Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:56 AM - 51% Rule (bandit362)
2. 07:19 AM - Re: 51% Rule (N1BZRich@aol.com)
3. 10:44 AM - Re: 51% Rule (Jim Langley)
4. 12:12 PM - Re: 51% Rule (Kayberg@aol.com)
5. 03:12 PM - Re: 51% Rule (n5pb@aol.com)
6. 04:06 PM - Re: 51% Rule (Colin J. Kennedy)
7. 04:37 PM - Re: 51% Rule (Brian Whittingham)
8. 06:34 PM - Re: 51% Rule (Hugh Sontag)
9. 06:43 PM - Re: 51% Rule (Colin J. Kennedy)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hello Everyone,
Been lurking here for the last several months, listening to the chat. Retired
from the AF last year (flew F-4s, F-117s and F-16s) and was hired by a defense
contractor here in Tucson. Took a demo ride in Greg Hobbs Lightning last Nov
and have been looking at my finances to try to squeeze money from the budget
(just sold a house in Hawaii and am looking to buy here in Tucson.)
Anyway, enough about me. What do you think the 51% ruling is going to do for/against
the Lightning? (I am hoping for!!)
Regards,
Tim Veeder
--------
T Veeder
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194865#194865
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Tim,
From one retired AF fighter pilot to another - welcome aboard. The
answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in the air" but we shou
ld
have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal after Oshkosh (I am the
re
now). But reading their proposal, I think the Lightning should be OK. Bel
ow
is a summary of what the AOPA has to say about the new proposal. We will g
et
the EAA's take in several forums during the convention.
Blue Skies,
Buz Rich
The FAA is scrutinizing =9Cfast build=9D homebuilt aircraft pro
grams and with
that may come policy changes that affect future kit designs.
The FAA has released several _draft documents_
(http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pu
bs) to clarify the regulation of
the homebuilt aircraft segment. The biggest potential change is to the
definition of the so-called 51-percent rule. The FAA=99s original int
ention was that
the individual would fabricate more than 50 percent and assemble more than
50 percent of the aircraft.
The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the market where an
aircraft owner=99s contribution resulted in 51 percent of the assembl
y only. The
agency felt that this did not meet the intent of building =9Csolely f
or their
own education or recreation.=9D
The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing, at a minimum, 20
percent of the assembly and 20 percent of the fabrication with the remainin
g
11 percent made up from either additional assembly or fabrication. The FAA
now
states that the commercial assistance or =9Cfor hire=9D building
programs will
not count toward 20 percent of the assembly by the individual.
The policy changes would not affect those flying traditionally certified
aircraft or already completed amateur-built aircraft. Existing kit designs
essentially would be grandfathered, while new models, after the rules go in
to
effect, would get the extra scrutiny.
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
You know Buz, the part of this proposal that is rough on glass kit builders
is the fabrication. Think about how most glass kits come, mostly
prefabricated fuse, flying surfaces, spar box, etc. I wonder what that
would add up to in total?
There are however, quite a lot of things to do from the fabrication side.
If you compare a Lightning kit to say, a quickbuilt RV, they then begin to
look pretty close. So, if the RV quickbuilt qualifys under the proposal,
then the Lightning should also?
Jim!
On 7/25/08, N1BZRich@aol.com <N1BZRich@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Tim,
> From one retired AF fighter pilot to another - welcome aboard. The
> answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in the air" but we
> should have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal after Oshkosh (I
> am there now). But reading their proposal, I think the Lightning should be
> OK. Below is a summary of what the AOPA has to say about the new proposal.
> We will get the EAA's take in several forums during the convention.
> Blue Skies,
> Buz Rich
>
> The FAA is scrutinizing "fast build" homebuilt aircraft programs and with
> that may come policy changes that affect future kit designs.
>
> The FAA has released several draft documents<http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pubs>to clarify the regulation of the homebuilt aircraft segment. The biggest
> potential change is to the definition of the so-called 51-percent rule. The
> FAA's original intention was that the individual would fabricate more than
> 50 percent and assemble more than 50 percent of the aircraft.
>
> The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the market where an
> aircraft owner's contribution resulted in 51 percent of the assembly only.
> The agency felt that this did not meet the intent of building "solely for
> their own education or recreation."
>
> The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing, at a minimum, 20
> percent of the assembly and 20 percent of the fabrication with the remaining
> 11 percent made up from either additional assembly or fabrication. The FAA
> now states that the commercial assistance or "for hire" building programs
> will not count toward 20 percent of the assembly by the individual.
>
> The policy changes would not affect those flying traditionally certified
> aircraft or already completed amateur-built aircraft. Existing kit designs
> essentially would be grandfathered, while new models, after the rules go
> into effect, would get the extra scrutiny.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy
> Football today<http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020>
> .
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
In a message dated 7/25/2008 1:45:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
pequeajim@gmail.com writes:
You know Buz, the part of this proposal that is rough on glass kit builders
is the fabrication. Think about how most glass kits come, mostly
prefabricated fuse, flying surfaces, spar box, etc. I wonder what that would
add up to
in total?
There are however, quite a lot of things to do from the fabrication side.
If you compare a Lightning kit to say, a quickbuilt RV, they then begin to
look pretty close. So, if the RV quickbuilt qualifys under the proposal, then
the Lightning should also?
Jim!
I have only read parts of the NPRM but I think the age-old question is How
much do you have to fabricate to be a fabricator?
I would think that if you had to add a tad of glass somewhere it would count
as a fabrication (!!?!)
Likewise an assembly. If you had to assemble the last rivet in the flap,
you would still be the assembler.
Somewhere between an aluminum smelter and a rivet lies the answer.
I will try to think about it more, but we should all give it some thought.
Doug Koenigsberg
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Buz,
This is good to know, especially since I begin my build in September at SYI!
"Bear"
-----Original Message-----
From: N1BZRich@aol.com
Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:16 am
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
Tim,
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-From one retired AF fighter pilot to another - welco
me aboard.=C2- The answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in
the air" but we should have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal a
fter Oshkosh (I am there now).=C2- But reading their proposal, I think the
Lightning should be OK.=C2-=C2-Below is a summary of what the AOPA has
to say about the new proposal.=C2- We will get the EAA's take in=C2-seve
ral forums during the convention.
Blue Skies,
Buz Rich
=C2-
The FAA is scrutinizing =9Cfast build=9D homebuilt aircraft prog
rams and with that may come policy changes that affect future kit designs.
The FAA has released several draft documents to clarify the regulation of th
e homebuilt aircraft segment. The biggest potential change is to the definit
ion of the so-called 51-percent rule. The FAA=99s original intention w
as that the individual would fabricate more than 50 percent and assemble mor
e than 50 percent of the aircraft.
The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the market where an ai
rcraft owner=99s contribution resulted in 51 percent of the assembly o
nly. The agency felt that this did not meet the intent of building
=9Csolely for their own education or recreation.0
The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing, at a minimum, 20 p
ercent of the assembly and 20 percent of the fabrication with the remaining
11 percent made up from either additional assembly or fabrication. The FAA n
ow states that the commercial assistance or =9Cfor hire=9D build
ing programs will not count toward 20 percent of the assembly by the individ
ual.
The policy changes would not affect those flying traditionally certified air
craft or already completed amateur-built aircraft. Existing kit designs esse
ntially would be grandfathered, while new models, after the rules go into ef
fect, would get the extra scrutiny.
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Fo
otball today.
-= - The Lightning-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-============3D============
=========
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Buz,
I understand you have quoted the AOPA here, but are you getting the
impression that "Existing kit designs essentially would be
grandfathered" or
that "Existing kit designs, already on the FAA's 51% list, essentially
would
be grandfathered"?
In this case the difference could be critical because the Lightning is
not
already on the FAA's 51% list.
Colin K.
OK
Lightning # 52 under construction.
http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
n5pb@aol.com
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
Buz,
This is good to know, especially since I begin my build in September at
SYI!
"Bear"
-----Original Message-----
From: N1BZRich@aol.com
Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:16 am
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
Tim,
From one retired AF fighter pilot to another - welcome aboard. The
answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in the air" but we
should have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal after Oshkosh
(I
am there now). But reading their proposal, I think the Lightning should
be
OK. Below is a summary of what the AOPA has to say about the new
proposal.
We will get the EAA's take in several forums during the convention.
Blue Skies,
Buz Rich
The FAA is scrutinizing "fast build" homebuilt aircraft programs and
with
that may come policy changes that affect future kit designs.
The FAA has released several
<http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=
Pubs
> draft documents to clarify the regulation of the homebuilt aircraft
segment. The biggest potential change is to the definition of the
so-called
51-percent rule. The FAA s original intention was that the individual
would
fabricate more than 50 percent and assemble more than 50 percent of the
aircraft.
The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the market where
an
aircraft owner's contribution resulted in 51 percent of the assembly
only.
The agency felt that this did not meet the intent of building "solely
for
their own education or recreation."
The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing, at a minimum,
20
percent of the assembly and 20 percent of the fabrication with the
remaining
11 percent made up from either additional assembly or fabrication. The
FAA
now states that the commercial assistance or "for hire" building
programs
will not count toward 20 percent of the assembly by the individual.
The policy changes would not affect those flying traditionally certified
aircraft or already completed amateur-built aircraft. Existing kit
designs
essentially would be grandfathered, while new models, after the rules go
into effect, would get the extra scrutiny.
_____
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse
Fantasy
Football today
<http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020> .
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
://forums.matronics.com
lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
======================
============
_____
The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get the TMZ
Toolbar
Now
<http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014> !
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hey Tim=2C
Good to have you onboard. I think that you'll find a lot of fellow air
force and/or government contract workers on here. Too bad that you sold t
he house in Hawaii=2C but if you can get a house in Tucson and a Lightning
that'd be pretty nice. Brian W.> Subject: Lightning-List: 51% Rule> From:
t_veeder@yahoo.com> Date: Fri=2C 25 Jul 2008 05:53:54 -0700> To: lightning-
veeder@yahoo.com>> > Hello Everyone=2C> > Been lurking here for the last se
veral months=2C listening to the chat. Retired from the AF last year (flew
F-4s=2C F-117s and F-16s) and was hired by a defense contractor here in Tuc
son. Took a demo ride in Greg Hobbs Lightning last Nov and have been lookin
g at my finances to try to squeeze money from the budget (just sold a house
in Hawaii and am looking to buy here in Tucson.) > > Anyway=2C enough abou
t me. What do you think the 51% ruling is going to do for/against the Light
ning? (I am hoping for!!)> Regards=2C> Tim Veeder> > --------> T Veeder> >
> > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic
========================> _
====================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
With Windows Live for mobile=2C your contacts travel with you.
http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mobile_
072008
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I suspect "grandfathering" is more likely to apply to aircraft on the
FAA's list, not to any kit currently being produces.
I looked through that list, and I was surprised at how few aircraft
were on it, and how many were aircraft that no one would build today,
like the Cirrus VK-30.
The part that I've always had trouble sorting out is what the
percentage refers to.
It could be that a tail is considered to be 30% of the aircraft, so
if you "fabricated" the tail, you'd be done with the fabrication
requirement.
Is it percent of time, and if so, what time? A fuselage for a
Lightning takes only a very few hours to "fabricate" at the factory
once the molds have been built, so maybe it only contributes a few
hours to the total "fabrication and assembly time" for the aircraft.
If that's the case, the lower the total number of hours needed to
fabricate and assemble the factory-supplied parts, the fewer the
hours the amateur builder needs to put into the aircraft to meet the
51% rule.
That may be the saving grace for the Lightning, in that the nature of
an airplane built from composite molds is such that there aren't that
many total hours.
Hugh Sontag
>Buz,
>
>I understand you have quoted the AOPA here, but are you getting the
>impression that "Existing kit designs essentially would be
>grandfathered" or that "Existing kit designs, already on the FAA's
>51% list, essentially would be grandfathered"?
>
>In this case the difference could be critical because the Lightning
>is not already on the FAA's 51% list.
>
>
>Colin K.
>OK
>Lightning # 52 under construction.
><http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken>http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>n5pb@aol.com
>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:08 PM
>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>
>Buz,
>This is good to know, especially since I begin my build in September at SYI!
>
>"Bear"
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: N1BZRich@aol.com
>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:16 am
>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>
>Tim,
> From one retired AF fighter pilot to another - welcome aboard.
>The answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in the air"
>but we should have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal
>after Oshkosh (I am there now). But reading their proposal, I think
>the Lightning should be OK. Below is a summary of what the AOPA has
>to say about the new proposal. We will get the EAA's take
>in several forums during the convention.
>Blue Skies,
>Buz Rich
>
>The FAA is scrutinizing "fast build" homebuilt aircraft programs and
>with that may come policy changes that affect future kit designs.
>The FAA has released several
><http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pubs>draft
>documents to clarify the regulation of the homebuilt aircraft
>segment. The biggest potential change is to the definition of the
>so-called 51-percent rule. The FAA s original intention was that the
>individual would fabricate more than 50 percent and assemble more
>than 50 percent of the aircraft.
>The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the market
>where an aircraft owner's contribution resulted in 51 percent of the
>assembly only. The agency felt that this did not meet the intent of
>building "solely for their own education or recreation."
>The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing, at a
>minimum, 20 percent of the assembly and 20 percent of the
>fabrication with the remaining 11 percent made up from either
>additional assembly or fabrication. The FAA now states that the
>commercial assistance or "for hire" building programs will not count
>toward 20 percent of the assembly by the individual.
>The policy changes would not affect those flying traditionally
>certified aircraft or already completed amateur-built aircraft.
>Existing kit designs essentially would be grandfathered, while new
>models, after the rules go into effect, would get the extra scrutiny.
>
>
>Get fantasy football with free live scoring.
><http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020>Sign
>up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
>
>
> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>://forums.matronics.com
>lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>======================
>============
>
>
>The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser.
><http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014>Get
>the TMZ Toolbar Now!
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I like your thinking Hugh! :-)
Colin K.
OK
Lightning # 52 under construction.
http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hugh Sontag
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
I suspect "grandfathering" is more likely to apply to aircraft on the
FAA's list, not to any kit currently being produces.
I looked through that list, and I was surprised at how few aircraft
were on it, and how many were aircraft that no one would build today,
like the Cirrus VK-30.
The part that I've always had trouble sorting out is what the
percentage refers to.
It could be that a tail is considered to be 30% of the aircraft, so
if you "fabricated" the tail, you'd be done with the fabrication
requirement.
Is it percent of time, and if so, what time? A fuselage for a
Lightning takes only a very few hours to "fabricate" at the factory
once the molds have been built, so maybe it only contributes a few
hours to the total "fabrication and assembly time" for the aircraft.
If that's the case, the lower the total number of hours needed to
fabricate and assemble the factory-supplied parts, the fewer the
hours the amateur builder needs to put into the aircraft to meet the
51% rule.
That may be the saving grace for the Lightning, in that the nature of
an airplane built from composite molds is such that there aren't that
many total hours.
Hugh Sontag
>Buz,
>
>I understand you have quoted the AOPA here, but are you getting the
>impression that "Existing kit designs essentially would be
>grandfathered" or that "Existing kit designs, already on the FAA's
>51% list, essentially would be grandfathered"?
>
>In this case the difference could be critical because the Lightning
>is not already on the FAA's 51% list.
>
>
>Colin K.
>OK
>Lightning # 52 under construction.
><http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken>http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>n5pb@aol.com
>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:08 PM
>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>
>Buz,
>This is good to know, especially since I begin my build in September at
>SYI!
>
>"Bear"
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: N1BZRich@aol.com
>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:16 am
>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>
>Tim,
> From one retired AF fighter pilot to another - welcome aboard.
>The answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in the air"
>but we should have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal
>after Oshkosh (I am there now). But reading their proposal, I think
>the Lightning should be OK. Below is a summary of what the AOPA has
>to say about the new proposal. We will get the EAA's take
>in several forums during the convention.
>Blue Skies,
>Buz Rich
>
>The FAA is scrutinizing "fast build" homebuilt aircraft programs and
>with that may come policy changes that affect future kit designs.
>The FAA has released several
><http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pub
s>draft
>documents to clarify the regulation of the homebuilt aircraft
>segment. The biggest potential change is to the definition of the
>so-called 51-percent rule. The FAA s original intention was that the
>individual would fabricate more than 50 percent and assemble more
>than 50 percent of the aircraft.
>The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the market
>where an aircraft owner's contribution resulted in 51 percent of the
>assembly only. The agency felt that this did not meet the intent of
>building "solely for their own education or recreation."
>The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing, at a
>minimum, 20 percent of the assembly and 20 percent of the
>fabrication with the remaining 11 percent made up from either
>additional assembly or fabrication. The FAA now states that the
>commercial assistance or "for hire" building programs will not count
>toward 20 percent of the assembly by the individual.
>The policy changes would not affect those flying traditionally
>certified aircraft or already completed amateur-built aircraft.
>Existing kit designs essentially would be grandfathered, while new
>models, after the rules go into effect, would get the extra scrutiny.
>
>
>Get fantasy football with free live scoring.
><http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020>Sign
>up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
>
>
> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>://forums.matronics.com
>lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>======================
>============
>
>
>The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser.
><http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014>Get
>the TMZ Toolbar Now!
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.mat
>ronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics
>.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|