---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 03/27/08: 16 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:51 AM - Re: Log book entries (N395V) 2. 07:26 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Bob J.) 3. 08:05 AM - Re: Electrical gyros needed. (Eddie Moran) 4. 08:31 AM - Re: Electrical gyros needed. (Bill Boyd) 5. 10:15 AM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Mike Robertson) 6. 02:17 PM - Re: Re: Nose Gear Fork the Hard Way (Brian Meyette) 7. 03:00 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (JFLEISC@aol.com) 8. 03:13 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (JFLEISC@aol.com) 9. 03:13 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Kelly McMullen) 10. 03:24 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (linn Walters) 11. 03:47 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Neal George) 12. 03:56 PM - Re: Do AD's really apply () 13. 04:45 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (JFLEISC@aol.com) 14. 05:04 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Kelly McMullen) 15. 05:11 PM - Re: Re: Do AD's really apply? (Kelly McMullen) 16. 06:44 PM - New noise in NAV radio (Ken Hill) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:51:53 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: Re: Log book entries From: "N395V" This is paragraph 8 from the above referenced AC 8. APPLICABILITY OF AD's. Each AD contains an applicability statement specifying the product (aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance) to which it applies. Some aircraft owners and operators mistakenly assume that AD's do not apply to aircraft with other than standard airworthiness certificates, i.e., special airworthiness certificates in the restricted, limited, or experimental category. Unless specifically stated, AD's apply to the make and model set forth in the applicability statement regardless of the classification or category of the airworthiness certificate issued for the aircraft. Type certificate and airworthiness certification information are used to identify the product affected. Limitations may be placed on applicability by specifying the serial number or number series to which the AD is applicable. When there is no reference to serial numbers, all serial numbers are affected. The following are examples of AD applicability statements: -------- Milt 2003 F1 Rocket 2006 Radial Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172995#172995 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:26:23 AM PST US From: "Bob J." Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Mike Robertson wrote: > I will reiterate........The FAA will not hold you liable for not complying > with an AD. Whether it is smart or not to not comply is another matter. > Mike, don't take this the wrong way but unless its in writing on FAA letterhead from my district FSDO where I operate from and it states exactly what you say that its OK to not comply with AD's in experimentals, I can't say I would ever believe your statement. Its because the FAR 39, as it is written today, is very clear, and there is nothing in the FAR's that exempts experimentals. Your district may take the correct position of not enforcing AD's on garage builts and I wholeheartedly applaud that but knowing that FSDO's are nothing but a loose confederation of fiefdoms, what gets interpreted one way in one district gets interpreted differently in another. Heck I know of FSDO offices that don't want anything to do with small airplanes. Regards, Bob Japundza RV-6 flying F1 under const. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:05:58 AM PST US From: Eddie Moran Subject: Re: RV-List: Electrical gyros needed. Bill, thanks for the reply. Yes, send additional info please. You don't have a elec dg too? Eddie Moran Bill Boyd wrote: Eddie- I have a 14 volt artificial horizon that has flown flawlessly many years in my RV and was replaced with a Dynon EFIS last year. I've been meaning to put it on eBay but have been too lazy to do so - I was going to get to it this spring... I can send you pictures and more detailed description when I get home, if you are interested. It's standard size, operational as removed, comes with the power connector, and I will guarantee it not to be DOA. I would want $350 for it including shipping and insurance. Bill Boyd On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Eddie Moran wrote: Hi, I am in need of a standard size electrical dg and an artificial attitude indicator. I am replacing the vacuum driven instruments on my aircraft. 321-453-0657 Thanks, Eddie Moran --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:31:03 AM PST US From: "Bill Boyd" Subject: Re: RV-List: Electrical gyros needed. Nope, just the horizon. Sorry. I will send pix soon. How much of a hurry are you in? -Bill On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Eddie Moran wrote: > Bill, thanks for the reply. Yes, send additional info please. You don't > have a elec dg too? > > Eddie Moran > > *Bill Boyd * wrote: > > Eddie- I have a 14 volt artificial horizon that has flown flawlessly many > years in my RV and was replaced with a Dynon EFIS last year. I've been > meaning to put it on eBay but have been too lazy to do so - I was going to > get to it this spring... > > I can send you pictures and more detailed description when I get home, if > you are interested. It's standard size, operational as removed, comes with > the power connector, and I will guarantee it not to be DOA. I would want > $350 for it including shipping and insurance. > > Bill Boyd > > > * > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 10:15:58 AM PST US From: Mike Robertson Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? Bob, Actually this stand that it is not enforcable, as of today, is in writing. It is from a report to the Aircraft Certification Management Team date Apr il 28-30, 1998. This report has not be revised or redone since and is stil l valid. That said, it doesn't mean it couldn't change tomorrow. The actu al statement is to be found on page two of the report under the summary of conclusions, paragraph 1. The reason I bring this up is exactly what you are talking about, which is local choice of trying to enforce an AD. The Eastern region tried to make AD appicable in 2003. When this Memo reached Washington AD, they Eastern R egion was forced to retract their Memo. This is also supported by an artic le that can be found in the FAA news magazine May/June 1999 issue. A couple of years ago, right after FAR 39 changed the wording, I checked wi th our HQ in DC to check and see if the wording change now included Experim entals. The answer was that yes, they apply, but are still not enforcable and that the Report from April 1998 was still the definitive/ruling documen t. Again, I am not trying to get into whether or not complying with an AD is t he intelligent thing to do, rather I am just addressing the legal issue. Mike Robertson Das Fed atronics.comSubject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Mike Robertson wr ote: I will reiterate........The FAA will not hold you liable for not complying with an AD. Whether it is smart or not to not comply is another matter.Mik e, don't take this the wrong way but unless its in writing on FAA letterhea d from my district FSDO where I operate from and it states exactly what you say that its OK to not comply with AD's in experimentals, I can't say I wo uld ever believe your statement. Its because the FAR 39, as it is written today, is very clear, and there is nothing in the FAR's that exempts experi mentals. Your district may take the correct position of not enforcing AD's on garage builts and I wholeheartedly applaud that but knowing that FSDO's are nothing but a loose confederation of fiefdoms, what gets interpreted o ne way in one district gets interpreted differently in another. Heck I kno w of FSDO offices that don't want anything to do with small airplanes.Regar ds,Bob JapundzaRV-6 flying F1 under const. _________________________________________________________________ Test your Star IQ http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 02:17:06 PM PST US From: "Brian Meyette" Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Nose Gear Fork the Hard Way as described in earlier posts on this thread and on VAF http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24523 and http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=210298#post210298 removing the nose gear leg just wasn't going to be an option for me. To make a long story short, I used the $50 Japanese die from MSC and did most of the threads with that. However, it got tighter and tighter as I added threads, with a LOT of binding, despite using lots of lubricant and back-and-forth. By the time I'd done 7/8" of threads, it was so tight, I was using a 2' cheater pipe and broke the handle on the die holder. I bought a new $120 US-made die from F&D Tool, and it worked super. First, even adjusted all the way out, it cut more into the threads I'd already created, so the die wasn't binding up any more. Then it did the rest of the threads easily, with no binding & no cheater bar needed. If you're needing a lot of force, your die is probably worn out. You CAN thread it yourself, but be sure to get a very good US-made adjustable die, use lots lubricant and back-and-forth motion,. It doesn't save any money, though, so the only reason for doing it is for people whose leg or leg bolt is in too tight to get out, as mine was. for details, see http://brian76.mystarband.net/engineFeb08.htm#feb24 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Patterson Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:54 AM Subject: RV-List: Re: Nose Gear Fork the Hard Way > ________________________________ Message 4 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 02:03:00 PM PST US > From: Rquinn1@aol.com > Subject: RV-List: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As > > I just received my new front gear leg fork from Vans to complete the > modification recommend by Vans. > The fork did not look new, in fact it appears to have been installed > before. > I phone Vans and was told by Joe that this is the result of the > contractor's jig. Has any else noticed this? > > Also I plan to make the modifications during my next annual and at that > time > I plan to leave the gear leg in place and rethread and cut the leg as > required. Does any one have the correct thread size? > > Thanks > > Rollie & Rod > RV6A 799RQ > El Paso Int Airport > I completed my nose gear re-work this long weekend, though I went about it the old fashioned way re-using all my parts. Here's how it went... The stock fork came off, stripped it of bolts and bushings, and I hacksawed off 1" from the bottom. This took about 1 hour of sawing by hand. I *highly* recommend a powered saw by all means. A die grinder then sliced the bottom wedges (moving aft) toward the axle. The rough cut is now done. Then came a bunch of grinding & filing & polishing to get everything parallel and airworthy. I stopped when the top and bottom bushing faces were within 0.005". The major fork work is now done. With the weld on the bottom removed, I needed to get some strength back. I was not interested in re-welding and heat-treating the fork, so I chose to add a 5/16" dia. x 5/8" long allen head "set screw" as a shear pin. This is placed just aft of the fork pivot, and 3/8" above the cut, in the meaty hunk of aluminum fork. Drill & tap, then set with locktite. I also added a couple 3/4" lightening holes near the axle, just like the new fork. This was followed by a deburr and cleanup, with a shot of paint to finish. Pound the bushings back in, replace the bolts and grease zerk, and it is ready to install. Note: the stock zerk location *just* clears the bushing when re-installed, so it did not require any modification. Now the really hard part...threading the gear leg. We did it on the plane. I used an adjustable 1.25 x 16TPH die with 18" extension handles on both sides of the die holder. It took 2 guys wrestling the die for about an hour to cut the threads. The gear leg gets so hot you can almost burn yourself! Used lots of oil and backed off 1/8 turn after every 1/2 turn cutting. It took 3 passes while necking the die down to get the nut to easily spin on. (The next day I was a sore puppy!) This die was able to get 2 gear legs cut and is now missing many teeth...pretty much trashed. I have the 2.5" die holder (w/die) for $25 shipped if you want to buy it and try it. New die is about $40. Last step is to die grind off the bottom 1" of the gear leg, clean up with a grinder, redrill the cotter pin holes, and put it all back in place. Same mounting for the wheel pants...so no changes there. Went for a test hop and my first comment is...no more nose wheel shimmy at ~18 knots...that's nice! Hope it stays that way. Maybe 8 hours of work (some of which is very hard). If I did it again...I would send the leg to the shop for cutting of the threads. The $100 saved was a pain of hard labor and I'm not 21 any more like my helper. Doing it in a vise would be a little better, but not much! The other work was just another day of building airplanes, which is much like fishing, only more productive and always satisfying. If you want an old fork - send me an email and I'll sell it for $50 shipped. It is minus one bushing that was used for a shim. Happy New Year and Blue Skies! __________________ Kelly Patterson kbob at cox dot net 190 hours RV-6A N716K PHX,AZ 11:29 AM Checked by AVG. 6:50 PM ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 03:00:06 PM PST US From: JFLEISC@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? In a message dated 3/26/2008 7:42:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, khorton01@rogers.com writes: Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product identified in the airworthiness directive, even if an individual product has been changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area addressed by the airworthiness directive. The Bendix servo hasn't been 'changed, modified, altered, or repaired', its not now and never was there. Does this mean that an AD applies to "Joe's" aircraft even if the part in question was installed on "John's" aircraft? Jim **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 03:13:14 PM PST US From: JFLEISC@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? In a message dated 3/27/2008 1:17:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mrobert569@hotmail.com writes: A couple of years ago, right after FAR 39 changed the wording, I checked with our HQ in DC to check and see if the wording change now included Experimentals. The answer was that yes, they apply, but are still not enforcable and that the Report from April 1998 was still the definitive/ruling document. Again, I am not trying to get into whether or not complying with an AD is the intelligent thing to do, rather I am just addressing the legal issue. Mike Robertson Das Fed That, I will agree with. Jim **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 03:13:14 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? It only applies if the aircraft in question has the appliance in question installed, and has been serviced during the time interval identified in the AD. If the appliance is normally included in that model engine, it might be reasonable to note in the AD records that said aircraft is not equipped with a Bendix/Precision servo. Otherwise, ignore it as not-applicable to your aircraft. Many AD's are issued citing a number of brands of aircraft that MIGHT have had appliance in question, and in those cases it saves time to have a note that said appliance is absent, so that the next A&P looking at the aircraft doesn't have to research it again. But there is no need to note any AD applying to say a Continental engine if you have a Lycoming, or vice versa. JFLEISC@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/26/2008 7:42:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > khorton01@rogers.com writes: > > Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product identified > in the airworthiness directive, even if an individual product has > been changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area > addressed by the airworthiness directive. > > The Bendix servo hasn't been 'changed, modified, altered, or > repaired', its not now and never was there. Does this mean that an AD > applies to "Joe's" aircraft even if the part in question was installed > on "John's" aircraft? > > Jim > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home > . > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 03:24:14 PM PST US From: linn Walters Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? JFLEISC@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/26/2008 7:42:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > khorton01@rogers.com writes: > > Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product identified > in the airworthiness directive, even if an individual product has > been changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area > addressed by the airworthiness directive. > > The Bendix servo hasn't been 'changed, modified, altered, or > repaired', its not now and never was there. Does this mean that an AD > applies to "Joe's" aircraft even if the part in question was installed > on "John's" aircraft? The answer is no. However, that's starting to border on the stupid question area. This is starting to get scary here. Folks don't want to log work they did on an AD, folks don't want to have to comply with an AD, and there's folks that, aparently, can't even read an AD. What's going on here???? Linn do not archive. > > Jim > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home > . > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 03:47:20 PM PST US From: "Neal George" Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? You READ those things? It's all I can do to stay awake thru the header info... neal _____ From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:22 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? JFLEISC@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 3/26/2008 7:42:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, khorton01@rogers.com writes: Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product identified in the airworthiness directive, even if an individual product has been changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area addressed by the airworthiness directive. The Bendix servo hasn't been 'changed, modified, altered, or repaired', its not now and never was there. Does this mean that an AD applies to "Joe's" aircraft even if the part in question was installed on "John's" aircraft? The answer is no. However, that's starting to border on the stupid question area. This is starting to get scary here. Folks don't want to log work they did on an AD, folks don't want to have to comply with an AD, and there's folks that, aparently, can't even read an AD. What's going on here???? Linn do not archive. ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 03:56:46 PM PST US From: Subject: RV-List: Re: Do AD's really apply Short answer is NO! If EAA member search their builders section for info. If still in doubt or wanting more depth call EAA's legal department. If you can have a Subaru engine you can have an "experimental Lyc". If you can carve out your own prop out of wood or composites than you can have an experimental Sensenich or Hartzell. The TRUTH? Well we are at the mercy of the FAA or their representative who may or may not be really qualified once in the life of the home built, the initial approval for Phase I. This can be a real pain in the back. I have heard it all. A guy had his inspection by a DAR and he was told he needed and A&P sign off because the engine was a Lycoming! Look I don't know if its ignorance, power trip or just guys jealous you have a beautiful airplane they probably can't make them self or will ever own? MANY ARE IN SURVIVAL MODE. They are in PURE Cover There A** mode. They would rather make you made and be super conservative needlessly and protect their little Gig as a DAR than get involved in any controversy, even though the law is clear. So be aware, they have the power which they us indeterminately and some times retarded with out regard to the FAR's or logic. Now they do have one indisputable argument or logical reason, WHY NOT? It's a good idea and can't hurt. That is true so you have to ask yourself is it just being cheap? Is there any loss of safety? You get to decided but they tend to impose their "judgment" where they have no power. They do have the power not to sign it off and that is it. You can fight it or comply or go somewhere else. I suspect once in the system you are "marked" so choose your DAR carefully. Second if you get Phase one and onto II, than later change to a prop that is not certified or meets the prop AD (say a 100 hour inspection) you are OK. The FAA does not consider a prop change a major mod and they have no say on AD's. The COMMON SENSE? Well if there is a serious AD on engine or Prop or accessories for the engine or prop than you might be foolish to ignore the AD. Do you want to fly your wife or kid or grand kid in your plane with say an AD oil pump or old prop Gov aluminum lines and fittings? May be may be not. The new one is the Hartzell 100 hour eddy current inspection. I talk to many shops and they have never found a crack. Also the cracks that where found where in OLD hubs and many off of 300HP agricultural planes. Hartzell uses the same hub for 150 hp to 300 hp. It does not take a genius that a prop with 6000 hours of heavy use on an Ag plane is not like a RV prop with 1000 hours on it. The AD was just shot gunned to include a bunch of older props. A lot of this is again being conservative and frankly getting circa 1960's props off the fleet, a semi force retirement. So can you expand that inspection to 150 or 250 hours or 500 hrs? Sure but if something happens you have the moral and legal responsibility as the pilot and builder at some point. You have to make a judgment call and think about it. Now is a known low time hartzell, no crack verified with no inspections till say 1000 hours less safe than some experimental prop that has fleet wide service of a few 100 or a 1000 hours v a Hartzell design that has been around for 35 years and been improved after 1/4 million flt hours (?) in 1000's of props. By the way the hub I am talking about is the HC-C2YK. The "A" model was started to be made about 2000? Any way there is not AD on that prop which is also the same hub as the new RV blended Airfoil (BA) hub. The inspection can be done on the plane and it cost $200 an up. Some shops will want you to remove the prop? They use an eddy current probe to find a crack in one location where there is a fillet or gusset as I recall. If you do hard core aerobatics every day on you fire breathing 180 or 200 HP Lyc 360 than you might want to have a look see if your prop is high time. --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 04:45:38 PM PST US From: JFLEISC@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? In a message dated 3/27/2008 6:15:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kellym@aviating.com writes: It only applies if the aircraft in question has the appliance in question installed, and has been serviced during the time interval identified in the AD. If the appliance is normally included in that model engine, it might be reasonable to note in the AD records that said aircraft is not equipped with a Bendix/Precision servo. Otherwise, ignore it as not-applicable to your aircraft. What is 'normal' on an experimental aircraft? Sounds rather subjective to me. Jim **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 05:04:01 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? You really, really, only have to read as far as the applicability paragraph to decide whether to read further. And many times you only have to read the title. AD Airbus xyz framus....................you are done, unless you called your contraption an Airbus. Neal George wrote: > You READ those things? > It's all I can do to stay awake thru the header info... > > neal > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *linn Walters > *Sent:* Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:22 PM > *To:* rv-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 05:11:05 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Do AD's really apply? Sheesh, Use just a hair of common sense. If you have a Lyc IO360A1A, then you might want to note that your experimental doesn't have the referenced fuel servo, because every one with a Lycoming dataplate originally came with said servo. That is what I meant by normal.......in its certified version, not in your special, experimental that you may have persuaded the DAR had a certified engine so you could only do a 25 hour flyoff instead of 40, even though he didn't notice you had changed the servo and the mags. :-P JFLEISC@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/27/2008 6:15:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kellym@aviating.com writes: > > It only applies if the aircraft in question has the appliance in > question installed, and has been serviced during the time interval > identified in the AD. If the appliance is normally included in that > model engine, it might be reasonable to note in the AD records > that said > aircraft is not equipped with a Bendix/Precision servo. Otherwise, > ignore it as not-applicable to your aircraft. > > What is 'normal' on an experimental aircraft? Sounds rather subjective > to me. > > Jim > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home > . > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 06:44:13 PM PST US From: "Ken Hill" Subject: RV-List: New noise in NAV radio Last Sunday on a flight from Charleston to Knoxville, my KN-53 Nav radio developed a noise/static whenever I turned up the volume. The noise is in both the pilot and passenger headsets. It is bad enough that I have a difficult time hearing transmissions from NAV sources (weather, FSS, etc.) It also seems to be picking up surrounding EMF that was not an issue previously. I borrowed another KN 53 and got the same result. Also, it is there with the engine not running, but other avionic units powered up. Understand this was not a problem until recently. I checked the connections to the antenna and they seem OK. The antenna does not appear to have any damage. If the antenna leadwire shielding broke at the tray connector, would it result in this kind of problem? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Ken Hill RV-9A Kingston, TN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-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.