exception that has been identified
only Q-200s have carbon tube spars There is a Q1 somewhere and it
is not automatically immune.

3) What is the configuration of the planes with failures (tri or
taildraggers) ?

So far tail draggers, but if defective spars have been built into
tri-Qs there is the possibility of a problem there as well.

4) Is the over board Muff heat being dumped just infront of the
area failing ?

No, heat in front, the spar is towards the rear of the canard.

On either this page or the Dfly page there was a recent post
regarding paint color and caution based on the foam will deteriate
at 180 F so UV relate heat becomes an issue with dark colors. If
this failure is on Q200 s that many have the O235 with an operating
oil temp around 212 F could there be heat damage occuring to the
internal foam thereby weaking the canard interior strength allowing
the failure ?

NO, the foam is not failing, the carbon spar is.

regards

John


Larry Severson
 

3) What is the configuration of the planes with failures (tri or
taildraggers) ?

So far tail draggers, but if defective spars have been built into
tri-Qs there is the possibility of a problem there as well.
There is so much more stress with the gear at the canard tip that failure
of the triQ canard is unlikely.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


REBECCA SIMPSON
 

Doug,
I have added an album to the list photo section named Phoenix N1007P.
Here is a hear say history compiled from POH, Previous owners, general input and located in the limited documentation I have on it. (can't locate the builder)

It was built in 1986 From Modified Dragonfly Plans . Modifications were made to improve safety including LS-1 canard and reflexor from the Q2 aircraft to improve handling in contamination, tricycle gear and extended canard 26' to improve ground handling and wing load while reducing stall speed similar to a Cessna.

That said, I have heard a lot from many people that may know it better than I (some good& some bad - I still have not flown it). The previous owner rebuilt it, flew it once and thought it was pitchy and parted it out.I bought all the parts and reassembled it. Jeff LeTempt is working with me for inspection and test flights. Based on the 9 other planes I looked at before buying this one, I would best describe it as a Dfly with an LS1 on steroids.

Glossy print from POH:
Empty weight 1,015
Gross 1,500
Powerplant C90-12F
Prop Sens 60-64
Configuration Tricycle Gear
Fuel 100 LL (2 - 10 gal wing tanks 19.2 usable)
Load Config +3.5 G -1.5G
Va 110
VNE 180
Vr 75
Vx 87
Vy 97
Vno 160
Vc 145
Vbl 135
Vb2 110
Vs 55 (Also states test flight stall was 50 - 52 mph)
consumption 5,6 gph
cross wind component 22 mph
take off roll 1,050
landing roll 700
Wingspan 26'
Chord 38"

From those that have flown it, I have heard things like
"Just like a Grumman AA-1-A"
"Just like a 172"
"Like a 150/152"
I don't think there is a huge difference from other TW in the big picture of things - just seems like a larger tri-gear LS-1.

Cheers,
Tad Simpson
Phoenix N1007P KDEC
Hope to be flying this weekend


HawkiDoug <hawkidoug@...> wrote:
Some answers for Tad.

The failures are on LS1 tail dragger canards. They have the tubular carbon
fiber spar that is failing. It is failing inside the fuselage, so I doubt it
is heat related. The GU canard did not have a carbon fiber spar.

Can you take some photo's of you plane and upload them to the photo's area
of this list for all to see. Generally we don't put "like a Cessna" in the
same sentence with a Q or a DFly. It would be interesting to see what you
have.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974

----- Original Message -----
From: "REBECCA SIMPSON" <rebeccaandtad_simpson@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Old Timers


All,

Please forgive as I am new to this and still learning. I did not build but
bought a highly modified TW plane that is said to be a combination of
DF/Q2/Cessna ? It is a trike with an LS1 so I have been watching all posts
on both pages and now have some questions.

1) Has this only happened to LS1 canards ?
2) Has this only been Q200 s ?
3) What is the configuration of the planes with failures (tri or
taildraggers) ?
4) Is the over board Muff heat being dumped just infront of the area
failing ?

On either this page or the Dfly page there was a recent post regarding
paint color and caution based on the foam will deteriate at 180 F so UV
relate heat becomes an issue with dark colors. If this failure is on Q200
s that many have the O235 with an operating oil temp around 212 F could
there be heat damage occuring to the internal foam thereby weaking the
canard interior strength allowing the failure ?

As stated I am new and ignorant on most matters as well as the specifics
of the planes that have had failures. Just some questions based on high
level knowledge - trying to see if there is a correlation that can be
built.

Thanks,
Tad Simpson
N1007P
Still Learning



Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!






Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links







Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!


HawkiDoug <hawkidoug@...>
 

Looks and sounds like an interesting bird. If you are working with Jeff L., you are in good hands. Hope to see you and the plane at at fly-in some time.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974

----- Original Message -----
From: "REBECCA SIMPSON" <rebeccaandtad_simpson@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Old Timers


Doug,
I have added an album to the list photo section named Phoenix N1007P.
Here is a hear say history compiled from POH, Previous owners, general input and located in the limited documentation I have on it. (can't locate the builder)

It was built in 1986 From Modified Dragonfly Plans . Modifications were made to improve safety including LS-1 canard and reflexor from the Q2 aircraft to improve handling in contamination, tricycle gear and extended canard 26' to improve ground handling and wing load while reducing stall speed similar to a Cessna.

That said, I have heard a lot from many people that may know it better than I (some good& some bad - I still have not flown it). The previous owner rebuilt it, flew it once and thought it was pitchy and parted it out.I bought all the parts and reassembled it. Jeff LeTempt is working with me for inspection and test flights. Based on the 9 other planes I looked at before buying this one, I would best describe it as a Dfly with an LS1 on steroids.

Glossy print from POH:
Empty weight 1,015
Gross 1,500
Powerplant C90-12F
Prop Sens 60-64
Configuration Tricycle Gear
Fuel 100 LL (2 - 10 gal wing tanks 19.2 usable)
Load Config +3.5 G -1.5G
Va 110
VNE 180
Vr 75
Vx 87
Vy 97
Vno 160
Vc 145
Vbl 135
Vb2 110
Vs 55 (Also states test flight stall was 50 - 52 mph)
consumption 5,6 gph
cross wind component 22 mph
take off roll 1,050
landing roll 700
Wingspan 26'
Chord 38"

From those that have flown it, I have heard things like
"Just like a Grumman AA-1-A"
"Just like a 172"
"Like a 150/152"
I don't think there is a huge difference from other TW in the big picture of things - just seems like a larger tri-gear LS-1.

Cheers,
Tad Simpson
Phoenix N1007P KDEC
Hope to be flying this weekend


HawkiDoug <hawkidoug@...> wrote:
Some answers for Tad.

The failures are on LS1 tail dragger canards. They have the tubular carbon
fiber spar that is failing. It is failing inside the fuselage, so I doubt it
is heat related. The GU canard did not have a carbon fiber spar.

Can you take some photo's of you plane and upload them to the photo's area
of this list for all to see. Generally we don't put "like a Cessna" in the
same sentence with a Q or a DFly. It would be interesting to see what you
have.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: "REBECCA SIMPSON" <rebeccaandtad_simpson@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Old Timers


All,

Please forgive as I am new to this and still learning. I did not build but
bought a highly modified TW plane that is said to be a combination of
DF/Q2/Cessna ? It is a trike with an LS1 so I have been watching all posts
on both pages and now have some questions.

1) Has this only happened to LS1 canards ?
2) Has this only been Q200 s ?
3) What is the configuration of the planes with failures (tri or
taildraggers) ?
4) Is the over board Muff heat being dumped just infront of the area
failing ?

On either this page or the Dfly page there was a recent post regarding
paint color and caution based on the foam will deteriate at 180 F so UV
relate heat becomes an issue with dark colors. If this failure is on Q200
s that many have the O235 with an operating oil temp around 212 F could
there be heat damage occuring to the internal foam thereby weaking the
canard interior strength allowing the failure ?

As stated I am new and ignorant on most matters as well as the specifics
of the planes that have had failures. Just some questions based on high
level knowledge - trying to see if there is a correlation that can be
built.

Thanks,
Tad Simpson
N1007P
Still Learning



Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!





Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links







Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!





Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links