Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:23 AM - Value of the List... (Matt Dralle)
1. 04:47 AM - Re: GPS : Garmin 396 vs 496 vs Lowrence Airrmap 2000c (Ed Anderson)
2. 04:52 AM - Re: GPS : Garmin 396 vs 496 vs Lowrence Airrmap 2000c (darnpilot@aol.com)
3. 05:11 AM - Re: GPS : Garmin 396 vs 496 vs Lowrence Airrmap 2000c (N395V)
4. 06:51 AM - Re: Nose gear Mod, MSB (Bob)
5. 07:11 AM - Re: WTB RV6A or 7A (carlos)
6. 07:25 AM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (Mike Robertson)
7. 07:49 AM - Re: Factory recall gear leg (Jeff Dowling)
8. 07:55 AM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (John Danielson)
9. 09:25 AM - Re: Factory recall gear leg (Denis Walsh)
10. 12:41 PM - Re: Nose Gear Leg (Brian Meyette)
11. 12:53 PM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (Brian Meyette)
12. 02:43 PM - Re: Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace (Scott)
13. 03:42 PM - Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace (Bob Collins)
14. 03:51 PM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (Mike Robertson)
15. 03:56 PM - Re: Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace (Scott)
16. 04:56 PM - Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace (Bob Collins)
17. 05:11 PM - Re: Nose Gear Leg (Bobby Hester)
18. 05:58 PM - Re: RV Nose Gear SB Question (Bill Schlatterer)
Message 0
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Value of the List... |
If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have
written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least $20 or $30
worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a
subscription to some lame magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth
at least that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that amount and
get a well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come
to think of it, you do... :-)
Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support the
Lists?
Contribution Page:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Again, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far
during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively
through YOUR generosity!!
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: GPS : Garmin 396 vs 496 vs Lowrence Airrmap 2000c |
Hi Lothra,
I also am the owner of a well-used and well-liked Garmin 195 purchased
back in the last millennium. It has served me very well, but as the ole
eye has gotten older a larger, colored screen seemed a good move.
After quite a bit of research I end up purchasing the FL190 from True
Flight. I am still in the process of learning to use all of its
features, but for $1895 I found the value better than the Garmin units I
looked at for my needs - not knocking the Garmin units, just more
features for more$$ than I need. The FL190 has some sexy features like
3D "Highway in the sky", letdown boxes you fly through, etc. Yes, you
can add XM weather for an upgrade cost, but since I, like you, and many
others are strictly VFR pilots, I can defer that upgrade and still have
a good GPS. You can also add an solid state gyro module and get a back
up AI on the screen (for additional money of course).
There are testimonials there if you want to see other owner viewpoint.
As far as I can tell there is no output feed for an autopilot at this
time. But, since I have no autopilot that was not a factor in my
decisions. Oh, yes, the subscription costs for the various data bases
are considerably cheaper than Garmin.
In any case, should you wish to check it out further here is the URL
http://www.aviationsafety.com/
Good luck on your choice.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: L Klingmuller
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:53 PM
Subject: RV-List: GPS : Garmin 396 vs 496 vs Lowrence Airrmap 2000c
My Garmin 195 has guided me very well from my home base (Denver) to
Central America, Central Canada, both coasts and all the way to Nova
Scotia and many, many points in between. I can upload the aviation
data and be current with AP frequencies etc.
Now I am planning to get an other handheld GPS as a "backup".
I can't decide between the Garmin (396 or 496) or the Lowrence 2000C.
I like the big screen and price of the Lowrence( appr. $ 800.- with the
terrain awareness MMC/SD card) and the extra storage chip capacity.
I do not plan to use the XM WX weather satellite (not cost effective
for this VFR only pilot) pre-loaded automotive data base etc so I am
leaning towards the 396. However, this unit costs twice as much as the
Lowrence.
I would like to hear from pilots who are familiar with both the
Lowrence and the Garmin. Specifically, has anybody used the Lowrence in
Central or South America or in Alaska? How about customer support (for
my 195 unit was always good).
I hope I have not opened up the Chevy vs Ford type debate!
Lothar, RV-6A, 750 hrs
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: GPS : Garmin 396 vs 496 vs Lowrence Airrmap 2000c |
My .02.?
If you are not going to use the wx function on the Garmin, buy the Lowrance (or
that EVP thingy with the wonderful display).? The Garmin is nice and the AOPA
database is very useful, but the price delta can only be justified by the use
of XM wx.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: L Klingmuller <l_klingmuller6@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:53 pm
Subject: RV-List: GPS : Garmin 396 vs 496 vs Lowrence Airrmap 2000c
My Garmin 195 has guided me very well from my home base (Denver) to Central America,
Central Canada, both coasts and? all the way to Nova Scotia and many, ?many
points in between.? I can upload the aviation data and be current with AP
frequencies etc.?
Now I am planning to get an other handheld GPS as a "backup".??
?
I can't decide between?the Garmin (396 or 496)?or the Lowrence 2000C.? I like the
big screen and price of the Lowrence( appr. $ 800.- with the terrain awareness
MMC/SD card) and the extra storage chip capacity.?
?
I do not?plan to use the XM WX weather satellite (not cost effective for this VFR
only pilot) pre-loaded automotive data base etc so I am leaning towards the
396.? However, this unit?costs twice as much as the Lowrence.
?
I would like to hear from pilots who are familiar with both the Lowrence and the
Garmin.? Specifically, has anybody used the Lowrence in Central or South America
or in Alaska?? How about customer support (for my 195 unit was always good).
?
I hope I have not opened up the Chevy vs?Ford type debate!
?
Lothar, RV-6A, 750 hrs?
?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: GPS : Garmin 396 vs 496 vs Lowrence Airrmap 2000c |
Try a 296 its a 396 without th weather or try a flight cheetah 190 as seen here....
http://www.excaliburaviation.com/album_frame.asp?forum=open&menuID=8~8
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146178#146178
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nose gear Mod, MSB |
I asked Van this same question reference the mandatory SB requiring a
fuel tank rebuild. There response, they do not have any information
on the flying RVs or if they actually are any flying RVs. How would
they contact the owners?
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
At 10:49 AM 11/14/07, you wrote:
>
>If the nose gear modification is "mandatory", why has Van's Aircraft
>not notified builders instead of letting it be discovered?
>It is possible that an owner could fly for years without learning of
>the modifaction if he did not visit Van's web site or belong to one
>of the on line groups.
>Dale Ensing
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: WTB RV6A or 7A |
Jim,
Try www.barnstormrs.com and search ads for RV6A and RV7A.
Carlos
Jim Cone wrote:
>
> I am still looking for a nice 6A or 7A with 180 HP and C/S prop. Price is not
an issue if the plane is right. Leather interior desired. Please contact me
by phone (360) 775-0311 or email jimnbev@olypen.com
>
> --------
> Jim Cone
> 3-peat offender
> 2 RV-6A's & 1 RV-7A
> EAA Tech Counselor
> EAA Flight Advisor
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146095#146095
>
>
>
--
Carlos Hernandez <carlosh@sec-engr.com>
Structural Engineers, LLC
2963 W. Elliot Rd. - Suite 3
Chandler, AZ 85224
Phone: 480.968.8600
Fax: 480.968.8608
www.sec-engr.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged.
This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or
organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or
an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination or copyingof this email and
its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is
prohibited. If you havereceived this email in error, please
immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email
from your system.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
I agree with Dave on this one. Again, the units to have to be TSO'd but th
ey must be shown to MEET the various standards of the TSO depending on if y
ou want enroute, terminal, or approach capability.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
atronics.comSubject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Go
od for IFR?Now there is one that won't work. The GPS must meet the standar
ds of the TSO. Those standards include RAIM and other specifics in the pre
sentation of the the data the Bluemountain does not have. If Greg would ju
st add RAIM, then we might be able to use that GPS as a substitute for DME
on approaches, but right now you cant use it other than situational awarene
ss. -- David LeonardTurbo Rotary RV-6 N4VYhttp://N4VY.RotaryRoster.nethttp:
//RotaryRoster.net
On Nov 14, 2007 1:53 PM, Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com> wrote:
So how about the GPS moving map (Blue Mtn EFIS one) being used for a GPS ap
proach? It isn't TSO'd. Would I use the same arguement? If I have the al
timeter, pitot/static system & transponder & encoder inspected can I do app
roaches using features in my EFIS/one? Greg
On Nov 14, 2007 12:30 PM, Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com> wrote:
If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements of
FAR 43 then it may be used. What 91.217(c) states is that the altimeters a
nd digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88 respectively.
So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets the standards of the tho
se TSO's. Basically, if the encoder meets the testing standards in FAR 43
they will meet the TSO's. The electronic standards of today's world meet or
exceed the TSO requirements of yesterdays world. Dynon knew what those TS
O standards were before they designed and built their units. I had the cha
nce to speak with the folks from Dynon at length several years ago when the
n D10 first came out, as I was concerned about this very issue. Mike Rober
tsonDas Fed
From: wgill10@comcast.net
ltimeter - Good for IFR? Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:19:29 +0000
Hello Mike,
I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not T
SO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the testing r
equirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that the encoder mu
st meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
Bill
-------------- Original message -------------- From: Mike Robertson < mrobe
rt569@hotmail.com> Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last s
entence. Even for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that we
re true then the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument clus
ter would have to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd.
Outside of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transpon
der must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that cove
rs ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and th
ey do NOT mention TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs
23 through 29 do not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we hav
e that covers what has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and o
nly because the Operating Limitations bring them into play. I know that the
old school inspectors with the FAA and with older established repair stati
ons don't buy this but if they were forced to look throu gh the FAR's and p
rove to you what states that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to be use
d for instrument flight, they could only point to the requirement for the e
ncoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standard during test
ing, and to the ELT. Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject
within Flight Standards that I have fought, and proven. Mike RobertsonDas
Fed P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed
in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700> From: kellym@aviating.com> To: rv-
list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altim
ym@aviating.com >> > The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Refe
rence is 91.205. > No mention of TSO at all.> If you want to minimize cost,
buy an overhauled unit from one of the > reputable instrument shops like C
entury Instruments, for about $375.> For certification the requirements are
in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no > mention of TSO.> In general, TSO is on
ly required for Part 135 and 121. > > darnpilot@aol.com wrote:> > Thanks fo
r the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only > > one in tow
n). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between > > the FAA and th
eir own ignorance . The local Orlando FSDO (avionics > > inspector) says th
e shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They > > showed me the FARs
that they THINK says this, but it is clear that > > they are wrong.> >> > M
y philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be > > f
orced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I > > hav
e to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town > > avi
onics shop for this simple requirement.> >> > I'm going to contact the EAA
and get them on the ass of the local FSDO > > and try to educate them accor
dingly. This is the kind of excrement I > > was trying to get away from by
going to the experimental world.> >> > Jeff> >> >> > -----Original Message-
----> > From: Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com>> > To: rv-list@matroni cs.co
m > > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answe
r; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? > >> > The only things that have to
be certified for IFR are the transponder, > > encoder, and altimeter. All
can be done in about an hour of work. > > You don't really certify the "air
plane", just that the pitot/static > > and transponder have been tested and
are within the standards of the > > regulations. This needs to be done eve
ry 24 months to be IFR "certified".> >> > I wouldn't even tell them that th
e instruments aren't TSO'd. Just go > > to an avionics shop and tell them y
ou need a transponder and pitot > > static check. If they won't do it becau
se you have a big > > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probab
ly won't want to > > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IF
R birds, > > lanca irs, g lasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll
tell you > > where to go.> >> > Paul Besing > >> > ----- Original Message -
---> > From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com > > <mailto: mr.gsun+
rv-list@gmail.com>>> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.
com >> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM> > Subject: Re: RV-Lis
t: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?> >> > So, if I want
my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop > > friendly to Exper
imentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each > > instrument?> >> >
On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com > > <mailto:pbesi
ng@yahoo.com>> wrote:> >> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out i
t's "Experimental" > > some places are s ent sl amming their doors, throwin
g away the key,> > and changing their phone number because they are so afra
id of> > those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was > > l
ucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they> > are eas
y to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky> > Mountain uEnco
der was more accurate than most he tests...he was > > very impressed :-) Oh
yeah, and I built that in my garage too,> > which also gives my altitude t
o ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!> >> > Paul Besing> >> > ----- Original
Message ---- > > From: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard
@gmail.com>>> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>> >
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Need
ed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good> & gt; fo r IFR?> >> > Without ques
tion, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I> > would consider making t
he shop show you where it says that a TSO > > is required to pass the stati
c-system test.> >> > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemou
ntain) and> > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to
> > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform> > an
y TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.> >> > If you google you ca
n find a copy of the instructions for > > performing the static system test
.> >> > Dave Leonard> >> > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot@aol.com> > <
mailto: darnpilot@aol.com>> wrote:> >> > Help.> >> > My Glasair III needs i
ts two year IFR certification, i.e.,> > pitot/static, altimete r, &am p; tr
ansponder check. The altimeter > > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does an
yone have the Regs> > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR
in an> > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and > > wil
l not do the test and certification.> >> > Thank you in advance.> >> > Jeff
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-> > < http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?
ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>! > >> > *> >> >> >> >> >> > *> >> >> >> >> > -
- > > David Leonard> >> > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoste
r.net <http://n4vy.rotaryroster.net/ >> > http://RotaryRoster.net <http://r
otaryroster.net/>> > ------------------------------------------------------
------------------ > > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.> >> >
*> >> >> > *> >> >> > *> >> >> > *> > > >> > ------------------------------
------------------------------------------> > Get easy, one-click access to
your favorites.> > *> >> >> > *> > ---------------------------------------
--------------------------------- > > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.
com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003 >!> > *> >>=
========> > >
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
t=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
p://forums.matronics.com
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ' together at last. Get
it now!
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
a>http://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
a>http://forums.matronics.com
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!- Play Star Shuffle:- the word scramble
challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oc
t
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Factory recall gear leg |
What does it cost for an rv6a?
Shemp
do not archive
bobperk90658@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> Wonder what a gear leg and fork would cost if it were for a Grumman
> Tiger, Piper, or Cessna?
>
>
>
> Bob Perkinson
>
> RV-9
>
> Do Not Archive
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
| Subject: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
A Technical Standard Order (TSO) is a minimum performance standard
issued by the United <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States>
States Federal Aviation Administration
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration> for
specified materials, parts, processes, and appliances used on civil
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_aircraft> aircraft. Articles with
TSO design approval are eligible for use on the United States type
certificated <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certification>
products. The TSO authorization or a letter of TSO Design Approval does
not necessarily convey approval for installation.
John D
RV-6 built
Harmon - building
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Williams
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
IFR?
So how about the GPS moving map (Blue Mtn EFIS one) being used for a GPS
approach? It isn't TSO'd. Would I use the same arguement? If I have
the altimeter, pitot/static system & transponder & encoder inspected can
I do approaches using features in my EFIS/one?
Greg
On Nov 14, 2007 12:30 PM, Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com> wrote:
If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements
of FAR 43 then it may be used. What 91.217(c) states is that the
altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and
TSO-C88 respectively. So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets
the standards of the those TSO's. Basically, if the encoder meets the
testing standards in FAR 43 they will meet the TSO's. The electronic
standards of today's world meet or exceed the TSO requirements of
yesterdays world. Dynon knew what those TSO standards were before they
designed and built their units. I had the chance to speak with the
folks from Dynon at length several years ago when then D10 first came
out, as I was concerned about this very issue.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
_____
From: wgill10@comcast.net
Subject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
IFR?
Hello Mike,
I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is
not TSO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the
testing requirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that
the encoder must meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
Bill
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Mike Robertson < <mailto:mrobert569@hotmail.com>
mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even
for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then
the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would
have to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd.
Outside of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the
Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing, the
FARs that covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23
through 29, and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for instruments. And
we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to Experimental
aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what has to be installed
in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the Operating
Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older
established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to
look throu gh the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight
instruments must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could
only point to the requirement for the encoding altimeter and transponder
having to meet a TSO standard during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight
Standards that I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed
in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
_____
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
> From: kellym@aviating.com
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
IFR?
>
<mailto:kellym@aviating.com> >
>
> The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> No mention of TSO at all.
> If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again,
no
> mention of TSO.
> In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
>
> darnpilot@aol.com wrote:
> > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the
only
> > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > the FAA and their own ignorance . The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter.
They
> > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > they are wrong.
> >
> > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might
be
> > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of
town
> > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> >
> > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local
FSDO
> > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com <mailto:pbesing@yahoo.com> >
> > To: rv-list@matroni cs.com
> > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
for IFR?
> >
> > The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the
transponder,
> > encoder, and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work.
> > You don't really certify the "airplane", just that the pitot/static
> > and transponder have been tested and are within the standards of the
> > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 months to be IFR
"certified".
> >
> > I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd. Just go
> > to an avionics shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot
> > static check. If they won't do it because you have a big
> > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't want
to
> > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > lanca irs, g lasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell
you
> > where to go.
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com
> > <mailto: <mailto:mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com>
mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com>>
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com >
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
for IFR?
> >
> > So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop
> > friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or
each
> > instrument?
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com
> > <mailto:pbesing@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental"
> > some places are s ent sl amming their doors, throwing away the key,
> > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of
> > those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was
> > lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they
> > are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky
> > Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was
> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too,
> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com
<mailto:wdleonard@gmail.com>>
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> & gt; fo r IFR?
> >
> > Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I
> > would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO
> > is required to pass the static-system test.
> >
> > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and
> > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to
> > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform
> > any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
> >
> > If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for
> > performing the static system test.
> >
> > Dave Leonard
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot@aol.com
> > <mailto: darnpilot@aol.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Help.
> >
> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> > pitot/static, altimete r, &am p; transponder check. The altimeter
> > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an
> > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and
> > will not do the test and certification.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <
http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid
=aolcmp00050000000003>!
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Leonard
> >
> > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net <http://n4vy.rotaryroster.net/ >
> > http://RotaryRoster.net <http://rotaryroster.net/>> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?nci
d=aolcmp00050000000003 >!
> > *
> >
>========
>
>
>
_____
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get
<http://www.reallivemoms.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us> 'em!
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
t=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
p://forums.matronics.com
_____
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook - together at last.
Get it now!
<http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100
626971033>
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
a>http://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Factory recall gear leg |
If you need the full boat, around $480. If you only need the minimum,
around 300.
Mine is in the mail.
On Nov 15, 2007, at 8:41 , Jeff Dowling wrote:
> >
>
> What does it cost for an rv6a?
>
> Shemp
> do not archive
>
> bobperk90658@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>> Wonder what a gear leg and fork would cost if it were for a Grumman
>> Tiger, Piper, or Cessna?
>>
>>
>> Bob Perkinson
>>
>> RV-9
>>
>> Do Not Archive
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
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 |
|
So, to make this change, does one just have to swap out the fork, or does
the nose gear leg have to come out, too? I think it'd be near impossible
to get my nose gear leg out now.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Schlatterer
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:43 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg
It is shortened from the bottom which increases ground clearance for the
fork but has no impact on prop clearance. Attached pix might help. Not
sure whose it is but it shows the difference well.
Also the $100 from Lang is really $75 for machining and $25 for freight back
and he sends you a check for the diff. I think mine was about $8 back. He
did a perfect job and I had it back in two weeks. A bargain! Building the
box was the hard part.
Bill S
7a Ark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Emrath
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:16 PM
Subject: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg
Has anyone found that shortening the leg in anyway reduces the prop ground
clearance? I also find that the Langair web site now states to include a
check for $100 and they will refund or bill for any difference.
Marty in Brentwood TN
Time: 06:55:38 PM PST US
From: Ralph Hoover <hooverra@verizon.net>
Subject: RV-List: Price for nose gear leg?
Charlie,
Here is the story on the gear leg mod from Harmon Lang. This is to go from a
-2 to a -3, if you have the -1 I believe you need the new leg, I was unable
to find the price on "the list" either. You probably need to call Van's.
/"The procedure to send the nose gear for modifying.
Pack it up in a box or tube and send it to Langair Machining 33094 Church
Rd. Warren Or. 97053. A drawing for a box is on the web site. A tube from a
carpet core also works. Include $75.00 for the work and enough to ship it
back. Cash or check. We don't take credit cards. Include a return label. We
will remove it from the container, cut the 1 in off, rethread and put it
back in the same container. The rethreading is done with a carbide thread
milling tool running in a CNC mill. If you have the mill you can do this
yourself. Cutter cost and set up will only cost about $300.00 or so. Expect
the time in our shop to be about 4 days. Until we know how many there will
be, we have to set one day aside to do the batch that comes in for the week.
Please help by making the repackaging go as easily as possible. NO
CONFUSION. Harmon"/
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Hoover [mailto:hooverra@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:41 AM
Subject: RV7A U603-2 Modification
Harmon,
Please supply a quotation for modification of a Vans U-603-2 nose gear
leg to a U603-3 per SB 07-11-09.
Thank you
-- Ralph C. Hoover RV7A hooverra at verizon dot net
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
Marty
List
7-Day
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
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 |
|
| Subject: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
It seems to depend on the avionics shop. I went around & around &
around
on this subject (just for encoder, no mention of altimeter & I didn=92t
bring
it up) and finally had to give up & buy a TSO encoder. Story starts
here:
HYPERLINK
"http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep04.htm"http://brian76.mystarban
d.n
et/avionicsSep04.htm
I even had the Portland (ME) FSDO tell me it was required. EAA docs
say
it=92s not required
Lots of people fly IFR with Blue Mountain, GRT, etc as their only
avionics.
It really comes down to what the local shop understands, and if they
don=92t
know or understand Experimentals, then they fall back on what they do
know.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Robertson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
IFR?
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even
for
121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the
Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have
to
be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR
91,
which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown
to
meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments
installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT
mention
TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29
do
not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers
what
has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the
Operating Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older
established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to
look
through the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight
instruments
must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to
the
requirement for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a
TSO
standard during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight
Standards that I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed
in
the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
_____
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
> From: kellym@aviating.com
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
IFR?
>
>
> The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> No mention of TSO at all.
> If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again,
no
> mention of TSO.
> In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
>
> darnpilot@aol.com wrote:
> > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the
only
> > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > the FAA and their own ignorance. The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter.
They
> > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > they are wrong.
> >
> > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might
be
> > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of
town
> > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> >
> > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local
FSDO
> > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com>
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
for
IFR?
> >
> > The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the
transponder,
> > encoder, and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work.
> > You don't really certify the "airplane", just that the pitot/static
> > and transponder have been tested and are within the standards of the
> > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 months to be IFR
"certified".
> >
> > I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd. Just go
> > to an avionics shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot
> > static check. If they won't do it because you have a big
> > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't want
to
> > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > lancairs, glasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell you
> > where to go.
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com
> > <mailto:mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com>>
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
for
IFR?
> >
> > So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop
> > friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or
each
> > instrument?
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com
> > <mailto:pbesing@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental"
> > some places are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key,
> > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of
> > those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was
> > lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they
> > are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky
> > Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was
> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too,
> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com
<mailto:wdleonard@gmail.com>>
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> > for IFR?
> >
> > Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I
> > would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO
> > is required to pass the static-system test.
> >
> > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and
> > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to
> > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform
> > any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
> >
> > If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for
> > performing the static system test.
> >
> > Dave Leonard
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot@aol.com
> > <mailto:darnpilot@aol.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Help.
> >
> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> > pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter
> > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an
> > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and
> > will not do the test and certification.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid
=ao
lcmp00050000000003>!
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Leonard
> >
> > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net <http://n4vy.rotaryroster.net/>
> > http://RotaryRoster.net <http://rotaryroster.net/>
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid
=ao
lcmp00050000000003>!
> > *
> >
>========
>
>
>
_____
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! HYPERLINK
"http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us"Get 'em!
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List"http://www.matronics.com/Navi
gat
or?RV-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not |
replace
To me, it's a non-issue anyways as I've always owned taildraggers. I
can see where I might be a little upset if I had one of these
nosedraggers. Back in 2005, Van's concluded that most accidents with
these were pilot error. Now they imply a design flaw by making it
"mandatory" to replace. As an experimental guy, I just hate the word
"mandatory". Reminds me too much of my certified airplane days...In
Van's letter from 2005, they indicated that no matter HOW they build ANY
part, someone will find a way to destroy it...so...will this mandatory
replacement end all noseovers? We'll see.
I didn't know airplanes with nose wheels even existed until the flurry
of emails on this topic ;)
do not archive
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Bob Collins wrote:
>
>[quote="Knicholas2(at)aol.com"]
>
>
>>Van is basically voiding every RV nose dragger's
>>insurance policy until this is fixed.
>>
>>
>
>
>See what's new a
>
>
>>[b]
>>
>>
>
>
>You know, I realize this is probably not going to endear me to many folks, but
after all these year's, hasn't Van's earned the benefit of the doubt that the
reason they're doing this is because they want us to be aware of improvements
in design so that we're all safer?
>
>I mean, holy smokes, what has Richard VanGrunsven ever done to us that deserves
such acrimony?
>
>To rehash old stuff, maybe all the flipovers ARE the result of pilot error. And
if I follow these threads, too bad for the guy who flips after making a mistake.
>
>But maybe the design minimizes the effect of pilot error and, in the process,
provides a margin of safety.
>
>What's so bad about that?
>
>do not archive
>
>--------
>Bob Collins
>St. Paul, Minn.
>Letters from Flyover Country
>http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146036#146036
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace |
acepilot(at)bloomer.net wrote:
> Back in 2005, Van's concluded that most accidents with
> these were pilot error. Now they imply a design flaw by making it
> "mandatory" to replace.
I don't believe they concluded that at all. What the letter said was:
"Vans Aircrafts own operational experience, over time, with 6 different tricycle
gear RVs and a cumulative 7000+ hours, has been positive. However, as the number
of flying kit built tricycle gear RVs has increased, so has the number of
accidents involving damage to the nose gear. Because of the broad range of use
and abuse to which the fleet is subjected, we find it difficult to categorize
accidents and establish a precise cause and effect relationship. But with over
17 years and literally hundreds of thousands of hours of customer use, the
nose gear has proven safe and practical for the vast majority of users.
That said, we recognized from the beginning that it would be impossible to make
the tricycle gear configuration completely foolproof. In studying the NTSB accident
reports it was obvious that pilot proficiency was the most significant
factor that could be addressed. This awareness precipitated our push for transition
training many years ago and is still a primary focus for Vans in keeping
all RV pilots safe. This training has clearly been successful in reducing accidents
associated with all RV models and its importance cannot be overstressed."
In 2006, in an article I did on the subject for RV Builder's Hotline, (almost a year ago to the day http://rvhotline.expercraft.com/articles/nose_gear.html (http://rvhotline.expercraft.com/articles/nose_gear.html)) Tom Green said:
Bob, a few new nose forks have been in service now for a time... but our ability
to track their "success" is not very good. We don't get hours of service reports
from our builders. All we can do is to keep an eye on the NTSB accident reports...
much like you should do. So far, to our knowledge no one has had any
"reported" incident with one of the new forks."
"The best I can do is to 'mine' the NTSB incidents and so I have taken a baseline
of the data for the last 5 years (just prior to my best guess as to the first
'usage' of a new leg/fork combination). My thoughts are that as each year passes
we can look at the NTSB accidents using the same parameters and determine
if there is a change or, if there is a change, is it due to something mechanical
or is it due to better pilotage."
"I have attached the baseline Excel file that I produced on 7/13/2006. (see below)
The study covers a 5 1/2 year period. I used the 'query' section and the keywords:
"gear collapse", "inverted", and "fatal". I did this for a variety of
aircraft models, both fixed gear and retractable, taildragger and trigear. I
specifically did not include other homebuilts because homebuilts in general don't
need to meet any standards of manufacture. In other words, I am holding Van's
Aircraft kits to the standards of certified planes."
"My thoughts are that after one year, I will produce this search again and see
if the numbers/percentages change. It is the only tool available to us that might
be reliable and unbiased."
"As you can see if you look at the data, the RV ("A" models) have landing accident
rates with "gear collapse" similar to the "retractable" models of many aircraft,
but lower "inverted" rates and one of the lowest "fatal" rates."
" Bob, anyone can do this study but you have to also accept its weaknesses... the
method of using the "keywords" will miss some accidents and add some in that
it shouldn't but "on average" it is as close as I could get to a non-biased
method. Please be aware of this weakness."
"My feeling is that It will take 3-5 years to see any differences that might be
significant enough to draw conclusions. I doubt that reproducing the study in
less than 1 year increments would be any value, so the next check will not occur
until 7/13/2007."
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146326#146326
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 |
|
| Subject: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
I am sorry to hear this. I have gone around and around with different offi
ces on this issue. While it may be a bit late now, I would suggest you cal
l them on the rug for their stand, and make them show you where TSO's equip
ment is required BY REGULATION. If they won't comply then I beg you to use
a program within the FAA called the customer initiative program. That mea
ns you can contact the next higher level of management. The FSDO MUST give
you that phone number. If they dont' then they can get in much bigger tro
uble than just not answering your TSO question.
FOR ALL.......The Customer Initiative Program is for everyone who does not
get an answer they like, or doesn't get good service. The only thing is th
at you MUST start at the lowest level (i.e. FSDO), then work your way up th
e ladder to regional HQ, then to national. Each level MUST give you the ph
one number for the next higher contact if asked.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
From: bmeyette@gmail.comTo: rv-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: RV-List: Need
ed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:4
6:56 -0500
It seems to depend on the avionics shop. I went around & around & around
on this subject (just for encoder, no mention of altimeter & I didn=92t bri
ng it up) and finally had to give up & buy a TSO encoder. Story starts her
e: http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep04.htm
I even had the Portland (ME) FSDO tell me it was required. EAA docs say i
t=92s not required
Lots of people fly IFR with Blue Mountain, GRT, etc as their only avionics.
It really comes down to what the local shop understands, and if they don
=92t know or understand Experimentals, then they fall back on what they do
know.
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matro
nics.com] On Behalf Of Mike RobertsonSent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:
53 AMTo: rv-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-
TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even for
121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the Ce
ssna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to b
e removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91,
which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown t
o meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments
installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention T
SO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do no
t apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what
has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the Ope
rating Limitations bring them into play. I know that the old school inspect
ors with the FAA and with older established repair stations don't buy this
but if they were forced to look through the FAR's and prove to you what sta
tes that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to be used for instrument fli
ght, they could only point to the requirement for the encoding altimeter an
d transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Standa
rds that I have fought, and proven. Mike RobertsonDas Fed P.S. For 121 and
135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in the aircraft parts
manuals and/or to 337's.
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700> From: kellym@aviating.com> To: rv-
list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altime
m@aviating.com>> > The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Refere
nce is 91.205. > No mention of TSO at all.> If you want to minimize cost, b
uy an overhauled unit from one of the > reputable instrument shops like Cen
tury Instruments, for about $375.> For certification the requirements are i
n Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no > mention of TSO.> In general, TSO is only
required for Part 135 and 121.> > darnpilot@aol.com wrote:> > Thanks for t
he replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only > > one in town).
I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between > > the FAA and their
own ignorance. The local Orlando FSDO (avionics > > inspector) says the sh
op cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They > > showed me the FARs that
they THINK says this, but it is clear that > > they are wrong.> >> > My ph
ilosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be > > force
d to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I > > have to
go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town > > avionic
s shop for this simple requirement.> >> > I'm going to contact the EAA and
get them on the ass of the local FSDO > > and try to educate them according
ly. This is the kind of excrement I > > was trying to get away from by goin
g to the experimental world.> >> > Jeff> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com>> > To: rv-list@matronics.com> > S
ent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is N
on-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?> >> > The only things that have to be cert
ified for IFR are the transponder, > > encoder, and altimeter. All can be d
one in about an hour of work. > > You don't really certify the "airplane",
just that the pitot/static > > and transponder have been tested and are wit
hin the standards of the > > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 mo
nths to be IFR "certified".> >> > I wouldn't even tell them that the instru
ments aren't TSO'd. Just go > > to an avionics shop and tell them you need
a transponder and pitot > > static check. If they won't do it because you h
ave a big > > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't
want to > > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > lancairs, glasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell you >
> where to go.> >> > Paul Besing> >> > ----- Original Message ----> > From
: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com > > <mailto:mr.gsun+rv-list@gmai
l.com>>> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>> > Sent
: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: An
swer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?> >> > So, if I want my -7 blesse
d for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop > > friendly to Experimentals and
ask them to certify the airplane or each > > instrument?> >> > On Nov 13, 2
007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com > > <mailto:pbesing@yahoo.com>
> wrote:> >> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experime
ntal"> > some places are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key,>
> and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of> > those c
razy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was> > lucky, I'm at an a
irport that has alot of experimentals, and they> > are easy to work with. A
s a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky> > Mountain uEncoder was more accu
rate than most he tests...he was> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built
that in my garage too,> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR en
vironment! Scary!> >> > Paul Besing> >> > ----- Original Message ----> > Fr
om: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard@gmail.com>>> > To:
rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>> > Sent: Tuesday, Nov
ember 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-T
SO Altimeter - Good> > for IFR?> >> > Without question, non-TSO is OK for e
xperimental aircraft. I> > would consider making the shop show you where it
says that a TSO> > is required to pass the static-system test.> >> > I hav
e 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and> > they both pa
ss every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to> > less than 10' error at
any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform> > any TSO steam guage. But that
is beside the point.> >> > If you google you can find a copy of the instru
ctions for> > performing the static system test.> >> > Dave Leonard> >> > O
n Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot@aol.com> > <mailto:darnpilot@aol.com>> w
rote:> >> > Help.> >> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification
, i.e.,> > pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter> > (
I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs> > and/or clarifi
cation that says this is legal for IFR in an> > experimental aircraft? My l
ocal avionics shop says no, and> > will not do the test and certification.>
>> > Thank you in advance.> >> > Jeff> > ---------------------------------
---------------------------------------> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail
.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!> >> > *>
>> >> >> >> >> > *> >> >> >> >> > -- > > David Leonard> >> > Turbo Rotary
RV-6 N4VY> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net <http://n4vy.rotaryroster.net/>>
> http://RotaryRoster.net <http://rotaryroster.net/>> > -------------------
-----------------------------------------------------> > Get easy, one-clic
k access to your favorites.> >> > *> >> >> > *> >> >> > *> >> >> > *> >> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.> > *> >> >> > *> > ------
------------------------------------------------------------------> > <http
://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolc
mp00050000000003>!> > *> >>=========> > >
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em! http://www.matronics.co
m/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-Listhttp://forums.matro
nics.com Date: 11/11/2007 12:00 AM 12:00 AM
_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not |
replace
Ok, maybe I made the jump to my original thought that Van's thought
pilot error was mostly the cause of nose overs in Van's trike planes
when they stated "
In studying the NTSB accident reports it was obvious that pilot proficiency was
the most significant factor that could be addressed."
If there is/was no design flaw, why redesign and make it mandatory to comply with
it? To me, that would be like if I designed a plane and redesigned some part
that would make it go 10 MPH faster and making that change mandatory (the original
part works flawlessly as designed, but I want everyone to do it so they
can go faster). I'd have no problem if inspection was "recommended" at some
interval...
do not archive
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Bob Collins wrote:
>
>
>acepilot(at)bloomer.net wrote:
>
>
>>Back in 2005, Van's concluded that most accidents with
>>these were pilot error. Now they imply a design flaw by making it
>>"mandatory" to replace.
>>
>>
>
>
>I don't believe they concluded that at all. What the letter said was:
>
>"Vans Aircrafts own operational experience, over time, with 6 different tricycle
gear RVs and a cumulative 7000+ hours, has been positive. However, as the number
of flying kit built tricycle gear RVs has increased, so has the number of
accidents involving damage to the nose gear. Because of the broad range of use
and abuse to which the fleet is subjected, we find it difficult to categorize
accidents and establish a precise cause and effect relationship. But with over
17 years and literally hundreds of thousands of hours of customer use, the
nose gear has proven safe and practical for the vast majority of users.
>
>That said, we recognized from the beginning that it would be impossible to make
the tricycle gear configuration completely foolproof. In studying the NTSB accident
reports it was obvious that pilot proficiency was the most significant
factor that could be addressed. This awareness precipitated our push for transition
training many years ago and is still a primary focus for Vans in keeping
all RV pilots safe. This training has clearly been successful in reducing accidents
associated with all RV models and its importance cannot be overstressed."
>
>
>In 2006, in an article I did on the subject for RV Builder's Hotline, (almost a year ago to the day http://rvhotline.expercraft.com/articles/nose_gear.html (http://rvhotline.expercraft.com/articles/nose_gear.html)) Tom Green said:
>
>Bob, a few new nose forks have been in service now for a time... but our ability
to track their "success" is not very good. We don't get hours of service reports
from our builders. All we can do is to keep an eye on the NTSB accident
reports... much like you should do. So far, to our knowledge no one has had any
"reported" incident with one of the new forks."
>
>"The best I can do is to 'mine' the NTSB incidents and so I have taken a baseline
of the data for the last 5 years (just prior to my best guess as to the first
'usage' of a new leg/fork combination). My thoughts are that as each year
passes we can look at the NTSB accidents using the same parameters and determine
if there is a change or, if there is a change, is it due to something mechanical
or is it due to better pilotage."
>
>"I have attached the baseline Excel file that I produced on 7/13/2006. (see below)
The study covers a 5 1/2 year period. I used the 'query' section and the
keywords: "gear collapse", "inverted", and "fatal". I did this for a variety of
aircraft models, both fixed gear and retractable, taildragger and trigear. I
specifically did not include other homebuilts because homebuilts in general don't
need to meet any standards of manufacture. In other words, I am holding Van's
Aircraft kits to the standards of certified planes."
>
>"My thoughts are that after one year, I will produce this search again and see
if the numbers/percentages change. It is the only tool available to us that might
be reliable and unbiased."
>
>"As you can see if you look at the data, the RV ("A" models) have landing accident
rates with "gear collapse" similar to the "retractable" models of many aircraft,
but lower "inverted" rates and one of the lowest "fatal" rates."
>
>" Bob, anyone can do this study but you have to also accept its weaknesses...
the method of using the "keywords" will miss some accidents and add some in that
it shouldn't but "on average" it is as close as I could get to a non-biased
method. Please be aware of this weakness."
>
>
>"My feeling is that It will take 3-5 years to see any differences that might be
significant enough to draw conclusions. I doubt that reproducing the study in
less than 1 year increments would be any value, so the next check will not occur
until 7/13/2007."
>
>--------
>Bob Collins
>St. Paul, Minn.
>Letters from Flyover Country
>http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146326#146326
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace |
acepilot(at)bloomer.net wrote:
> If there is/was no design flaw, why redesign and make it mandatory to comply
with it?
>
Well the "is" and the "was" are two different things, part of which Tom Green explains.
The "make it mandatory" part, I think, has pretty well been discounted so far.
They certainly put "mandatory" on the SB and if that got people's attention, I
guess that's all to the good. But the insurance folks have said it doesn't affect
insurance rates, and the homebuilt registration folks have already said there's
no mandatory about it. (If folks have a different interpretation from EAA,
I'd love to hear it).
Most of the data that Tom Green has been able to acquire, as near as I can tell,
has shown that while proper piloting technique can certainly eliminate some
of the noseovers, it can't eliminate all. And so they've come up with an improvement
that takes some of the possibility of an incident further away.
Now they could probably do more. They could probably design an oleo strut or something
that'll add a glob of weight and in the process, slow the RV down by another
30-40 knots. But does that mean the original design was flawed? Obviously
I don't think so.
Given that these are our own experimental planes, I think folks are pretty well
free to do what they want. They can make the change. They can not make the change.
It's the suggestion that there's some sort of evil conspiracy at Van's afoot.
Maybe people want Van's to provide the replacement free, in which case the cost
will, no doubt, be spread across all the of the models on January 1.
I don't know. But put me down as a vote for believing that Van's has the best interests
of the flying RV community at heart.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146337#146337
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Leg |
Did you even read the SB?
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb07-11-9.pdf
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my RV7A web site: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
Brian Meyette wrote:
>
> So, to make this change, does one just have to swap out the fork, or does
> the nose gear leg have to come out, too? I think it'd be near impossible
> to get my nose gear leg out now.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Schlatterer
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:43 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg
>
> It is shortened from the bottom which increases ground clearance for the
> fork but has no impact on prop clearance. Attached pix might help. Not
> sure whose it is but it shows the difference well.
>
> Also the $100 from Lang is really $75 for machining and $25 for freight back
> and he sends you a check for the diff. I think mine was about $8 back. He
> did a perfect job and I had it back in two weeks. A bargain! Building the
> box was the hard part.
>
> Bill S
> 7a Ark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Emrath
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:16 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg
>
>
> Has anyone found that shortening the leg in anyway reduces the prop ground
> clearance? I also find that the Langair web site now states to include a
> check for $100 and they will refund or bill for any difference.
>
> Marty in Brentwood TN
>
>
> Time: 06:55:38 PM PST US
> From: Ralph Hoover <hooverra@verizon.net>
> Subject: RV-List: Price for nose gear leg?
>
>
> Charlie,
> Here is the story on the gear leg mod from Harmon Lang. This is to go from a
> -2 to a -3, if you have the -1 I believe you need the new leg, I was unable
> to find the price on "the list" either. You probably need to call Van's.
>
> /"The procedure to send the nose gear for modifying.
> Pack it up in a box or tube and send it to Langair Machining 33094 Church
> Rd. Warren Or. 97053. A drawing for a box is on the web site. A tube from a
> carpet core also works. Include $75.00 for the work and enough to ship it
> back. Cash or check. We don't take credit cards. Include a return label. We
> will remove it from the container, cut the 1 in off, rethread and put it
> back in the same container. The rethreading is done with a carbide thread
> milling tool running in a CNC mill. If you have the mill you can do this
> yourself. Cutter cost and set up will only cost about $300.00 or so. Expect
> the time in our shop to be about 4 days. Until we know how many there will
> be, we have to set one day aside to do the batch that comes in for the week.
> Please help by making the repackaging go as easily as possible. NO
> CONFUSION. Harmon"/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Hoover [mailto:hooverra@verizon.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:41 AM
> Subject: RV7A U603-2 Modification
>
> Harmon,
> Please supply a quotation for modification of a Vans U-603-2 nose gear
> leg to a U603-3 per SB 07-11-09.
> Thank you
>
> -- Ralph C. Hoover RV7A hooverra at verizon dot net
>
> --
> Ralph C. Hoover
> RV7A
> hooverra at verizon dot net
>
>
> Marty
>
>
> List
> 7-Day
>
>
> 12:00 AM
>
>
>
> 12:00 AM
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | RV Nose Gear SB Question |
That was me Bob, :-) I have been wondering where that picture came from
for months! It's in my RV "This explains it all" photo section but I
never remember where they came from! No matter if anyone decides to make
the change or not,..... the picture makes it pretty obvious why it isn't a
bad idea!
Thanks
Bill S
7a Ark
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N67BT@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Nose Gear SB Question
The relative mounting points are the same as the old fork. The fairing
should fit the new fork without modification. The attached photo of my gear
(which was posted earlier by someone else) kind of shows that.
Bob Trumpfheller
RV7A flying for 68 hours
mesawood.com
<<What is the change and/or difficulty with the brackets that attach the
fairings to the axle bolt and the fork? What is needed or difficult to
do?>>
_____
See what's new
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! --
|