X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:04:55 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com ([24.93.47.43] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.7) with ESMTP id 962982 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:35:02 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.93.47.43; envelope-from=jn@elp.rr.com Received: from [192.168.0.100] (cpe-24-28-190-166.elp.res.rr.com [24.28.190.166]) by ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id k114YA9C027227; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:34:10 -0600 (CST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed X-Original-Message-Id: <7AC7B2AC-EDEF-444A-A911-149E6C3302A3@elp.rr.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Joseph Neustein, MD" Subject: static wicks X-Original-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:34:13 -0700 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine I reviewed the archives on static wick discussion and could find nothing since January 2005. I would be most interested to hear how it is working out with those who elected not to install static wicks (especially in the carbon fuselage since I am building an ES-P) or from builders who feel strongly that they are a necessity. Joe Neustein N36YZ reserved ES-P (gathering dust waiting for an engine, avionics panel and Robert Simons's Leading Edge Landing light lenses) Joseph Neustein, MD 10201 Gateway West Suite #201 El Paso, Texas 79925 915-595-2700 office 915-591-1012 fax 915-276-8316 mobile jn@elp.rr.com