Pietenpol-List Digest Archive

Thu 10/28/10


Total Messages Posted: 33



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 03:55 AM - iPad (Kringle)
     2. 04:56 AM - Re: iPad (Ryan Mueller)
     3. 05:35 AM - Counterweighting the Model A, and weight (Douwe Blumberg)
     4. 06:41 AM - Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight (Billy McCaskill)
     5. 07:14 AM - Re: Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight (KM Heide CPO/FAAOP)
     6. 08:21 AM - Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (K5YAC)
     7. 08:34 AM - Re: iPad (peterk48)
     8. 08:48 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Jim Markle)
     9. 09:01 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Kip and Beth Gardner)
    10. 09:10 AM - Re: Re: iPad (Dan Yocum)
    11. 09:14 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (TOM STINEMETZE)
    12. 09:22 AM - Re: Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight (airlion)
    13. 09:22 AM - Re: Last trips for the year (Dan Yocum)
    14. 09:27 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Kip and Beth Gardner)
    15. 09:35 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Harvey Rule)
    16. 10:01 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Ben Charvet)
    17. 10:48 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (K5YAC)
    18. 01:43 PM - Re: Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Dan Yocum)
    19. 03:02 PM - Fw: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (helspersew@aol.com)
    20. 05:19 PM - Re: Fw: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (K5YAC)
    21. 05:38 PM - Re: Re: Fw: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Doug Dever)
    22. 05:38 PM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Doug Dever)
    23. 05:52 PM - Another Turtle Deck Question (K5YAC)
    24. 06:25 PM - Re: Another Turtle Deck Question (Gary Boothe)
    25. 06:34 PM - Re: Leading edge material (Clif Dawson)
    26. 06:41 PM - Re: Another Turtle Deck Question (Jim Markle)
    27. 06:56 PM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Clif Dawson)
    28. 07:05 PM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Harvey Rule)
    29. 07:08 PM - Re: Another Turtle Deck Question (K5YAC)
    30. 07:55 PM - Re: graph paper (Clif Dawson)
    31. 07:57 PM - Re: Another Turtle Deck Question (Pieti Lowell)
    32. 08:34 PM - Re: Resaw Options (coxwelljon)
    33. 10:10 PM - Re: Resaw Options (Billy McCaskill)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 03:55:35 AM PST US
    Subject: iPad
    From: "Kringle" <Mrkringles@msn.com>
    Has anyone considered mounting the iPad in their aircraft? Since I haven't laid out my dash panel yet I'm thinking of a hard mount. Any thoughts? Advantages would be flight maps, google earth maps, email, gps, radar...etc. Disadvantages may be viewing in bright light. -------- John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317293#317293


    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
    Time: 04:56:11 AM PST US
    From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: iPad
    Slight edit: disadvantages will be glare and viewing in bright sunlight. Not may be...will be, guaranteed. :P Because of the large size it will be more difficult to get it in to a position that affords the best viewability without getting in your way. You will have to get the 3G enabled version if you want it to be able to retrieve any data in the air, so there's larger purchase price (minimum $629) and at least $15 a mo to AT&T. For that money (actually a little less) you can buy a purpose built handheld aviation GPS which will be better suited for that role. It's ok if you want an iPad just to play Angry Birds...you don't have to justify that by trying to make it into a GPS replacement. ;) Ryan Sent from my mobile device On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:57 AM, Kringle <Mrkringles@msn.com> wrote: > > Has anyone considered mounting the iPad in their aircraft? Since I haven't laid out my dash panel yet I'm thinking of a hard mount. Any thoughts? > Advantages would be flight maps, google earth maps, email, gps, radar...etc. Disadvantages may be viewing in bright light. > > -------- > John > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317293#317293 > >


    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
    Time: 05:35:22 AM PST US
    From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight
    After lots of research, I like counterweighting the crank. It's only the early engines that didn't use them, and they all went to it for a reason. Smoother running, more concentric stresses on the bearings and more potential power. That being said, be sure it's done by someone who knows how, or buy a new counterweighted crank from snyders, (but ck first on these as I"ve heard two negatives, firstly the fillets weren't radiused, and secondly, there was questions about proof of alloy) Except for a bad job I can't see any drawbacks. It'll add about 12 lbs maybe, which is in the nose, so that's a personal decision. My engine was counterweighed and ran like a sewing machine, noticeably smoother than stock. $.02 Douwe Do not archive


    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
    Time: 06:41:17 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight
    From: "Billy McCaskill" <billmz@cox.net>
    And as most Piets are tail-heavy, the extra weight of the counterweighted crank is probably a good thing. And if it makes the engine run smoother, the plane will be more comfortable to fly and also will make the airframe last a bit longer too as the vibration levels will be much less. I can't think of a good reason not to use a counterweighted crank, pretty much every engine ever made since 1930 has had counterweighted cranks for a reason. -------- Billy McCaskill Urbana, IL tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317308#317308


    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
    Time: 07:14:34 AM PST US
    From: KM Heide CPO/FAAOP <kmheidecpo@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight
    Much agreement with Billy. Also, the liquid engine balancers are fantastic if you have ever used one. Much smoother than a harmonic balancer. - Don't for get to have the prop balanced while running. I have had this done on a few different airplanes. The mechanic uses a computer to dial in the amount and placement of the washers to balance out the prop. I was a non-be liever until I seen it done and the end results! Makes a-huge difference in vibration and a really smooth running engine and prop. - .02 worth - KMHeide - --- On Thu, 10/28/10, Billy McCaskill <billmz@cox.net> wrote: From: Billy McCaskill <billmz@cox.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight And as most Piets are tail-heavy, the extra weight of the counterweighted c rank is probably a good thing.- And if it makes the engine run smoother, the plane will be more comfortable to fly and also will make the airframe l ast a bit longer too as the vibration levels will be much less.- I can't think of a good reason not to use a counterweighted crank, pretty much ever y engine ever made since 1930 has had counterweighted cranks for a reason. -------- Billy McCaskill Urbana, IL tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317308#317308 le, List Admin. =0A=0A=0A


    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
    Time: 08:21:16 AM PST US
    Subject: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    From: "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net>
    I am getting ready to start on my turtle deck and I'm wondering if a modification to the dimensions would be appropriate or acceptable. The plans show the turtle deck to be an elliptical shape, or perhaps an offset radius, but due to my size I was wondering if it would be suitable to cut a taller radius like a complete half circle, which would make for a taller seat back and instrument panel. For example, if the fuse width at the seat back is 24", can I just cut a 12" radius, or will this not work for some reason? I know that it will make the fuselage look taller and require me to raise the instrument panel to match, but for the purpose of seat belts, panel visibility, etc., I'm thinking it might be a good idea. Any suggestions or recommendations as to why I should not do this? Thanks! -------- Mark Chouinard Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317313#317313 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/turtle_back_108.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/inst_board_194.jpg


    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
    Time: 08:34:04 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: iPad
    From: "peterk48" <peterk48@msn.com>
    Correct...not really for inflight use. However, they are very good as a replacement for paper charts if you fly any distances. There is an app called SkyChartsPro for $19.99/year that keeps you in current charts...all of em. If you have the 3g version you get GPS also and you will have a small airplane geo-ref'd on your chart. You do not need to sign up for the AT&T svc to use the GPS. All that said, they are a nice chart replacement but nothing compared to a Garmin 496 for instance for following in the air. Do not archive -------- Pete Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317314#317314


    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
    Time: 08:48:02 AM PST US
    From: Jim Markle <jim_markle@mindspring.com>
    Subject: Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    Raise it. Not sure if people make it a full 12" radius but it does get raised.....if you want, you can come measure mine to see what you think.... jm -----Original Message----- >From: K5YAC <hangar10@cox.net> >Sent: Oct 28, 2010 10:18 AM >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels > > >I am getting ready to start on my turtle deck and I'm wondering if a modification to the dimensions would be appropriate or acceptable. The plans show the turtle deck to be an elliptical shape, or perhaps an offset radius, but due to my size I was wondering if it would be suitable to cut a taller radius like a complete half circle, which would make for a taller seat back and instrument panel. For example, if the fuse width at the seat back is 24", can I just cut a 12" radius, or will this not work for some reason? I know that it will make the fuselage look taller and require me to raise the instrument panel to match, but for the purpose of seat belts, panel visibility, etc., I'm thinking it might be a good idea. Any suggestions or recommendations as to why I should not do this? > >Thanks! > >-------- >Mark Chouinard >Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317313#317313 > > >Attachments: > >http://forums.matronics.com//files/turtle_back_108.jpg >http://forums.matronics.com//files/inst_board_194.jpg > >


    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
    Time: 09:01:03 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
    Mark, I am raising mine, not sure how much yet, but significantly above the plans. If you do the same for the panels, you'll also want to look at raising the cabanes by several inches (there is a limit to what's practical on that, not sure what, but it's been discussed on the list at some point in the past). Also, Andrew Pietenpol told me years ago that he thought 9 turtleneck stringers looked better than the 7 the plans call for & that's what he was doing on the project he was working on at the time. Kip Gardner On Oct 28, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Jim Markle wrote: > > Raise it. Not sure if people make it a full 12" radius but it does get raised.....if you want, you can come measure mine to see what you think.... > > jm > > > -----Original Message----- >> From: K5YAC <hangar10@cox.net> >> Sent: Oct 28, 2010 10:18 AM >> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels >> >> >> I am getting ready to start on my turtle deck and I'm wondering if a modification to the dimensions would be appropriate or acceptable. The plans show the turtle deck to be an elliptical shape, or perhaps an offset radius, but due to my size I was wondering if it would be suitable to cut a taller radius like a complete half circle, which would make for a taller seat back and instrument panel. For example, if the fuse width at the seat back is 24", can I just cut a 12" radius, or will this not work for some reason? I know that it will make the fuselage look taller and require me to raise the instrument panel to match, but for the purpose of seat belts, panel visibility, etc., I'm thinking it might be a good idea. Any suggestions or recommendations as to why I should not do this? >> >> Thanks! >> >> -------- >> Mark Chouinard >> Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage >> >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317313#317313 >> >> >> >> >> Attachments: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com//files/turtle_back_108.jpg >> http://forums.matronics.com//files/inst_board_194.jpg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >


    Message 10


  • 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
    Time: 09:10:05 AM PST US
    From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
    Subject: Re: iPad
    On 10/28/2010 10:31 AM, peterk48 wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "peterk48"<peterk48@msn.com> > > Correct...not really for inflight use. However, they are very good as a replacement for paper charts if you fly any distances. There is an app called SkyChartsPro for $19.99/year that keeps you in current charts...all of em. If you have the 3g version you get GPS also and you will have a small airplane geo-ref'd on your chart. You do not need to sign up for the AT&T svc to use the GPS. All that said, they are a nice chart replacement but nothing compared to a Garmin 496 for instance for following in the air. > If you have an iPhone, don't get the Pro version! Get the normal version for $9.99. For the additional $10 you get the courtesy of having to pay for your chart upgrades when they expire. With the non-pro version, chart upgrades are free. That said, if you have an iPad, you will need to get the Pro version. Dan do not archive -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."


    Message 11


  • 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
    Time: 09:14:44 AM PST US
    From: "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS@mcpcity.com>
    Subject: Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    Mark: Some additional height is OK but don't overdo it. You do not want to overly affect the airflow over your vertical stab. I believe Master Cuy stated that he raised his by 2 inches which is why I built mine that way. Mine has not yet flown, however, so take my advice with a grain or two of salt. (whatever that means) Tom Stinemetze N328X >>> "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net> 10/28/2010 10:18 AM >>> I know that it will make the fuselage look taller and require me to raise the instrument panel to match, but for the purpose of seat belts, panel visibility, etc., I'm thinking it might be a good idea. Any suggestions or recommendations as to why I should not do this? Thanks! -------- Mark Chouinard


    Message 12


  • 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
    Time: 09:22:11 AM PST US
    From: airlion <airlion@bellsouth.net>
    Subject: Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight
    ----- Original Message ---- From: Billy McCaskill <billmz@cox.net> Sent: Thu, October 28, 2010 9:38:59 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight And as most Piets are tail-heavy, the extra weight of the counterweighted crank is probably a good thing. And if it makes the engine run smoother, the plane will be more comfortable to fly and also will make the airframe last a bit longer too as the vibration levels will be much less. I can't think of a good reason not to use a counterweighted crank, pretty much every engine ever made since 1930 has had counterweighted cranks for a reason. -------- Billy McCaskill Urbana, IL tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317308#317308


    Message 13


  • 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
    Time: 09:22:11 AM PST US
    From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
    Subject: Re: Last trips for the year
    On 10/27/2010 02:43 PM, Gary Boothe wrote: > I need that attorneys name? Does he also do marriage counseling? I do not give marriage advice for the simple fact that someone will always be unhappy. You're on your own, Gary! do not archive -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."


    Message 14


  • 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
    Time: 09:27:05 AM PST US
    From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    I've heard this mentioned before, but honestly, I wonder. I mean, most guys bodies stick way up above the normal turtleneck & I'm sure that in itself has a negative effect on the airflow to the vertical stabilizer. I'd think that a higher turtleneck might actually result in improved flow, with less turbulence, but I'm not the expert, so just thinking it through as to what seems logical. Chuck Gantzer has a secondary turtleneck on his Piet, I assume mainly as a headrest, but maybe also to improve airflow & I believe his plane flies just fine (haven't heard anything from Chuck on the list in a couple of years, guess he's deep into his new project). Kip Gardner On Oct 28, 2010, at 12:12 PM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote: > Mark: > > Some additional height is OK but don't overdo it. You do not want to overly affect the airflow over your vertical stab. I believe Master Cuy stated that he raised his by 2 inches which is why I built mine that way. Mine has not yet flown, however, so take my advice with a grain or two of salt. (whatever that means) > > Tom Stinemetze > N328X > > > > >>> "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net> 10/28/2010 10:18 AM >>> > I know that it will make the fuselage look taller and require me to raise the instrument panel to match, but for the purpose of seat belts, panel visibility, etc., I'm thinking it might be a good idea. Any suggestions or recommendations as to why I should not do this? > > Thanks! > > -------- > Mark Chouinard > > >


    Message 15


  • 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
    Time: 09:35:46 AM PST US
    From: Harvey Rule <harvey.rule@bell.net>
    Subject: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    If the turtle deck is built high enough then one could think about putting a bubble canopy on the old PIET.Now theres a real change to the old baby eh !Would make it comfy for winter flying. do not archive From: kipandbeth@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels I've heard this mentioned before=2C but honestly=2C I wonder. I mean=2C mo st guys bodies stick way up above the normal turtleneck & I'm sure that in itself has a negative effect on the airflow to the vertical stabilizer. I' d think that a higher turtleneck might actually result in improved flow=2C with less turbulence=2C but I'm not the expert=2C so just thinking it throu gh as to what seems logical. Chuck Gantzer has a secondary turtleneck on his Piet=2C I assume mainly as a headrest=2C but maybe also to improve airflow & I believe his plane flies just fine (haven't heard anything from Chuck on the list in a couple of ye ars=2C guess he's deep into his new project). Kip Gardner On Oct 28=2C 2010=2C at 12:12 PM=2C TOM STINEMETZE wrote: Mark: Some additional height is OK but don't overdo it. You do not want to overl y affect the airflow over your vertical stab. I believe Master Cuy stated that he raised his by 2 inches which is why I built mine that way. Mine ha s not yet flown=2C however=2C so take my advice with a grain or two of salt . (whatever that means) Tom Stinemetze N328X >>> "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net> 10/28/2010 10:18 AM >>> I know that it will make the fuselage look taller and require me to raise t he instrument panel to match=2C but for the purpose of seat belts=2C panel visibility=2C etc.=2C I'm thinking it might be a good idea. Any suggestion s or recommendations as to why I should not do this? Thanks! -------- Mark Chouinard href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/con tribution


    Message 16


  • 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
    Time: 10:01:11 AM PST US
    From: Ben Charvet <bencharvet@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    From reading the Bingelis books, it is best if the shoulder harness exits at shoulder height to avoid spinal compression in a crash. That said, if you are real tall it might be best to make a streamline headrest to exit the harness. One of the benefits of plan building is in the end it is YOUR airplane. Draw some sketches to see what the different options will look like and go from there. Ben On 10/28/2010 11:18 AM, K5YAC wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "K5YAC"<hangar10@cox.net> > > I am getting ready to start on my turtle deck and I'm wondering if a modification to the dimensions would be appropriate or acceptable. The plans show the turtle deck to be an elliptical shape, or perhaps an offset radius, but due to my size I was wondering if it would be suitable to cut a taller radius like a complete half circle, which would make for a taller seat back and instrument panel. For example, if the fuse width at the seat back is 24", can I just cut a 12" radius, or will this not work for some reason? I know that it will make the fuselage look taller and require me to raise the instrument panel to match, but for the purpose of seat belts, panel visibility, etc., I'm thinking it might be a good idea. Any suggestions or recommendations as to why I should not do this? > > Thanks! > > -------- > Mark Chouinard > Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317313#317313 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/turtle_back_108.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/inst_board_194.jpg > >


    Message 17


  • 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
    Time: 10:48:57 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    From: "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net>
    Thanks Kip (and others) for the comments. I do plan to raise the cabanes 2". I think they could go higher, but others have said that it starts to look a little different overall if raised more than 2", so for now I am sticking to that measurement. Also, I have planned to install 9 stringers as well. I'm not sure if I came to that conclusion by looking at photos or if someone told me to consider using 9, none the less, I'm glad that I remembered that advise. Now, as for the height of the turtle deck and instrument panels... I don't guess it matters much how high it is as long as it doesn't protrude unnecessarily into the slip stream. I am tall, so I'll be obstructing the air flow some with my upper torso, plus, I plan to install wind shields (at least short ones, as many do), so I don't guess it will make much difference whether it is my body or the structure that is in the way. I'll try to keep it to a minimum, but I'll obviously need to make some adjustments for my size. kipandbeth(at)earthlink.n wrote: > Mark, > > I am raising mine, not sure how much yet, but significantly above the plans. If you do the same for the panels, you'll also want to look at raising the cabanes by several inches (there is a limit to what's practical on that, not sure what, but it's been discussed on the list at some point in the past). Also, Andrew Pietenpol told me years ago that he thought 9 turtleneck stringers looked better than the 7 the plans call for & that's what he was doing on the project he was working on at the time. > > Kip Gardner > > On Oct 28, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Jim Markle wrote: > Raise it. Not sure if people make it a full 12" radius but it does get raised.....if you want, you can come measure mine to see what you think.... > > jm > > > -- -------- Mark Chouinard Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317334#317334


    Message 18


  • 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
    Time: 01:43:36 PM PST US
    From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
    Subject: Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    The WACO CRG has a huge turtledeck - the top is even with the top of the windscreen. It was designed to compete in the 1930 Ford Air Tour. It doesn't look bad: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Waco-CRG/1231672/M/ Dan On 10/28/2010 12:45 PM, K5YAC wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "K5YAC"<hangar10@cox.net> > > Thanks Kip (and others) for the comments. I do plan to raise the cabanes 2". I think they could go higher, but others have said that it starts to look a little different overall if raised more than 2", so for now I am sticking to that measurement. Also, I have planned to install 9 stringers as well. I'm not sure if I came to that conclusion by looking at photos or if someone told me to consider using 9, none the less, I'm glad that I remembered that advise. > > Now, as for the height of the turtle deck and instrument panels... I don't guess it matters much how high it is as long as it doesn't protrude unnecessarily into the slip stream. I am tall, so I'll be obstructing the air flow some with my upper torso, plus, I plan to install wind shields (at least short ones, as many do), so I don't guess it will make much difference whether it is my body or the structure that is in the way. I'll try to keep it to a minimum, but I'll obviously need to make some adjustments for my size. > > > kipandbeth(at)earthlink.n wrote: >> Mark, >> >> I am raising mine, not sure how much yet, but significantly above the plans. If you do the same for the panels, you'll also want to look at raising the cabanes by several inches (there is a limit to what's practical on that, not sure what, but it's been discussed on the list at some point in the past). Also, Andrew Pietenpol told me years ago that he thought 9 turtleneck stringers looked better than the 7 the plans call for& that's what he was doing on the project he was working on at the time. >> >> Kip Gardner >> >> On Oct 28, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Jim Markle wrote: >> Raise it. Not sure if people make it a full 12" radius but it does get raised.....if you want, you can come measure mine to see what you think.... >> >> jm >> >> >> -- > > > -------- > Mark Chouinard > Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317334#317334 > > -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."


    Message 19


  • 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
    Time: 03:02:26 PM PST US
    Subject: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    From: helspersew@aol.com
    Gentlemen, I did not raise my turtledeck. The way it was designed is just fine. If it was good enough for Bernerd, it's good enough for me. Dan Helsper, Poplar Grove, IL. -----Original Message----- From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net> Sent: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:24 am Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels I've heard this mentioned before, but honestly, I wonder. I mean, most gu ys bodies stick way up above the normal turtleneck & I'm sure that in itse lf has a negative effect on the airflow to the vertical stabilizer. I'd think that a higher turtleneck might actually result in improved flow, wi th less turbulence, but I'm not the expert, so just thinking it through as to what seems logical. Chuck Gantzer has a secondary turtleneck on his Piet, I assume mainly as a headrest, but maybe also to improve airflow & I believe his plane flies just fine (haven't heard anything from Chuck on the list in a couple of years, guess he's deep into his new project). Kip Gardner On Oct 28, 2010, at 12:12 PM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote: Mark: Some additional height is OK but don't overdo it. You do not want to over ly affect the airflow over your vertical stab. I believe Master Cuy state d that he raised his by 2 inches which is why I built mine that way. Mine has not yet flown, however, so take my advice with a grain or two of salt . (whatever that means) Tom Stinemetze N328X >>> "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net> 10/28/2010 10:18 AM >>> I know that it will make the fuselage look taller and require me to raise the instrument panel to match, but for the purpose of seat belts, panel visibility, etc., I'm thinking it might be a good idea. Any suggestions or recommendations as to why I should not do this? Thanks! -------- Mark Chouinard href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matr onics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ref="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com ref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/con tribution ======================== =========== -= - The Pietenpol-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?Pietenpol-List - -======================== ======================== =========== -= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - -= Same great content also available via the Web Forums! - -= --> http://forums.matronics.com - -======================== ======================== =========== -= - List Contribution Web Site - -= Thank you for your generous support! -= -Matt Dralle, List Admin. -= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution -======================== ======================== ===========


    Message 20


  • 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
    Time: 05:19:46 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    From: "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net>
    I understand Dan, and I am trying my best to adhere to the plans, but in reality, I am 6'5" tall... something that Bernard didn't have to consider. I have sat in my fuselage with a simple seat that should closely replicate my position in the rear pit and I've found that the rear seat back/turtle deck front is way too low to provide for effective safety harness installation, not to mention the added comfort of an upper back rest. Unfortunately, I have a much larger than average framework, but I don't intend to keep that from letting me build or fly this airplane. -------- Mark Chouinard Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317357#317357


    Message 21


  • 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
    Time: 05:38:37 PM PST US
    From: Doug Dever <chiefpepperhead@hotmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    Yeah=2C what you said too Doug Dever In beautiful Stow Ohio > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fwd: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels > From: hangar10@cox.net > Date: Thu=2C 28 Oct 2010 17:17:22 -0700 > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > > > I understand Dan=2C and I am trying my best to adhere to the plans=2C but in reality=2C I am 6'5" tall... something that Bernard didn't have to cons ider. I have sat in my fuselage with a simple seat that should closely repl icate my position in the rear pit and I've found that the rear seat back/tu rtle deck front is way too low to provide for effective safety harness inst allation=2C not to mention the added comfort of an upper back rest. > > Unfortunately=2C I have a much larger than average framework=2C but I don 't intend to keep that from letting me build or fly this airplane. > > -------- > Mark Chouinard > Wings=2C Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317357#317357 > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > >


    Message 22


  • 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
    Time: 05:38:41 PM PST US
    From: Doug Dever <chiefpepperhead@hotmail.com>
    Subject: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    Keep in mind Mr Pietenpol was not a very tall fellow. Bingillis and others have a valid point about the shoulder harness. I am not all that tall=2C but I'm 6'3 when sitting. A little vertically challenged in the leg dept. So that is a concern to me also. Doug Dever In beautiful Stow Ohio Subject: Fwd: Pietenpol-List: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels From: helspersew@aol.com Gentlemen=2C I did not raise my turtledeck. The way it was designed is just fine. If it was good enough for Bernerd=2C it's good enough for me. Dan Helsper=2C Poplar Grove=2C IL.


    Message 23


  • 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
    Time: 05:52:30 PM PST US
    Subject: Another Turtle Deck Question
    From: "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net>
    Stringers... I don't see any mention of dimensions. I'm sure that length varies due to different designs, but I am wondering more about width and height. Perhaps it depends on the type of wood? I have a plank of Ash that the wife helped me rip into nine 3/4" x 1/4" x 80-something inch long strips. Is this suitable? They seem a little flimsy on their own, but when cut to ~74" and attached to the formers, I think they should be pretty strong considering they are primarily only used to support fabric. What are you guys using? Of course, I would prefer spruce, especially out back (due to weight), but I'm trying to use what I have. Concerns? -------- Mark Chouinard Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317361#317361


    Message 24


  • 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
    Time: 06:25:26 PM PST US
    From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5@comcast.net>
    Subject: Another Turtle Deck Question
    Mark I increased my turtledecks 1 1/2". You can see that I have 11 stringers that are slightly wider than 1/4". All is poplar....not flight tested. Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, Running! Tail done, Fuselage on gear (22 ribs down.) -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of K5YAC Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 5:50 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another Turtle Deck Question Stringers... I don't see any mention of dimensions. I'm sure that length varies due to different designs, but I am wondering more about width and height. Perhaps it depends on the type of wood? I have a plank of Ash that the wife helped me rip into nine 3/4" x 1/4" x 80-something inch long strips. Is this suitable? They seem a little flimsy on their own, but when cut to ~74" and attached to the formers, I think they should be pretty strong considering they are primarily only used to support fabric. What are you guys using? Of course, I would prefer spruce, especially out back (due to weight), but I'm trying to use what I have. Concerns? -------- Mark Chouinard Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317361#317361


    Message 25


  • 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
    Time: 06:34:09 PM PST US
    From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca>
    Subject: Re: Leading edge material
    Didn't know you where planing shavings out of the sky, did you?:-) I have a chart of woods and their strength characteristics here; http://clifdawson.ca/Tools_and_Tips.html Halfway down the page. Clif > > That's probably why they call it a plane! Thanks for the info. > Bob


    Message 26


  • 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
    Time: 06:41:54 PM PST US
    From: Jim Markle <jim_markle@mindspring.com>
    Subject: Re: Another Turtle Deck Question
    I would try to use the lightest wood available. When oriented properly, structural integrity will probably be more than adequate with spruce (450 kg/cu.m) or even red cedar (380 kg/cu.m)...or probably a lot of different lightweight materials. I would avoid ash (670 kg/cu.m) because of it's weight. jm -----Original Message----- >From: K5YAC <hangar10@cox.net> >Sent: Oct 28, 2010 7:49 PM >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another Turtle Deck Question > > >Stringers... I don't see any mention of dimensions. I'm sure that length varies due to different designs, but I am wondering more about width and height. Perhaps it depends on the type of wood? I have a plank of Ash that the wife helped me rip into nine 3/4" x 1/4" x 80-something inch long strips. Is this suitable? They seem a little flimsy on their own, but when cut to ~74" and attached to the formers, I think they should be pretty strong considering they are primarily only used to support fabric. > >What are you guys using? Of course, I would prefer spruce, especially out back (due to weight), but I'm trying to use what I have. Concerns? > >-------- >Mark Chouinard >Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317361#317361 > >


    Message 27


  • 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
    Time: 06:56:47 PM PST US
    From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca>
    Subject: Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    You mean like this? Clif ----- Original Message ----- From: Harvey Rule If the turtle deck is built high enough then one could think about putting a bubble canopy on the old PIET.Now theres a real change to the old baby eh!Would make it comfy for winter flying. do not archive


    Message 28


  • 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
    Time: 07:05:03 PM PST US
    From: Harvey Rule <harvey.rule@bell.net>
    Subject: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
    Yes that's the idea.One could use the old tiger moths canopy. do not archive From: CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels You mean like this? Clif ----- Original Message ----- From: Harvey Rule If the turtle deck is built high enough then one could think about putting a bubble canopy on the old PIET.Now theres a real change to the old baby eh !Would make it comfy for winter flying. do not archive


    Message 29


  • 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
    Time: 07:08:33 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Another Turtle Deck Question
    From: "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net>
    I agree with ya Jim... I wouldn't mind buying more spruce but I can't remember if the max length for ground shipping is 6' or 8'. If it's 8'. I'll just order some, if I can only go 6' I'll have to look around locally. -------- Mark Chouinard Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317371#317371


    Message 30


  • 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
    Time: 07:55:43 PM PST US
    From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca>
    Subject: Re: graph paper
    I just discovered this. For those of us who have Sudden Inspirational Thoughts that need drawing out and no ruler in sight; http://www.printfreegraphpaper.com/ Now you can design that Tigermoth/Pietenpol canopy when the Boss isn't looking. Clif


    Message 31


  • 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
    Time: 07:57:22 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Another Turtle Deck Question
    From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
    May I ask a question, How are you controlling your rudder and tail wheel ? If by the same rudder cables, are the rudder and tail wheel control arms the same length ? as they must turn equal radius to get full rudder control. If the tail wheel arms are shorter the rudder will not swing fully. Pieti Lowell Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317372#317372


    Message 32


  • 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
    Time: 08:34:59 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Resaw Options
    From: "coxwelljon" <coxwelljon@frontiernet.net>
    gtche98 wrote: > Question for those that milled their own cap strip, or are more experienced in resawing than I am. I have been thinking lately about purchasing my spruce from McCormick in Madison, and understand that they are selling 1" thick rough cut. > > If that is the case, how many "layers" of cap strip could I resaw out of a 1" thick board? I know I could get 2. Is it possible (for an amateur) to get 3 layers? With the thickness of the band saw blade, and the need to run everything through the planner, I am worried that 3/32" of waste between layers wont be enough. See attached picture that shows what I am talking about. > > Thanks in advance for your expertise! If you have a bandsaw that is the only way to go. Get a woodslicer blade here http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/woodslicer-resaw-bandsaw-blades.aspx . This blade is expensive $30 + but it is amazing. The finish is nearly as good as if run through a planer or jointer. Lightly sand and you are done. With this blade you can easily get 3 cap strips out of a 1" board and not have to plane them. As an aside I cut all of the 1/4" planking for a wood strip canoe with a band saw and really saved a lot of material With the wood slicer blade I have cut as thin as 1/8" x 6" panels from a 1 x 6 maple board and they needed very little sanding. -------- Jon Coxwell GN-1 Builder Recycle and preserve the planet Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317374#317374


    Message 33


  • 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
    Time: 10:10:27 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Resaw Options
    From: "Billy McCaskill" <billmz@cox.net>
    Ditto what Jon said about using the bandsaw for resawing thin strips vs. using the table saw. I own both machines, and find it much safer and easier and get far less kerf waste with the bandsaw. I have consistently resawn veneers as thin as .030" on my Delta bandsaw but would never try to get such thin slices on a table saw if there were any way around it. The 1/8" kerf from the table saw blade is tremendously wasteful when trying to maximize the amount of thin strips you can cut from a larger board. The keft from a good bandsaw resawing blade is usually less than 1/16" and as Jon said, if you use a good blade, planing is not necessary. A light sanding is all you will need. -------- Billy McCaskill Urbana, IL tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317379#317379




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   pietenpol-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Pietenpol-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-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.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --