---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 04/26/10: 16 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:40 AM - remembering Dave Bigelow (robert bean) 2. 09:27 AM - 180 turn back to the runway video (Jason Omelchuck) 3. 09:54 AM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Arksey@aol.com) 4. 10:07 AM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (John Hauck) 5. 11:02 AM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Jason Omelchuck) 6. 11:02 AM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Mike Welch) 7. 11:51 AM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Jason Omelchuck) 8. 12:04 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Jack B. Hart) 9. 01:03 PM - Flying the Kolb Ultrastar (Jean PILLAUDIN) 10. 05:26 PM - Re: Flying the Kolb Ultrastar (Kip) 11. 05:30 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (russ kinne) 12. 06:36 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (cristalclear13) 13. 06:43 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (John Hauck) 14. 06:43 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Larry Cottrell) 15. 07:38 PM - Re: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Arksey@aol.com) 16. 08:00 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Jason Omelchuck) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:40:06 AM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Kolb-List: remembering Dave Bigelow Firestar pilot http://tinyurl.com/2eu3bqa ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 09:27:11 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: 180 turn back to the runway video From: "Jason Omelchuck" Hello All, One of the things I have always wanted to test was the height required to get back to a runway after take off. On Sunday, I got a chance to do some testing and I got a video of it. The runway I am flying from is about 2500 feet long. I found that it required about 500' for me to make the 180 and get back to the end of the runway. I tried it at 400' but the ending was not pretty (nothing bent). The interesting thing is that at 600' I could not make the runway because I had traveled further away from the runway than the extra 100' in altitude allowed me to make up. My engine has a clutch, so the prop windmills at engine idle just like it would windmill if the engine failed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn6T8ynRDLk FWIW Jason MKIII Yamaha powered Portland, OR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295752#295752 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 09:54:41 AM PST US From: Arksey@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 180 turn back to the runway video interesting info jason.....my advice for what it is worth that with a engine failure on take it is best to go forward rather than trying to turn back around to the runway. keep us informed on any future tests....jswan do not archive jim swan firestar ll 503 michigan ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 10:07:31 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 180 turn back to the runway video I found that it required about 500' for me to make the 180 and get back to the end of the runway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn6T8ynRDLk FWIW Jason MKIII Yamaha powered Portland, OR Jason O/Gang: Thanks for sharing your experiences. What is the name of your airstrip? Where is it located? Does it have an identifier? GPS coordinates? Would I need prior permission to land there? If I make it to the West Coast of Oregon, I will probably come through the Portland area next month after I depart The Rock House the end of May. john hauck MKIII - 3,006.2 hours 912ULS - 437.7 hours Titus, AL ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:02:25 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video From: "Jason Omelchuck" I agree Jim, That is why I am interested in this learning about this envelope of my airplanes performance. I now know that on a 2500 foot runway, I should not attempt to return (factoring in the reaction time if the engine actually did quit unexpectedly). If I am flying out of a 3500 foot runway, I have a window between 600' and probably 800' that returning is an excellent option. My next testing is how high can I get and still land straight ahead on the same runway and getting a technique down. I believe that if I have this knowledge that before I take off from any runway, I can make my emergency procedures before take off. For instance, I can make up the emergency procedures for a 3000 foot runway that says below 200' land straight ahead, between 600' and 700' return to the runway. Between 200' and 600' neither of those are an option and find the best landing spot. I then call out these altitudes (to myself) and if the engine does quit, I know what to do without wasting precious seconds thinking about it or making a bad decision and trying to turn back or land straight ahead when it is not physically possible. Regards Jason [quote="Arksey(at)aol.com"]interesting info jason.....my advice for what it is worth that with a engine failure on take it is best to go forward rather than trying to turn back around to the runway. keep us informed on any future tests....jswan do not archive jim swan firestar ll 503 michigan > [b] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295759#295759 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 11:02:39 AM PST US From: Mike Welch Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 180 turn back to the runway video Jason=2C Very interesting exercise. For you and your plane=2C under these identic al conditions=2C you feel that 500' agl is a safe u-turn height to make it back to the field . That is good. However=2C I want to point out that these are narrow parameters to duplic ate. For instance=3B if you add a little headwind (which would then becom e a tailwind on a 180 deg turn)=2C or if you add a passenger=2C or the dens ity altitude is different=2C the outcome may be quite different. I'm not trying to rain on your parade=2C Jason=2C I just want to make sur e we all remember this particular scenario has limited value. Being proficient at 180 degree turns (after take-off) is great!!!! But to be truly proficient=2C you'd need to practice in ALL wind conditions=2C several weight conditions=2C and various density altitude conditions=2C and combinations of all of these. Practicing proficient flying techniques is ALWAYS good advice. Especiall y those techniques that deal with emergency proceedures!! But=2C unless a pilot were incredibly confident he could make the field on a u-turn landin g after an engine failure=2C the best advice is to always land straight ahe ad. BTW=2C keep in mind that practicing low level u-turns amount to acrobatic flying. More than a few pilots have died finding out that what they thoug ht would work....didn't!!! Okay everybody=2C now you can beat me up. Mike Welch MkIII > Subject: Kolb-List: 180 turn back to the runway video > From: jason@trek-tech.com > Date: Mon=2C 26 Apr 2010 09:26:33 -0700 > To: kolb-list@matronics.com > > > Hello All=2C > > One of the things I have always wanted to test was the height required to get back to a runway after take off. On Sunday=2C I got a chance to do som e testing and I got a video of it. The runway I am flying from is about 250 0 feet long. I found that it required about 500' for me to make the 180 and get back to the end of the runway. I tried it at 400' but the ending was n ot pretty (nothing bent). The interesting thing is that at 600' I could not make the runway because I had traveled further away from the runway than t he extra 100' in altitude allowed me to make up. My engine has a clutch=2C so the prop windmills at engine idle just like it would windmill if the eng ine failed. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn6T8ynRDLk > > FWIW > Jason > MKIII Yamaha powered > Portland=2C OR > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295752#295752 > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search=2C chat and e-mail from your inb ox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:O N:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 11:51:01 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video From: "Jason Omelchuck" Hello Mike, I am not going to beat you up and I agree that someone should not try to apply my experience to their plane, they should get out there and practice themselves. Go to altitude and practice power off 180's. See how much altitude you loose, find the best glide of your aircraft. Then , if you have a safe place to practice them at lower altitudes and feel you are proficient enough, go ahead and try them out. I agree that the plane will perform differently (and everybody's planes are different) under different wind conditions and weights, but I do believe this gives ME a valuable base line from where to take all of the variables into consideration before I start my take off roll. This is just like the "practicing dead stick landings" everybody's. Some people say more planes are bent practicing than in actual situations. In my plane, I can have the engine at idle and it performs exactly like when the engine is no longer running. You stated "unless a pilot were incredibly confident he could make the field on a u-turn landing after an engine failure, the best advice is to always land straight ahead" I agree, but how is one suppose to know if he can make the field on a U turn? Thats just like saying, unless a pilot were incredibly confident he could shoot an ILS landing the best advice is to always fly clear of clouds. If this were true, no one would every learn how to fly on instruments. That is why you practice under a hood with a safety person in the cockpit. I believe that is what I was doing, practicing this maneuver with my safety person (fully functional engine) in the cockpit. As I stated before, for me, it is good to know ahead of time what my emergency procedure is. If I do my call outs in my head, I will not fool myself into something that is not possible and try to turn back below 600' no matter how uninviting the terrain ahead may be, I know and have experienced that I will not make it back to the runway. I am not a high time pilot so no one should take this as the voice of experience. Always fly your airplane in a manner in which you feel safe. Jason [quote="mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.co"]Jason, Very interesting exercise. For you and your plane, under these identical conditions, you feel that 500' aglis a safe u-turn height to make it back to the field. That is good. However, I want to point out that these are narrow parameters to duplicate. For instance; if you add a little headwind (which would then become a tailwind on a 180 deg turn), or if you add a passenger, or the density altitude is different, the outcome may be quite different. I'm not trying to rain on your parade, Jason, I just want to make sure we all remember this particular scenario has limited value. Being proficient at 180 degree turns (after take-off) is great!!!! But to be truly proficient, you'd need to practice in ALL wind conditions, several weight conditions, and various density altitude conditions, and combinations of all of these. Practicing proficient flying techniques is ALWAYS good advice. Especially those techniques that deal with emergency proceedures!! But, unless a pilot were incredibly confident he could make the field on a u-turn landing after an engine failure, the best advice is to always land straight ahead. BTW, keep in mind that practicing low level u-turns amount to acrobatic flying. More than a few pilots have died finding out that what they thought would work....didn't!!! Okay everybody, now you can beat me up. Mike Welch MkIII > Subject: 180 turn back to the runway video > From: jason@trek-tech.com > Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:26:33 -0700 > To: kolb-list@matronics.com > > > Hello All, > > One of the things I have always wanted to test was the height required to get back to a runway after take off. On Sunday, I got a chance to do some testing and I got a video of it. The runway I am flying from is about 2500 feet long. I found that it required about 500' for me to make the 180 and get back to the end of the runway. I tried it at 400' but the ending was not pretty (nothing bent). The interesting thing is that at 600' I could not make the runway because I had traveled further away from the runway than the extra 100' in altitude allowed me to make up. My engine has a clutch, so the prop windmills at engine idle just like it would windmill if the engine failed. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn6T8ynRDLk > > FWIW > Jason > MKIII Yamaha powered > Portland, OR > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295752#295752 > > > > > &g========================> > > > > Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn more. > > [b] > Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295763#295763 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 12:04:53 PM PST US From: "Jack B. Hart" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 180 turn back to the runway video Just a note. Had the 447 ice up on take off from Painton Airport, and the engine started to droop very badly. Dropped the nose on the FireFly and kicked it around and back to the runway down wind. I had not prepared my self for which way to turn, and automatically turned left in the normal pattern direction. But there was a strong cross wind from the right and it blew me off into a much larger turn than I would have hoped for. I made it just fine, but it taught me a lesson, to always think before take off about which way to turn if the engine quits on the initial climb out. Jason, I think it is great that you are preparing your self for the possibility of engine failure after take off. Another exercise that may be helpful is to practice spilling altitude to land at a spot directly below or to make high approaches and still touch down at the usual spot. Having practiced this with the FireFly it really helped me when the MZ34 quit on its first flight. I was able to zip back to the airport, turn over the end of the runway at 1,000 agl, and forward slip it down the runway so that after touch down, I did not have to push the FireFly far to get it off the other end of the runway. When I initially practiced this, I over shot my aiming point. I found I could be much more aggressive with the forward slip, and forward stick and I could hit my aiming point. It looks and feels a little weird but the FireFly is so draggy the airspeed does not climb too high, and one can spoil a lot of altitude in a hurry. One nice thing about this manuver is that when you pop it out of the slip you have plenty of excess air speed or energy that can be used to make a nice landing. FWIW Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 01:03:21 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Flying the Kolb Ultrastar From: Jean PILLAUDIN Hi Kolbers, I read the list here in France with a big interest! I am very pleased to show you my second fly with my 20 years old Kolb Ultrastar (Pulsar in France). It was a great fun. This ultralight is very easy and funny, it give a lot of pleasure for low cost!! Here are the pictures : http://picasaweb.google.com/Jean.PILLAUDIN/2010_04_24?authkey=Gv1sRgCKmypMaFycfksAE&feat=directlink Bye -- Jean Q' importe le frelon pourvu qu'on ai l'ivresse! ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 05:26:39 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Flying the Kolb Ultrastar From: "Kip" Cool..... :D -------- 2000 Firestar II R503 DCDI VLS 750 2010 Waiex Jabiru 3300 1980 Quickie 1 Electric? Needs restoration! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295798#295798 ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 05:30:30 PM PST US From: russ kinne Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 180 turn back to the runway video OK, now you can beat me up too. Esp since I'm a non-Kolb pilot. But all this recent talk about minimum altitude to make a 180 back to the runway after an engine failure on takeoff -- the early posts, at least, and the video, indicate that the trials were done right off the runway, at an altitude of 500' AGL or so. IMHO, THIS IS ASSININE! For the luvva Pete, and your loved ones, do these trials AT ALTITUDE! The graveyard's full of people who didn't. So beat me up if you want to. I only hope this will save a life & avoid a crash or two. Russ K On Apr 26, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Mike Welch wrote: > Jason, > > Very interesting exercise. For you and your plane, under these > identical conditions, > you feel that 500' agl is a safe u-turn height to make it back to > the field. That is good. > > However, I want to point out that these are narrow parameters to > duplicate. For instance; if you add a little headwind (which > would then become a tailwind on a 180 deg turn), or if you add a > passenger, or the density altitude is different, the outcome may be > quite different. > > I'm not trying to rain on your parade, Jason, I just want to make > sure we all remember this particular scenario has limited value. > Being proficient at 180 degree turns (after take-off) is > great!!!! But to be truly proficient, you'd need to practice in > ALL wind conditions, several weight conditions, and various density > altitude conditions, and combinations of all of these. > > Practicing proficient flying techniques is ALWAYS good advice. > Especially those techniques that deal with emergency > proceedures!! But, unless a pilot were incredibly confident he > could make the field on a u-turn landing after an engine failure, > the best advice is to always land straight ahead. > > BTW, keep in mind that practicing low level u-turns amount to > acrobatic flying. More than a few pilots have died finding out > that what they thought would work....didn't!!! > > Okay everybody, now you can beat me up. > > Mike Welch > MkIII > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:36:05 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video From: "cristalclear13" Jason Omelchuck wrote: > Hello All, > > One of the things I have always wanted to test was the height required to get back to a runway after take off. On Sunday, I got a chance to do some testing and I got a video of it. The runway I am flying from is about 2500 feet long. I found that it required about 500' for me to make the 180 and get back to the end of the runway. I tried it at 400' but the ending was not pretty (nothing bent). The interesting thing is that at 600' I could not make the runway because I had traveled further away from the runway than the extra 100' in altitude allowed me to make up. My engine has a clutch, so the prop windmills at engine idle just like it would windmill if the engine failed. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn6T8ynRDLk > > FWIW > Jason > MKIII Yamaha powered > Portland, OR Wish I had that many open fields to choose from for emergency landing spots. Please be careful. Do you know your stall speed on a steep turn? -------- Cristal Waters Kolb Mark II Twinstar Rotax 503 DCSI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295812#295812 ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 06:43:55 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 180 turn back to the runway video Esp since I'm a non-Kolb pilot. But all this recent talk about minimum altitude to make a 180 back to the runway after an engine failure on takeoff -- the early posts, at least, and the video, indicate that the trials were done right off the runway, at an altitude of 500' AGL or so. IMHO, THIS IS ASSININE! For the luvva Pete, and your loved ones, do these trials AT ALTITUDE! The graveyard's full of people who didn't. So beat me up if you want to. I only hope this will save a life & avoid a crash or two. Russ K *************************** Russ/Gang: Would be a good idea to get some flight experience in a Kolb. What Jason was doing was normal Kolb flying in my book. I believe he has learned a great deal more about his airplane. john hauck mkIII Titus, Alabama ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 06:43:55 PM PST US From: "Larry Cottrell" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 180 turn back to the runway video Not sure why you want to get beat up, but if it make you feel better have your wife do it for us. In actuality the way that he did it was the safest way to have done it at all. If you recall, he has a clutch, so whether the engine is running or not, and his was, his prop is going to spin and slow him down a lot. All he had to do was to apply throttle and he is running again, so the danger that he put himself into was no worse than any power off landing, whether it be straight in or not. Now I don't have a clutch, but you can be sure that if you are not going to make the runway, you are going to know it a long time before it gets critical. If you have to pull start the engine, then you are engaging in risky behavior, with a starter it is doable without too much risk. Now the following may be only applicable to myself, if you do not react this way, then by all means feel free to disregard the following. I have had at least two situations that could be qualified as an emergency. The first one was an engine malfunction wherein a spark plug cap disengaged from the spark plug. I had noise, but no real power. I reverted to the type of landing that I would normally make. Muscle memory if you will. I picked a spot to land that was the best choice open to me, throttled back and set it down. There was a large rock that I could not see, ended up on my back with gas dripping by my ear. Besides the damage to the landing gear, and a crushed nose cone, I had a prop strike when I flipped, and a bit more damage than necessary. What would have been better would have been to shut off the engine, master switch, and made my approach as slow as I could, even to pancake it in if necessary. I had never faced the possibility of an off field landing, so I reverted to what I did each time I landed. No emergency practice or even thought of what I would do in an emergency, nothing. Now after that and early last year there was the original discussion about how much altitude one needed to make a unpowered turn. I went out, ( I did use more altitude however) and found that I could make a full turn within 200 feet. One of my misadventures with a HAC-man wherein I neglected to turn it off as I was coming in for a landing. ( I ascribe no blame to the HAC-man system. It operated as it was designed to do. The fault was entirely mine.) I was on final approach to my cross wind runway, which is a bit uphill. I was probably under 300 feet, the engine quit. Straight ahead there was nothing but sage about two feet high. Behind me was a clear patch of dirt that was as smooth as one could ask for. It was also on down sloping ground. I knew I had altitude enough to turn, the question was whether I had enough altitude to make the clearing. Well I did, skimming the last piece of sage between me and the clearing. I shut off the HAC-man, started the engine and went home to an ass chewing by the little lady. Now I will not deny that there was a large measure of luck, but I knew how much it would take to turn, I knew what my best glide was, and I pulled it off with no repair, other than my britches. Had I gone straight ahead, I would have been replacing the nose cone, and probably recovering. My point is if you do not know how the plane will react, you will have no other choice than muscle memory. Yes straight ahead is probably safest if you don't know, but its most likely gonna hurt. Any exercise that you are going to attempt should be carried out with as much safety cushion as you can get, but knowing what to expect from your plane and preparing yourself for it is priceless. Now I thought that this should be classified as gentle, but I think he did as he should have done. An emergency is no place for guesswork. Larry Note: If you forward this email, please delete the forwarding history, which includes my email address. ----- Original Message ----- From: russ kinne To: kolb-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:25 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 180 turn back to the runway video OK, now you can beat me up too. Esp since I'm a non-Kolb pilot. But all this recent talk about minimum altitude to make a 180 back to the runway after an engine failure on takeoff -- the early posts, at least, and the video, indicate that the trials were done right off the runway, at an altitude of 500' AGL or so. IMHO, THIS IS ASSININE! For the luvva Pete, and your loved ones, do these trials AT ALTITUDE! The graveyard's full of people who didn't. So beat me up if you want to. I only hope this will save a life & avoid a crash or two. Russ K ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 07:38:34 PM PST US From: Arksey@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video good thinking Jason.....let us know your final results i am sure we will find them interesting and helpful.....jswan fly safe ..... do not archive jim swan firestar ll 503 michigan ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 08:00:58 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video From: "Jason Omelchuck" Hello Crystal, In a descending (power off) turn at constant airspeed your airplane will stall at the same speed it does straight ahead with power off. The risk is keeping the turn coordinated so that remains true for both wings. The tendency is to try to put in too much rudder to tighten the turn and you then run the risk of the inside wing stalling. when I first started practicing at altitude, I noticed I could feel the wing start to bobble at stall and that it would increase the bank and start the beginning of a spiral. It was a little unnerving at first, but I noticed I could keep it from developing by a little opposite rudder and of course getting the nose down ever so slightly to keep the airspeed up. I did practice (at altitude) going from a full throttle climb to a descending 180 turn while trying to keep a constant airspeed. One of the things I think I have learned while doing this close to the ground is that the fear of hitting the ground is a very ingrained in my brain. It is an un-natural act to put the nose down to save yourself from hitting the ground. I believe this has caused many an airplane accident because it is just does not make sense, your instinct really wants to pull back on the stick to extend the glide just that little bit more. This sensation does not get triggered when flying at altitude. I believe this is the reason that many a Kolb landing gear has been bent by people who are used to flying GA aircraft. To the pilot of a faster airplane, the angle of approach that must be kept close to the ground before round out is alarming until you do it many times. My $.02 worth Jason cristalclear13 wrote: > > Jason Omelchuck wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > One of the things I have always wanted to test was the height required to get back to a runway after take off. On Sunday, I got a chance to do some testing and I got a video of it. The runway I am flying from is about 2500 feet long. I found that it required about 500' for me to make the 180 and get back to the end of the runway. I tried it at 400' but the ending was not pretty (nothing bent). The interesting thing is that at 600' I could not make the runway because I had traveled further away from the runway than the extra 100' in altitude allowed me to make up. My engine has a clutch, so the prop windmills at engine idle just like it would windmill if the engine failed. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn6T8ynRDLk > > > > FWIW > > Jason > > MKIII Yamaha powered > > Portland, OR > > > Wish I had that many open fields to choose from for emergency landing spots. > Please be careful. Do you know your stall speed on a steep turn? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295828#295828 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kolb-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kolb-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/kolb-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kolb-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.