From: mfacchinelli@sogei.it Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:25:57 +0100 Subject: COZY: Infinity Retractable Main Landing Gear Canardians, I?m strongly attracted by the Infinity Retractable Main Landing Gear?. What do you think about a Cosy Classic with a total retractable landing gears ?? Can somebody tell me something about this device? Any opinion is wellcome !! Massimo Bonicelli COSY CLASSIC Italy From: "Hugh Farrior" Subject: Re: COZY: Infinity Retractable Main Landing Gear Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:25:23 -0500 I RESEARCHED THIS EXTENSIVELY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. I CONCLUDED TO BEEF UP THE SPAR AREAS TO SUPPORT A FUTURE RETROFIT IF ALL WENT WELL IN PRACTICAL USE AND MONEY WAS NO FACTOR. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 5:25 AM Subject: COZY: Infinity Retractable Main Landing Gear > Canardians, > I?m strongly attracted by the Infinity Retractable Main Landing Gear?. > What do you think about a Cosy Classic with a total retractable landing > gears ?? > Can somebody tell me something about this device? > Any opinion is wellcome !! > > Massimo Bonicelli > COSY CLASSIC > Italy > > > From: "Henry Micheliche" Subject: COZY: Retractable Gear Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 19:26:53 GMT Fellow Canardians; For those of you considering installation of a retractable gear system, I would suggest careful consideration of the following. First, money considerations do not end with the initial purchase of your gear kit. I suggest contacting your insurance company first, and obtaining a quote, as to how the rates will be applied to you. These rates will be based on your total pilot experiance, retractable gear time, and your pilot rating. You will be living with these rates for as long as you own the aircraft. Second, I agree that aesthetically, it has appealing looks,for photography and fly by's. But if you're looking for the extra speed, Nat's research shows only a 5 to 7 mph increase. Third, anything mechanical lives with the fact that it,s only a matter of time before failure. Lets hope that when it does, it does so in the gear down mode. Fourth, in the event of an off field arrival, a retractable gear aircraft is subect to more and extensive damage than a fixed gear configuration. Fifth, during your annual, you will probably want to inspect the system against specs. Will you be able to jack it up for that? As someone said, a fixed gear is already fixed. IMO, I would leave it that way. Mitch ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From: "Bruce McElhoe" Subject: Re: COZY: Retractable Gear Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:46:48 -0800 Brian, I understand there have been several successful water landings in fixed-gear EZs. The airplanes remained upright and floated. (The landing gear and the canard were broken.) I feel that ditchings are very survivable. In fact, I would prefer to attempt a forced landing in a lake, rather than rough terrain or forest. Bruce McElhoe Long-EZ N64MC Reedley, California ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cozy Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:13 AM Subject: Fw: COZY: Retractable Gear > I think that this is a very one sided view. See below. > > Thanks & Regards > Brian Dempster > > > What about a water landing. Who ever saw a fixed gear stay up right on a > force water landing. (Stalls don't count.) > Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:23:55 -0500 From: Jeff Russell Subject: Re: COZY: Retractable Main Landing Gear mfacchinelli@sogei.it wrote: > > Canardians, > I?m strongly attracted by the Infinity Retractable Main Landing Gear?. > What do you think about a Cosy Classic with a total retractable landing > gears ?? > Can somebody tell me something about this device? > Any opinion is wellcome !! Massimo, An AeroCanard installed the Infinity gear about 5 years ago. I questioned the customer about how that installation went and how it might have changed the flight characteristics of the airplane. It was told to me from a pilot that flew this airplane with the owner (he has flown many canard pushers, Longs, Cozys and Velocitys) This is what he said about the aircraft after on a demo flight. 1) Both the wings were changing angle of attack in flight. The end of the strake was beefed up with glass to stop this. A 2nd owner/flyer of a modified MKIV with the Infinity gear called me during his first few test flights. He stated that his wings were also changing angle in the air and wanted to know what the other guy did to fix his wing problem. He called the guy and fix it the same way. 2) With 2 people in the front seat, the canard and main wing would try to fly about the same time and the main wing would lift the gear giving the aircraft a negative angle and the aircraft did not want to rotate until 100+ MPH. The fix was to bounce the nose strut to start the canard flying. Both the builder and experienced canard pilot tried adjusting the pressure in the oleo struts to stop this problem of the gear extending on take off roll. They could not correct this problem and the builder just bounced the nose strut for the CG issue. This might not be a problem on a tandem canard. 3) Max cross wind landing went to about 12 knots direct said the experienced pilot. He said when the gear was out that the rudder effect was tremendous at 11.5 feet apart. The pilot said he could handle about 17-19 direct crosswind with other 4 place canards he had flown. 4) The pilot and builder said that the airplane did not want to clime out on takeoff with the gear extended very good. It was told to me that the aircraft could clime about 500-700 FPM with the gear out and 1000-1500 FPM with the gear in. They said it must be the drag of the gear that made the difference. The Velocity aircraft he has flown only had about 300-400 less FPM with the gear out. 5) The CO2 blow down system to make the gear go down if the electronics won't work made me question about what if? a hydraulic line failed or fitting and you lose your fluid and air will not make pressure. This gear had to have pressure to come down and lock into place over center. The Velocity gear can dump the pressure and the gear falls down and should lock in place with a spring if working correctly. The latter seems to be more fail safe? 6) The weight of the gear seems to be about the same as a fix gear until you install it. The beef ups in the strakes, main spar, pump, gear box in the strakes and gear doors seem to add quite a bit of weight to the aircraft. The Velocitys that I have looked at and recorded the empty weight, the RG's are always 100 pounds heavier than the fixed gear aircraft. The real way of knowing would be to take a flying fix gear and rebuild it using the RG system and then re-weigh it. My opinion is that anything that makes your airplane heavier than the design weight could make it fly worse than before. The heavier the aircraft is flown the less survivable a crash could become. Wing loading can become a killer. The Berkut is a smaller 2 place with a 180 HP, smaller wings out of carbon fiber should weigh much less than a 4 place canard. We help a person build one a few years ago and the empty weight was 60 lbs less than our 4 place AeroCanard with a 30 pound heavier engine. The Berkut is also a RG aircraft. That airplane was built to specs. Pat Young's 4 place canard aircraft that locked into a main wing stall and fell 6000 feet, did not bust the fuselage, gear box or the fuel strakes apart. The gear broke in half springing up about 6-8 inches up the sides of the fuselage. Pat thinks that the gear taking most of the shock is what save him and the airplane from braking apart. That airplane now has over 150 hours flight time after the crash on solid granite. With a gear that is attached to the fuel tank assembly, this might not have been a pretty picture if the tanks opened up. Disclaimer: I am not saying that the Infinity gear has problems or is inferior to another designs. I welcome JD and the Swings to chime in and discuss their opinions about the RG systems that they sell. The builder of the AeroCanard did not give me much to go on about the aircraft in general. The pilot that flew with him gave me most of the info and I respect his views. -- Jeff From: extensionsystems@mindspring.com Subject: Fw: COZY: Retractable Gear Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 19:13:52 -0000 I think that this is a very one sided view. See below. Thanks & Regards Brian Dempster brian@CheapAirParts.com -----Original Message----- From: Henry Micheliche To: cozy_builders@canard.com Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 7:32 PM Subject: COZY: Retractable Gear >Fellow Canardians; > For those of you considering installation of a retractable gear system, I >would suggest careful consideration of the following. > First, money considerations do not end with the initial purchase of your >gear kit. I suggest contacting your insurance company first, and obtaining a >quote, as to how the rates will be applied to you. These rates will be based >on your total pilot experiance, retractable gear time, and your pilot >rating. You will be living with these rates for as long as you own the >aircraft. I thought that the cozy was already a retractable gear aircraft. If what you says holds up, a tail drager with retractable mains is still a fixed gear. But then some do retract the tail. > Second, I agree that aesthetically, it has appealing looks,for >photography and fly by's. But if you're looking for the extra speed, Nat's >research shows only a 5 to 7 mph increase. Nat has built a fine aircraft but some of us would really like to save 28 min. on a 4 hour flight. > Third, anything mechanical lives with the fact that it,s only a matter of >time before failure. Lets hope that when it does, it does so in the gear >down mode. Lets hope the nose gear goes down also. > Fourth, in the event of an off field arrival, a retractable gear aircraft >is subect to more and extensive damage than a fixed gear configuration. In a real off field, that is like most off fields, like corn fields you would be far better of with the all up and belly in. First thing that happens is the gear digs in and you are on your back. What about a water landing. Who ever saw a fixed gear stay up right on a force water landing. (Stalls don't count.) > Fifth, during your annual, you will probably want to inspect the system >against specs. Will you be able to jack it up for that? I just can't think of a kind way to address the subject of jacking, except to say a person that builds an aircraft sure could find a way to get it up for a gear swing. (I am trying to be kind on this one.) > As someone said, a fixed gear is already fixed. IMO, I would leave it >that way. (I don't doubt that.) >Mitch > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:07:25 -0500 From: Blake Mantel Subject: Re: COZY: Retractable Gear Bruce McElhoe wrote: > Brian, > > I understand there have been several successful water landings in fixed-gear > EZs. The airplanes remained upright and floated. (The landing gear and the > canard were broken.) It was related to me that in water ditichings the nosewheel cover functions like a mini water-ski and keeps the nose up. In the soft stuff (dirt) the standard bird is unfortunately a bit of a pig, but that is a tradeoff for good load capacity, ruggedness, and simplicity of form and function. Blake Cozy MkIV Plans #0008 -- CUM CATAPULTAE PROSCRIPTAE ERUNT TUM SOLI PROSCRIPTI CATAPULTAS HABEBUNT. (When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults....) Triumph Tiger Motorcycle page at: http://www.tiac.net/users/blakem/ My Email address is altered due to the prevalence of bulk Email senders. To send me mail remove the two *'s before the TIAC.NET. Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:48:33 -0500 Subject: COZY: Re Retractable Main Landing Gear From: "Paul Comte" Builders, I am sure this retractable main landing gear issue was flogged plenty in previous posts. In those posts didn't see anything unusual about a designer strongly suggesting his design be executed as the plans state. Likewise those who want to experiment were suggesting they will carefully follow their course. That is fine and good. However, a recent post in this thread was not on that line. It does seem unusual to hear conclusions drawn and blanket comments made about any product used in another canard aircraft when those aircraft were constructed to different design criteria and with unknown quality control. Another AC mentioned was clearly experimental and quite a way from the "cozy breed". I can't see how the flying qualities of any of the "non Standard" aircraft mentioned could be used to judge ANY of the specific modifications. To even be close to an accurate assessment of the effects of one modification, a base aircraft used for testing would need to be thoroughly measured and documented. To my knowledge non of the AC mentioned in that post were representative of the standard Cozy construction modified only with the retractable gear also mentioned in that post. Basic physics like CG, canard span & incidence, elevator travel & slot complexion, main wing and spar construction are for the most part non-negotiable in our aircraft. They are kind of a matched set... Folks who depart from that set become Aircraft Engineers and Designers, reluctant or not. There are some who qualify for that rare breed on this list and my hat is off to them. Go for it guys... A canard aircraft shouldn't be considered a "stock" aircraft unless documented to be such. Until then, I think it is better judgement to NOT draw conclusions on any specific component, i.e. retractable gear... Paul Comte Milwaukee, WI Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:02:18 -0500 From: Jeff Russell Subject: COZY: Re: Retract insurance... > Henry Micheliche wrote: > First, money considerations do not end with the initial purchase > of your gear kit. I suggest contacting your insurance company first, > and obtaining a quote, as to how the rates will be applied to you. A person I asked called Avemco to asked about insuring a Cozy with main retracts installed. This was the response from Avemco today. ................................ Of the Cozy guys applying for insurance for retract main gear, about 50% get rejected. If Avemco does approve the pilot, the cost is about 10% more than with fixed main gear. ................................ So....... total time in type might apply total time in a fully retractable might apply total overall time could also be questioned The nose gear retracting could have less bearing to the insurance company on accidents than with the main gears. Normally, very little gets damaged if forgotten, if it fails or you can't get it down. A good side to retracts..... I will say that retracting the mains gives better roll rate with out swinging a fix gear in a roll. This is what I have seen when flying both types in canard aircraft. hope that helps with your questions Henry -- Jeff Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 21:33:37 -0800 From: "J. D. Newman" Subject: COZY: re: Retractable Main Landing Gear Hi Gang, Sorry I'm a little late with my response. I've been EXTREMELY busy; AND, Patty and I recently tied the knot. Also, this response is a little long, but the subject did get dragged out. I feel I should respond to inaccurate statements with the facts and the truth since these posts end up in the archives, so I believe it is still necessary to respond no matter how old the subject matter, since this post answers concerns caused for builders. > Jeff Russell wrote: > JD and to all, > my apology and retraction of any misinformation that has been taken > on this subject of retractable main gear. Noowww, this is where you should have stopped. After reading this piece of . . . work you wrote, and the others, I realized I had seen this before: when Clinton shook his finger at the American public, and during his sworn testimony, that he never had sexual relations with Lewinsky! > I posted a disclaimer that this information was second hand info from three > people and two different 4 place canard aircraft flying. If anything you have to say is 2nd hand and hearsay at best, then why bother posting anything in the first place?!? > No where did I finger point that JD sells a bad product or that the gear was > a bad product. Yes you did. > I only wanted to point out that there has been noted changes from the use of > this RG system. True - all good changes. See my list on my web site. > I hoped we could discuss the good, bad or the ugly on this form . . . But there's nothing to discuss that has not already been discussed many times before. > . . . with out getting personal attacks involved. *I* didn't. > Lets not do that on either end. This was not my intent :-) That's not what the consensus is. >> You've stated several times before and after the Stiletto RG flew that, >> 'but if you did install main retracts on your aircraft, and where to offer >> retracts for your AeroCanard, that it would *only* be my main retracts for >> they are the best on the market "bar none"' > Not true, never have I stated that you gear or any other RG system is the > best gear out there. Now we're getting into 'I said, she said'; and while I don't care what you said, but yes, you did (documented). > Do you have any documents to show this statement to be otherwise. I am really not concerned with what you remember (incorrectly), but it seems to be a big deal to you. I will clarify what I mean by documented: when I say "documented", I mean transcripts and/or pictures and/or witnesses, or I would *never* say something was said by anyone, particularly for the whole world to see, and definitely not 3rd hand hearsay, unless I could back it up. > Only water landings (my opinion) would be safer in a ditching type landing. Yeap. And all the other reasons listed on my web site. > I recall you tried to send AeroCad a commission check for the gear that was > used on the AeroCanard kit in question. This check was promptly returned and > a note was included saying we did not approve your gear setup. True, but your note only says it was not necessary to send a commission check, which is the same thing you said on the phone when I told you I was going to send you a commission check. You also said on the phone you were glad to help, and that's why a commission check was not necessary, but I sent it any way. Your note says *NOTHING* about you 'not approving of my gear setup'! >> But you illegally, immorally and unethically use pics of the Stiletto Rg that has *MY* main retracts in your ads and literature! > How did you figure that? I have permission to use the pictures > of that aircraft for our ads and literature. What is illegally, > immorally and unethical about using a picture of one of our kits > flying that you can not see any landing gear. It doesn't matter that the owner gave you permission to use any of his pictures in your ads. Your AeroCanard RG ad for the last 4+ years, which is marketing your plane with Velocity main retracts, is actually the Stiletto RG with MY main retracts. You never asked for, nor did I ever give you, this permission. You are a business man - you are aware of this protocol. You do *NOT* have my permission to use any picture of any airplane with my main landing gear as your airplane with your main landing gear, whether you can see the landing gear or not. You are profiting from someone else's very hard work and expense. If my Infinity 1 retractable main landing gear did not exist, these pictures you are using would not exist, and you wouldn't be able to market your AeroCanard RG. This is totally wrong thinking and wrong actions on your part (besides being illegal). Also, it is really bad form (f & d) of you to use any picture as a picture of your retract plane when it is NOT your plane and NOT your main retracts when you haven't even built a version of your aircraft with *any* main retracts. So, as I said, in order for you to use these pictures in your ads you need my permission. You should first build and fly a prototype of your aircraft with anyone's retract system. Take photos of it. Use these photos in your ads. This is legal and ethical. >> Do you inform your customers that those beautiful pics of the >> main gear UP on that AeroCanard aircraft are of *MY* main gear and >> NOT of an AeroCanard with Velocity main retracts? > In our info packs and website, we say that we sell a Velocity gear. > We tell any one the difference if they ask because we have seen what > is on the market. This is like listening to Clinton. So your answer is - NO. >> Isn't this one of the many reasons Nat was upset with you a couple years >> ago for this practice of illegally, immorally and unethically publishing >> items and misinformation to benefit you at the expense of others?!? To >> continue . . . > How would you know what issues were true and false without having all the > facts from both sides. Those issues are behind us and we are moving on. LOL *YOU* sent me everything, remember?!? So did others. Yes, we all hope those issues are behind you two. >> Why it changed incidence in flight in the beginning: as you well know, >> this AeroCanard aircraft in question was built by a team of people the >> owner hired to quickly throw the plane together (built in ~9 months. >> It's a great story of a few details of what NOT to do. People were hired >> and fired at the drop of a hat. No documentation was done by any >> employee concerning what he had accomplished. So when he was fired, >> there was no continuity - no one knew where he left off. > Not true again, The builder only hired one person that helped with > most of the building. Even my wife and I helped on a 3 day weekend > with the project. He had a few friends that had built EZ type airplanes > come and help over the weekends. They were not hired and no one was > fired. More of 'I said, she said' . . . Nice try. We are all builders here. We all know that one hired person and the owner cannot complete an aircraft such as this one in 9 months, even if a few helpers stop by to help a couple times. The fact is, the owner told me he hired 5 to as many as 9 (I think) guys to help him build his aircraft in 9 months. As I said before, these hired guns came and went. In fact, when I was in his shop once, there were at least 5 hired guns there working. I can name 3 of them. > When the builder installed the gear, he had only a video tape showing a > little info . . . The video is over 3 hours long! Too bad he didn't watch it all. I think one of his first workers did. > . . .and had no written instructions that you now give with the gear. Again, the facts do not bear out your statement. And I told you the history/story before. Did you forget?? As I said, the owner told me (transcripts) he had set the plans aside and forgot about them for a while never reading them, at least not until they were nearly finished with the installation. He admitted to not following the hydraulic print twice, and the electrical schematic three times. > I have seen your new instructions and they look good. New?!? They've been out for years, but thanks. > I wish he had a set when he installed his gear. He did. > There is also no plans for a bulkhead in the end of the strakes. There is in my Main Retract Installation Manual, which I thought you said you read? > Please give the quantity of airplanes converted and the increase of > weight and other results. These should be flying airplanes. I only > know of 2 airplanes still flying with your gear. Are there more? See web site for all your answers. >> Also, our retracts are *aft* of the fuel tank, and are NOT attached to the fuel tank. > The main spar looks for twisting strength from the strakes. > Both the spar and strake become needed for the total outcome > of strength. The retracts are tied to the end of the main spar > that is tied to the end of the strakes. 100% incorrect. You read the installation manual yet do not know where the gear is attached? Also, see Phil Johnson's post, and my web site. > Please give any facts that you have. LOL That's all I've ever done. I don't talk about hearsay from 3rd parties to the world either. > JD, where is your aircraft that you demo your gear on? There are 8 that have flown. > How can you show facts without a proof of concept design? Proof of concept was done 9.5 years ago. Speaking of proof of concept, where is your AeroCanard RG that you built with Velocity main retracts for your ads you've been using the past 4+ years? > I am not saying that your gear design has done that. Yes you did. > I just think we should talk about what modifications could do. Already done many times, and see my web site for all your answers. I hope this answers your concerns again, and any concerns you might have caused builders again. So like I said before, lets get back to building. No one has time for any of this. Infinity's Forever, EAA Nat'l & LCL Member EAA Technical Counselor JD EAA Flight Advisor AOPA Member Test Pilot James D. Newman, Pres/CEO/CFO SOTW, OJAAT LCDR F-14 USNR Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 06:13:40 -0500 From: Jeff Russell Subject: COZY: Re: Retract Mains "J. D. Newman" wrote: > > I hoped we could discuss the good, bad or the ugly on this form . . . > > But there's nothing to discuss that has not already been discussed many > times before. JD, this is a discussion group. This is what it does, discuss tasks, questions and modifications. I do not think any of us know what totally know what ramifications will happen to any given modification. This modification could be AC, or BRS as so forth. That's why we discuss. I am sorry if you do not like people discussing your product on what changes it "might" make to their airplane. > > I have seen your new instructions and they look good. > There is in my Main Retract Installation Manual, which I thought you > said you read? I never said that I read them, just looked :-) I have told the group of what I have seen, heard and know, that's all, and that's all it's worth. Flame away -- Jeff Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 18:22:39 -0800 From: "J. D. Newman" Subject: COZY: Re: Retract Mains Hi Jeff, >>> I hoped we could discuss the good, bad or the ugly on this form . . . >> But there's nothing to discuss that has not already been discussed many times before. > JD, this is a discussion group. This is what it does, discuss tasks, questions and modifications. I don't know who you are lecturing, or who you think you are talking to (obviously not me), but we all well know this is a "discussion group". And . . . you missed *my* point(s). Also, the gang is probably very tired of some of the same old subjects being beat to death for the umpteenth time - it's all (should be) in the archive's; and it's well covered on my web site, and in my info pack and video. I'll wager their 'Delete' key is almost broken from seeing 'Retracts' in the subject line again; the topic has been flogged so much - I'll even bet few are bothering to read this non building banter. > I do not think any of us know what totally know what ramifications will happen to any given modification. *I* well know the total ramifications of installing our simple improvement yet tremendously beneficial main retract system; and so do the 8 builders that are already flying, and so do those about ready to fly, and so do the multitudes of builders who are installing our main retracts, and the hundreds who are going to. > This modification could be AC, or BRS as so forth. Yes, I hope someone figures out how to have a good light weight AC for us'n canards someday - I'm interested. The thread has been very interesting to me for I know minus zero about AC. I'm hoping it will be easy to someday install AC in my plane cause I'm using a Subaru. Concerning a BRS, I do have one planned - would be cheap insurance. But since my glide ratio is 17.5:1, and the average distance between airports in America is ~15 miles (except in mountainous areas), and I can glide 33+ miles from 10K feet AGL, and these new fangled GPS's have an Emergency button immediately directing you to the 5 closest airports, I don't know if I will ever install and test it. But *IF* one where to ever have a midair, or come down in a mountainous or heavily wooded area, I will probably wish I had that BRS installed. Something that hasn't been brought up before covering a fews' concern over their inevitability in their minds of eventually forgetting to lower their nose strut (see my web site and Al Wick's post concerning that): if the mains were retracted too, the pilot would not be able to slow down enough from the perch (the 180 - abeam the numbers) to base leg to final to land cause your plane would be soooo sleek. This would be a *HUGE* warning to the pilot that s/he missed something - like a base ball bat hitting you between the eyes. No warning system would probably be needed (no, I'm not advocating to not have a warning system) -- not being able to slow down to land because the gear (all 3) is still up would be the warning. > That's why we discuss. Again, I don't know who you are talking too, but I well know why we discuss, and the value of it. What you've been writing is not a productive discussion - in fact, it's been something else and not a discussion at all. > I am sorry if you do not like people discussing your product on what changes it "might" make to their airplane. You're missing my point again. And ohhhhh, I have no problem with a good logical discussion; and if there are ANY questions about main retracts not already covered, I welcome the discussion. It's the "other" *stuff* you wrote that's got everyone's panty's in a twist. > Flame away I don't do that :-) . This is a "discussion" :-)) . Your posts lately are NOT of the good 'ol buddy, friendly, positive, home builder Jeff Russell of yore that we had all come to respect. I don't know what you're going through to cause all this, but we still wish you well, and a Merry Christmas and a Happy (INFINITY) New Year :-). Infinity's Forever, EAA Nat'l & LCL Member EAA Technical Counselor JD EAA Flight Advisor AOPA Member Test Pilot James D. Newman, Pres/CEO/CFO SOTW, OJAAT LCDR F-14 USNR ******************************************************* INFINITY Aerospace Mailing Address: P. O. Box 12275 El Cajon, CA 92022 Shipping Address: 1750 Joe Crosson Drive, D-2 El Cajon, CA 92020 (619) 448-5103 PH & FAX http://www.flash.net/~infaero