---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 11/15/08: 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 08:37 AM - Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. (JetPilot) 2. 10:17 AM - Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. (Lowell Fitt) 3. 11:04 AM - Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. (akflyer) 4. 11:16 AM - Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. (fox5flyer) 5. 12:52 PM - Kitfox for sale (Herbert Doud) 6. 02:14 PM - Re: Kitfox for sale (darinh) 7. 02:33 PM - Re: Kitfox for sale (JetPilot) 8. 03:10 PM - Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. (Paul A. Franz, P.E.) 9. 04:37 PM - Re: Re: Performance mods for 582. (Noel Loveys) 10. 08:03 PM - Re: Performance mods for 582. (Noel Loveys) 11. 11:29 PM - Re: Kitfox for sale (Michel Verheughe) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 08:37:57 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. From: "JetPilot" A 2 stroke engine is much more likely to suddenly fail than a 4 stroke, this is FACT, not opinion. There are always cases where guys have been able to make a 2 stroke engine work for many hours... There are even guys that have done extraordinary trips with 2 strokes, but this does not change the FACTS or the REALITY that 2 strokes are much more likely to suddenly fail in flight than a 4 stroke. In theory the 2 stroke engine is very simple, but it has a fatal flaw, the 2 stroke engine requires PERFECT delivery of the fuel air mixture to not overheat in seize. In an airplane, as in most applications, life happens, and sooner or later the mixture will not be laboratory perfect for a few moments and the engine suddenly seizes up. Then there are the additional issues of Cold Seizure, rings sticking, exhaust failures, and others... So if you think you can make a 2 stroke engine work under laboratory perfect conditions for 1000 hours, then maybe you will be successful with a 2 stroke engine. But most people are not...... Why do you think that NO certified airplane has been made with a 2 stroke engine for the last 50 years ? In the past fuel was cheap, and 2 stroke engines were lighter, but NO manufacture would sell a plane with an unreliable 2 stroke engine. Even small dirt bikes are now being sold with 4 stroke engines now. For manufacturers, and those that know how to separate FACTS from opinion, 4 stroke engines are the the clear choice, by about 100 %... It is pretty rare to get 100 percent consensus on anything, but manufacturers have unanimously chosen 4 stroke engines for planes, cars, and now for even the smallest and lightest applications. This FACT should be enough evidence to clue most people in that 2 stroke engines are problematic. I fly both a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke engine, but I believe in being honest and giving the best advice to others possible. The 2 stroke Rotax was the only choice available for a 103 legal ultralight, so that choice is already made for me... For my larger plane, I worked overtime and did without a couple other of things ( new car ) to buy a Rotax 912-S. There is no way I was going to fly with my friends and family behind a 2 stroke engine in my Kitfox. Who out there would buy a new car with a 2 stroke engine ??? But then the same people ask if they should put a two stroke engine on their Kitfox, it is enough to boggle the mind... For a person to give bad advice to others just because he has been able to make a 2 stroke work without a failure is nothing short of a disservice. In the end, I would and do fly behind both a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke, but I never forget the fact that the 2 stroke engine is much more likely to suddenly fail at the worst possible time and get me hurt... To top it off, if you do the numbers, with fuel usage and overhauls, the more reliable 4 stroke is actually CHEAPER in the long run than the 2 stroke. That makes this choice a no brainier.... Mike -------- "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!! Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214361#214361 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 10:17:27 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. (Snip) Even small dirt bikes are now being sold with 4 stroke engines now. For manufacturers, and those that know how to separate FACTS from opinion, 4 stroke engines are the the clear choice, by about 100 %... (Snip) Come on Mike, It is largely the EPA that is mandating the replacement of 2 stroke engines with the 4 strokes. It is burning oil that they don't like. Lake Tahoe and other lakes have banned 2 sroke engines, not because they are tired of rescuing folks stranded by engine failures, but they don't like the oil slicks on the water. String trimmers, chain saws etc. It is not the reliability, it is the smoke. I don't mind discussion, but when the evidence is clearly edited, I steam a bit. Lowell ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 11:04:16 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. From: "akflyer" JetPilot wrote: > The 2 stroke Rotax was the only choice available for a 103 legal ultralight, so that choice is already made for me... > Mike Me thinks this is a wee bit of an untrue statement. Rotax is NOT the only 2 stroke aircraft engine manufacture. I wont even touch the rest of it. -------- DO NOT ARCHIVE Leonard Perry Soldotna AK Avid "C" / Mk IV 582 IVO IFA Full Lotus 1260 As done as any plane will ever be.... cause now the tinkeritis takes over. hander outer of humorless darwin awards Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214374#214374 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:16:23 AM PST US From: "fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. This well written oratory below is a classic case of drawing a wide blurry line midway between fact and opinion with absolutely no objective data included to back any of it up. In my opinion, and the FACT that before I sold it I put nearly 400 mostly trouble free hours on a Kitfox II/582 with the only problem being a cracked flywheel which had nothing to do with it being a 2 stroke, the only meaningful difference between the 582 and 912x is how much money do you want to spend! Very big difference. Sure, the 582 in the same airplane doesn't go as fast nor carry the same load as a 912x, but it also has the disadvantage of much less horse power and torque. Sure, it takes a little bit of tinkering, but not much. Not everyone has the deep pockets to drop in the 912, which I'm sure, anyone would prefer over the 582 if the money were not an issue. Without the 582 I'm sure there would be far fewer people out there flying experimentals and ultralights. Deke Morisse Mikado Michigan S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert ----- Original Message ----- From: "JetPilot" Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:37 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. > > A 2 stroke engine is much more likely to suddenly fail than a 4 stroke, > this is FACT, not opinion. There are always cases where guys have been > able to make a 2 stroke engine work for many hours... There are even guys > that have done extraordinary trips with 2 strokes, but this does not > change the FACTS or the REALITY that 2 strokes are much more likely to > suddenly fail in flight than a 4 stroke. In theory the 2 stroke engine is > very simple, but it has a fatal flaw, the 2 stroke engine requires PERFECT > delivery of the fuel air mixture to not overheat in seize. In an > airplane, as in most applications, life happens, and sooner or later the > mixture will not be laboratory perfect for a few moments and the engine > suddenly seizes up. Then there are the additional issues of Cold Seizure, > rings sticking, exhaust failures, and others... So if you think you can > make a 2 stroke engine work under laboratory perfect conditions for 1000 > hours, then maybe you will be successful wit! > h a 2 stroke engine. But most people are not...... > > Why do you think that NO certified airplane has been made with a 2 stroke > engine for the last 50 years ? In the past fuel was cheap, and 2 stroke > engines were lighter, but NO manufacture would sell a plane with an > unreliable 2 stroke engine. Even small dirt bikes are now being sold > with 4 stroke engines now. For manufacturers, and those that know how to > separate FACTS from opinion, 4 stroke engines are the the clear choice, by > about 100 %... It is pretty rare to get 100 percent consensus on > anything, but manufacturers have unanimously chosen 4 stroke engines for > planes, cars, and now for even the smallest and lightest applications. > This FACT should be enough evidence to clue most people in that 2 stroke > engines are problematic. > > I fly both a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke engine, but I believe in being honest > and giving the best advice to others possible. The 2 stroke Rotax was the > only choice available for a 103 legal ultralight, so that choice is > already made for me... For my larger plane, I worked overtime and did > without a couple other of things ( new car ) to buy a Rotax 912-S. There > is no way I was going to fly with my friends and family behind a 2 stroke > engine in my Kitfox. Who out there would buy a new car with a 2 stroke > engine ??? But then the same people ask if they should put a two stroke > engine on their Kitfox, it is enough to boggle the mind... For a person > to give bad advice to others just because he has been able to make a 2 > stroke work without a failure is nothing short of a disservice. In the > end, I would and do fly behind both a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke, but I never > forget the fact that the 2 stroke engine is much more likely to suddenly > fail at the worst possible time and g! > et me hurt... > > To top it off, if you do the numbers, with fuel usage and overhauls, the > more reliable 4 stroke is actually CHEAPER in the long run than the 2 > stroke. That makes this choice a no brainier.... > > Mike ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 12:52:38 PM PST US From: "Herbert Doud" Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox for sale All good things eventually come to the end. My promise to my family to quit flying at age 80 years, has arrived and so my Kitfox, a really nice airplane, is for sale. Model IV Kitfox for sale.. $18,500 1992 Kitfox approx 375 hrs TT Blue head 582 Rotax engine, 93 hrs total time Decarb recently completed 1050 Gross VG's (vortex generators) on wings and horiz. stabilizer Wing locker not installed Plane Trailer Condition Inspection due April 2009 Custom cowl with large air scoop and large radiator 18 gal fuel (a 13 gal tank and a 6 gal tank currently on plane) Extra 13 gal right wing tank, not installed Low oil tank and fuel header tank red warning lights 760 channel com radio Transponder Voice activated intercom New mini digital tachometer New vertical card compass Extra standard compass Altimeter Vertical speed indicator Turn and Ball indicator Garmin 90 GPS (wired to plane for power) Elevator trim Fan driven cockpit heater Tall rudder extension for better stability New Lexan windscreen, not installed New soft tail wheel not installed New wing fuel sight level gages Electric fuel boost pump New interior seat and door upholstery Gas transfer pump on wheels with 12V battery for refueling 2 extra Bing Carbs 1 extra ignition module Rotax silencer/muffler (new) Extra Rotax muffler (CPS lists this muffler at over $900) 2 Extra new Rotax carb gaskets (the polyurethane long lasting type are now on the plane) Condition of the plane is a 9 out of 10 This Kitfox with all equipment and parts listed are offered for sale, $18,500 Photographs by mail, upon request. Further details by phone. Herbert Doud 2651 Lone Oak Rd New Braunfels, Tx 830 899-4305 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 02:14:28 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox for sale From: "darinh" Congratulations on being able to fly (from an FAA medical standpoint that is) until age 80! I am just hoping I can keep my medical until I am 60...every year beyond that will be like icing on the cake. Sounds like a great IV, good luck on the sale. -------- Darin Hawkes Series 7 (Phase 1 - Flight Testing) 914 Turbo Kaysville, Utah Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214387#214387 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 02:33:15 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox for sale From: "JetPilot" That sounds like a nice setup Herb, good price to :) The only thing I would do different is not make the promise to anyone to stop flying at any age !!! And if I did in a moment of insanity I would most definitely break that promise [Wink] Mike -------- "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!! Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214388#214388 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 03:10:44 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox Engine - 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke. From: "Paul A. Franz, P.E." On Sat, November 15, 2008 8:37 am, JetPilot wrote: > > A 2 stroke engine is much more likely to suddenly fail than a 4 stroke, this is FACT, > not opinion. I don't think you can say that without some qualifications. For example, if you compare two engines of roughly equal quality of construction such as a current 582 and 912 and specify that both are to be operated within operational directives: rpm limits, mixture limits, service, inspection and overhaul directives, there should be no particular known cause for sudden failure of either. What it is true is that the two stroke cycle engine will have a higher BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption, and engineering term), a lower TBO than the four stroke cycle engine. But the two stroke cycle engine has a significantly better power to weight ratio and will generally be smaller. This leaves two noticeable differences to compare. One is aesthetics, both visual and audio and the other is economics. As to aesthetics, I don't find the sound of a two stroke particularly pleasing compared to the sound of tuned exhaust on a four stroke. I'll bet there are more than just a few that relish the sound of a tuned two stroke under load though. I like the sound of a Harley, whereas my wife thinks it's even worse than my Husqvarna chainsaw. But the economics are really different. The two stroke has a significantly lower initial cost (capitalization) but higher cost in both parts and labor for maintenance and overhaul and since it's BSFC is roughly 50% higher, and it consumes more lubricating oil, it's overall operational cost will be higher. If initial cost is going to determine whether or not you can build and fly an airplane then you're likely going to chose a smaller and lighter aircraft and that choice will demand the lightest possible engine in order to provide some useful load and going with the budget restriction, you're going to probably choose the two stroke engine. I would concede that the two stroke engine has less tolerance for lean mixture but given a good calibrated EGT gauge, you should not be guessing whether the mixture is too lean. One of the Alaska 582 flyers cautioned that extended low partial power descents is also cause for caution, but that may only apply to fixed mixture settings. I believe there are in-flight mixture controls for the two stroke which should eliminate the high rpm, low fuel flow, lubrication problem by simply enrichening the mixture. But as has been pointed out, Rotax has an operations manual that is freely downloadable and that will instruct the owner on proper operation. I have not read that manual. > There are always cases where guys have been able to make a 2 stroke > engine work for many hours... There are even guys that have done extraordinary trips > with 2 strokes, This isn't at all uncommon as you imply. > but this does not change the FACTS or the REALITY that 2 strokes are > much more likely to suddenly fail in flight than a 4 stroke. In theory the 2 stroke > engine is very simple, but it has a fatal flaw, the 2 stroke engine requires PERFECT > delivery of the fuel air mixture to not overheat in seize. I disagree here. Perfection is not required. Adherence to the operating limits is required. Too lean, temperatures are too high and lubrication suffers; too rich for too long will cause soot deposits. > In an airplane, as in most > applications, life happens, and sooner or later the mixture will not be laboratory > perfect for a few moments and the engine suddenly seizes up. Then there are the > additional issues of Cold Seizure, rings sticking, exhaust failures, and others... > So if you think you can make a 2 stroke engine work under laboratory perfect > conditions for 1000 hours, then maybe you will be successful wit! > h a 2 stroke engine. But most people are not...... These two strokes are used at many flight schools and when operated and serviced as directed, it is not at all uncommon to outlast the TBO. They don't have to be operated as a laboratory experiment, and you have a very reasonable expectation of safe operation to TBO and beyond. The TBO is lower, perhaps half of that of the 912 but those hours are all good hours. One must understand that engine lubrication is delivered with the fuel and that is the primary difference. EGT, water temperature, and RPM are the suitable operational indicators. You must know how to run both 2 stroke and 4 stroke engines within the proper limits. You cannot turn the fuel flow off and windmill the two stroke engine, it won't be getting lubrication. You can't windmill a 4 stroke until the cylinders get very cold such as could be done in the winter or in the arctic then suddenly go WOT either, you'd risk getting cracked cylinder heads. Point is, you have to operate the aircraft engine within recommended operational limits or you risk severe damage. I would say every owner, wants to avoid engine damage and possible injury enough so that they will endeavor to learn the envelope of operation. The designs of these engines are mature and the documentation is readily available. > > Why do you think that NO certified airplane has been made with a 2 stroke engine for > the last 50 years ? In the past fuel was cheap, and 2 stroke engines were lighter, > but NO manufacture would sell a plane with an unreliable 2 stroke engine. Even > small dirt bikes are now being sold with 4 stroke engines now. Environmental concerns are driving this decision, not power to weight ratio. The two stroke engine will not meet standards for CO, particulate or NOx emissions. In some locales, even two stroke engines are banned on trimmers and mowers. > For manufacturers, > and those that know how to separate FACTS from opinion, 4 stroke engines are the the > clear choice, by about 100 %... It is pretty rare to get 100 percent consensus on > anything, but manufacturers have unanimously chosen 4 stroke engines for planes, cars, > and now for even the smallest and lightest applications. This FACT should be enough > evidence to clue most people in that 2 stroke engines are problematic. Long term economics, emission standards, and aesthetics are driving this issue. > I fly both a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke engine, but I believe in being honest and giving > the best advice to others possible. The 2 stroke Rotax was the only choice available > for a 103 legal ultralight, so that choice is already made for me... For my larger > plane, I worked overtime and did without a couple other of things ( new car ) to buy a > Rotax 912-S. There is no way I was going to fly with my friends and family behind a 2 > stroke engine in my Kitfox. You're better off economically with the 912 over a longer period of time and you're getting more horsepower, climb and cruise speed and range. But your useful load is less. You may be really averse to the aesthetics (sound and appearance) of the two stroke, but you're certainly capable of operating the 582 as safely as you can operate the 912. > Who out there would buy a new car with a 2 stroke > engine ??? It could be coming again with tiny little cars. With an ECU controlling fuel injection and EGR, tiny little air cooled two stroke engines will be powering 600 to 900 lb cars that can cruise 60 mph and get 100 mpg while meeting mandated emission standards for 2010 and having a reasonable life expectancy. The economics and power to weight ratio of the two stroke engine powered car are far better than current battery powered offerings. > But then the same people ask if they should put a two stroke engine on > their Kitfox, it is enough to boggle the mind... For a person to give bad advice to > others just because he has been able to make a 2 stroke work without a failure is > nothing short of a disservice. Power to weight ratio and initial cost are the driving factors. I agree, that the buyer needs to be well informed as to the operating limits and maintenance required but the buyer of the two stroke should not be advised that he is buying certain catastrophic failure. He is not. > In the end, I would and do fly behind both a 2 stroke > and a 4 stroke, but I never forget the fact that the 2 stroke engine is much more > likely to suddenly fail at the worst possible time and g! > et me hurt... Catastrophic failure is no more likely in a two stroke operated within manufacturer's limits than is a four stroke. High temperatures caused by lean mixture and insufficient lubrication must be avoided to prevent seizure, but that won't happen if the engine water temperature (cyl head temp), EGT, and RPM are not exceeded. If you overheat a four stroke it will be damaged too, if you run the 4 stroke too lean it will burn the exhaust valves. You cannot windmill the two stroke engine if you run out of fuel or shut the fuel off in flight either. A propeller clutch might automatically prevent that problem though. > > To top it off, if you do the numbers, with fuel usage and overhauls, the more reliable > 4 stroke is actually CHEAPER in the long run than the 2 stroke. That makes this > choice a no brainier.... True, over a lifetime where you have the option of one engine over the other. Some don't have the option though because of engine weight or initial capital. Let's say a 65 year old retires, buys an early Kitfox kit such as a Model 1 or 2, builds it in a year, then flies it at 100 hours a year for three, possibly 4 years. He may never have had to do an overhaul and his cost of operation is probably higher, but he may never have had the flying opportunity at all if he had to save for the more expensive engine and the with the lighter weight of the two stroke, he has more capacity for fuel, and baggage. Might make the difference of whether he can take his wife along on a trip or not. The operational cost would be dominated by the fuel consumption difference. Let's say it is 2 gallons per hour higher for the two stroke factoring in the lower cruise speed and that the fuel is $5/gal including oil. Then for his 400 hours in 4 years, he's spent an additional $10/hour or $4000. That's less than the price difference between the two engines. Granted the two stroke is at or beyond TBO, but he might be done with the plane at age 70 anyway so in this example, the 582 makes good sense. Even if the person bought a higher gross weight kit such as a model 4, where it the extra weight of the 912 is fine, the fact that the initial capital required to complete the kit with a 582 may be the difference between being able to experience flight or not. The extra $100/mo cost of operation is less important than the initial investment. -- Paul A. Franz, P.E. PAF Consulting Engineers Office 425.440.9505 Cell 425.241.1618 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 04:37:31 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Performance mods for 582. Now we get to the fun part! I've flown my model III-A , a supposed converted model II with the 582 and Areocet 1100 straight floats. My gorss is only 950 lb. but with the Ivo set to give a 6800 T.O. rpm. It is off the water pretty fast... Faster than I can get a light Super cub with 160 hp off! Once airborne however the Super Cub easily out climbed the Kitfox... And there are the gas bills to prove it. The Cub also took a bit more water for me to get it down. What I've been told is the 912 engine will give a better cruise and climb but the 582 is better for getting airborne initially. Noel Loveys AME Intern, RPP Kitfox III-A Aerocet 1100 floats -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of tjmxer Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:07 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Performance mods for 582. Come on. Is the 582 really that bad? Is the 912 that much better? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214021#214021 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 08:03:33 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Performance mods for 582. If there is a "con" to operating a two stroke engine it is in the efficiency. Two stroke engines tend to run a bit on the rich side because they use fuel to cool the combustion chambers so you can expect to use a bit more gas to produce the same power on a two stroke. Noel From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Performance mods for 582. Gary and Leonard Thank you for the info on the 582's. I thought both you guys did a great job on the pro's and cons. I have a great interest in engines and had a two stroke in my 1962 SAAB a while back(a long while !) I loved that car and stupid me I traded it for a Renault Dauphine (which I soon got rid of ) I added a quart of oil at each gas fill to the SAAB.Super car and I sure would like to have another one I have a 912UL in my Fox 4 and it runs great and I think I have the minor bugs worked out but I still do not like flying over any water with it ! (ie: Mobile Bay last weekend) Would I fly it to my cabin in NC about 450 miles away -no. I guess it is just a gut feeling (after three engine failures in other aircraft-one going straight up at 200ft agl) Any way ,I digress. I have toyed with another project but have always disregarded the two strokes as unreliable. Now I am not so sure. Lockwood has a good two stroke school . Maybe I will go just to learn more about them. Thanks guys! Dick Maddux Fox 4-1200 Pensacola,Fl _____ Get movies delivered to your mailbox. One ps://www.blockbuster.com/signup/y/reg/p.26978/r.email_footer> month free from blockbuster.com ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:29:00 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox for sale > From: darinh [gerns25@netscape.net] > I am just hoping I can keep my medical until I am 60...every year beyond that > will be like icing on the cake. Amen to that! (from the man who lost his medical at 60! ;-( Cheers, Michel Verheughe Norway Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200 ... grounded Do not archive
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kitfox-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kitfox-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.