Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:15 AM - Re: Another gone was Loop problem --- the rest of the story. (Jim)
2. 03:05 AM - Re: At long last, First Flight. (Kevin Horton)
3. 03:20 AM - Re: Hand propping a fuel injected 320 - possible? (RV6 Flyer)
4. 04:39 AM - Re: Hand propping a fuel injected 320 - possible? (Neal George)
5. 04:41 AM - Re: At long last, First Flight. (charlie heathco)
6. 04:57 AM - Trim for level flight (Ralph E. Capen)
7. 05:38 AM - Re: Trim for level flight (Linn Walters)
8. 05:53 AM - Re: Trim for level flight (Ralph E. Capen)
9. 06:20 AM - Re: At long last, First Flight. (Ollie Washburn)
10. 07:11 AM - Re: At long last, First Flight. (Tracy Crook)
11. 08:10 AM - Re: At long last, First Flight. (Charles Rowbotham)
12. 08:10 AM - Re: Trim for level flight (Kevin Horton)
13. 09:12 AM - Re: Trim for level flight (J. Mcculley)
14. 09:42 AM - Re: Vetterman Exhaust Hangars (Matt Dralle)
15. 09:54 AM - Re: At long last, First Flight. (SteinAir, Inc.)
16. 02:14 PM - Re: Loop problem --- the rest of the story. (David Maib)
17. 02:55 PM - Oshkosh 09 video (Terry Watson)
18. 04:43 PM - Re: At long last, First Flight. (John Huft)
19. 05:06 PM - circuit diagram for van's gauges. (thomas sargent)
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: Loop problem --- the rest of the story. |
Hi Jerry,
Seems the peasants getting to ya a bit?
I try to remember the good folks when the not as good ones get in the way.
Unfortunately sometimes we do have to work hard at it.
If you must leave go, go off the list remembering the good stuff we all
have shared. That's what really matters when all is said and done.
Its been some years since meeting you at Arlington and having the pleasure
of sharing smiles.
I think my first postings where in 97. I still monitor the lists some these
days.
In any case you won't be forgotten in this corner of the web.
Great flights and greased landings Jerry,
Jim in Kelowna
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (6.0.0.19 - 10.004.084).
http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/
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: At long last, First Flight. |
On 6-Sep-09, at 21:44 , Tracy Crook wrote:
> Today there was nothing left to do on the Mazda 20B powered RV-8
> but flight test it.
A very hearty congratulations Tracy!! I've always had a soft spot for
the Mazda rotaries, and I really appreciate the pragmatic approach you
take to your development. Good luck.
Fly safe,
--
Kevin Horton
RV-8
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: | Hand propping a fuel injected 320 - possible? |
IF you can PRIME the system=2C it should be just as easy to start. The car
b has fuel in the float bowl and pulling the blade through gets the air fue
l mixture into the cylinder to be ignited when you switch the mag on. As l
ong as you can run the fuel pump to get fuel in the system to the injectors
=2C it will hand prop just as easy as the carb. No fuel to the injectors
=2C no start.
I have helped hand prop a FI 360 (180 HP) once so know it can be down. The
360 is much harder to hand prop than the 320.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell=2C
2=2C296+ Flying Hours So. CA=2C USA
> Subject: RV-List: Hand propping a fuel injected 320 - possible?
> From: dgra1233@bigpond.net.au
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Date: Mon=2C 7 Sep 2009 16:45:32 +1000
>
>
>
> Folks=2C
>
> I am considering converting my O-320 to an IO-320 with the Precision
> system and had a thought about hand starting - perhaps it is not
> possible to swing the prop for a start like one can with a carby.
>
> I expect the most likely reason to swing the prop is a flat battery - in
> which case priming would not be possible so my gut feeling is that it
> would be next to impossible to make an engine start under these
> circumstances.
>
> Any advice?
>
> We have many very isolated airfields in this country and being stranded
> can be a major risk.
>
> Doug Gray
> Sydney=2C
> Australia
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL
:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009
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: | Hand propping a fuel injected 320 - possible? |
Doug -
Unless it's completely dead, a battery that won't turn the engine over
probably has enough residual energy to run the fuel pump for priming.
Or you could provide for a connection directly to the fuel pump for a small
emergency battery. An 8-slot AA-size battery holder from your local Radio
Shack-equivalent connected directly to the pump should be more than adequate
for priming (and serves double duty as neat, secure storage for the extra
batteries for your hand-held radio and flashlight).
neal
===================
Folks,
I am considering converting my O-320 to an IO-320 with the Precision
system and had a thought about hand starting - perhaps it is not
possible to swing the prop for a start like one can with a carby.
I expect the most likely reason to swing the prop is a flat battery - in
which case priming would not be possible so my gut feeling is that it
would be next to impossible to make an engine start under these
circumstances.
Any advice?
We have many very isolated airfields in this country and being stranded
can be a major risk.
Doug Gray
Sydney,
Australia
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: At long last, First Flight. |
Congrats on first flight. Im curious about taking off with 1/2 thotle?
Is this something common to the rotary? Re "hight temps" 200 deg on oil
is not a problem with Lyc's, and seems car engine temps on coolant run
that high or even higher? Charlie H
----- Original Message -----
From: Tracy Crook
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 20:44
Subject: RV-List: At long last, First Flight.
Today there was nothing left to do on the Mazda 20B powered RV-8 but
flight test it.
For those of you not familiar with the rotary engine, The 20B is a 3
rotor version of the 13B which powered the Mazda RX-7. The 20B makes
about 300 HP in normally aspirated form. (it was turbocharged in the
Japanese car it came from (never sold in the US). I've been flying an
RV-4 with the Mazda 13B two rotor engine for 15 years, 1850 hrs. TT.
Very hot day (93 F and high humidity) but ground tests of the cooling
system had gone so well that I was confident of cooling in flight.
Installed the radio and transponder in the panel (which for some reason
I had neglected to do until this morning) and they both worked with no
problems, which is always a surprise.
High speed taxi tests had already been completed and the P-factor was
no worse than the RV-4, in fact I think it has less. This may be
premature because I haven't done a full throttle takeoff yet. The RV-8
has 1.25 degrees right offset which I think helps a lot. The RV-4 has
no offset. First flight was done without wheel pants or main gear
intersection fairings.
Just to make sure there were no surprises, takeoff was done at the
same fuel flow as the RV-4 at WOT. I didn't note the manifold pressure
but the throttle quadrant was barely over 1/2 throttle. Ground run on
the -8 feels more stable than the -4 with considerably more rudder
authority (it's physically bigger so no surprise). The plane broke
ground at about the same point as the -4 but it feels like it levitates
off rather than rotates off. Probably due to the higher wing incidence
on the ground than the -4 with the short gear legs but also due to the
longer wing. I had extended both wings by about 18" so the wing loading
and span loading are less than on the -4. It has about 13% more wing
area than stock. This was actually the second time the -8 had air under
the tires since it had floated off ground about a foot once before
during a high speed taxi test.
Airspeed was increasing rapidly after lift off but the ASI was not
matching the visual ques. Normally I expect to see 120 mph at the end
of the runway (2700 ft) but ASI shows only 80. Too late to abort but the
airplane is climbing & sounding very nice. I had been doing a lot of
seat-of-the pants takeoff and simulated dead stick landings (in the -4)
in anticipation of today's tests so I would feel comfortable in the
event of partial or complete panel failure (Blue Mountain EFIS1 with
only a standard ASI for backup). Climb to 1000 feet felt effortless
even after throttling back to 8 GPH. I notice that I'm hunting for
information and not absorbing much due to the very different instrument
panel. Remembering that the EFIS1 has the primary ASI in a speed
ribbon format, I hunt for it and see 0 MPH when I finally find it. The
EM2 (an RWS engine monitor with backup ASI, VSI & Altitude) shows the
same airspeed as the Van's steam gauge, now about 100 MPH. First squawk
of the flight and this means I will do the first landing sans airspeed
indicator. I can't seem to locate the GPS ground speed on the display
either. Glad I did all that practice.
Time to settle in and start evaluating engine performance. I had
taken off with the engine fairly warm so I was not surprised to see oil
& water temps nearing 190 F after climbout. I continue collecting data
hoping the temps will start coming down but it is soon apparent that
they are stabilizing at about 200 on both oil and coolant. Very
disappointing, since they had been well below this on the ground when at
the same fuel flow I was currently flying at (I had backed it down to
5.75 gph by this time).
The plane itself is flying beautifully. The aileron trim is able to
trim out a very slight left wing heavy tendency and the ship feels like
it is gliding through the air effortlessly. Again, no surprise, the
plane feels just like an RV (Magnificent!). At this speed (guessing
about 135 mph) the roll response is only slightly slower than the -4.
The ailerons were extended with the wing so the RV feel has been
preserved. I've completed a wide circuit of the pattern and in position
to make an approach so I throttle back and I can immediately tell that
the glide ratio is significantly higher than the -4. The longer wing
is having more effect than I thought it would even with the heavier
engine. This -8 with a 20B ended up weighing about 70 pounds more than
the average one equipped with an 0 - 360 and fixed pitch prop and about
the same as one equipped with an IO - 360 with constant speed prop.
Empty weight (but with oil) is 1150 lbs. All the attention to weight
control has paid off. I throttle up for a go around and the FBW
throttle responds well, no detectable throttle lag at all.
The higher than expected oil and water temps are distracting me from
data gathering (Rats, I haven't had time to replace the EM2 with a data
logging EM3 yet) so I make a few more circuits of the field and setup
for an approach. I crank in more flaps early to kill off the airspeed
and excess glide ratio and intentionally do not look at the ASI to avoid
being confused. Wheel landing touchdown is perfect and now I glance at
the ASI and see 40 MPH. Obviously wrong.
All in all, a great first flight. The RV-8 is going to be exactly the
airplane I was hoping for. Still a lot of testing and tweaking to do.
Tracy Crook
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: | Trim for level flight |
Folks,
I'm at just under 31 hours in my flight testing and have been getting
things set up for hands-off and autopilot flying. I got the hands off
part finished and found that I need a little up-trim to mainatain
altitude - the left/right part is fine with zeroe'd roll trim and will
allow for some fuel difference in the tanks before it tries to roll in
any direction. Similarly, when I'm running the autopilot, it'll fly
straight and level forever - so I zeroe'd out the elevator trim and
turned off the autopilot - and got the expected descent - until I added
back the up-trim.
Leads me to think that my Horizontal Stabilizer needs to have its angle
of attack lowered a little bit.
My CG is in the forward part of the range but not waay forward. I'm
going to try it with the CG a little farther aft and see what happens.
The airframe is still 'dirty' as I haven't added leg fairings or covered
the mainwheels - the nosewheel is covered per Vans requirements.
It will trim for a climb or descent as desired - but will always descend
if I zero out the elevator trim.
What do you folks think?
Meanwhile, what a wonderful machine!
Thanks,
Ralph
N822AR @ N06 - just under 31 hours
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: Trim for level flight |
Before you spend the time changing the incidence in the tail, I'd make
sure that it's really out ..... and not a CG thing. Do your test at
varying airspeeds to see if you need to tweak the tail. My Traumahawk
will trim lock to lock from low speed to high .... so I know it's out of
whack.
Linn
Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm at just under 31 hours in my flight testing and have been getting
> things set up for hands-off and autopilot flying. I got the hands off
> part finished and found that I need a little up-trim to mainatain
> altitude - the left/right part is fine with zeroe'd roll trim and will
> allow for some fuel difference in the tanks before it tries to roll in
> any direction. Similarly, when I'm running the autopilot, it'll fly
> straight and level forever - so I zeroe'd out the elevator trim and
> turned off the autopilot - and got the expected descent - until I added
> back the up-trim.
>
> Leads me to think that my Horizontal Stabilizer needs to have its angle
> of attack lowered a little bit.
>
> My CG is in the forward part of the range but not waay forward. I'm
> going to try it with the CG a little farther aft and see what happens.
> The airframe is still 'dirty' as I haven't added leg fairings or covered
> the mainwheels - the nosewheel is covered per Vans requirements.
>
> It will trim for a climb or descent as desired - but will always descend
> if I zero out the elevator trim.
>
> What do you folks think?
>
> Meanwhile, what a wonderful machine!
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph
> N822AR @ N06 - just under 31 hours
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: | Re: Trim for level flight |
Good point - I'll try it at different airspeeds and valid CG configurations
before I monkey with it......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linn Walters" <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Trim for level flight
>
> Before you spend the time changing the incidence in the tail, I'd make
> sure that it's really out ..... and not a CG thing. Do your test at
> varying airspeeds to see if you need to tweak the tail. My Traumahawk
> will trim lock to lock from low speed to high .... so I know it's out of
> whack.
> Linn
>
> Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>> Folks,
>> I'm at just under 31 hours in my flight testing and have been getting
>> things set up for hands-off and autopilot flying. I got the hands off
>> part finished and found that I need a little up-trim to mainatain
>> altitude - the left/right part is fine with zeroe'd roll trim and will
>> allow for some fuel difference in the tanks before it tries to roll in
>> any direction. Similarly, when I'm running the autopilot, it'll fly
>> straight and level forever - so I zeroe'd out the elevator trim and
>> turned off the autopilot - and got the expected descent - until I added
>> back the up-trim.
>> Leads me to think that my Horizontal Stabilizer needs to have its angle
>> of attack lowered a little bit.
>> My CG is in the forward part of the range but not waay forward. I'm
>> going to try it with the CG a little farther aft and see what happens.
>> The airframe is still 'dirty' as I haven't added leg fairings or covered
>> the mainwheels - the nosewheel is covered per Vans requirements.
>> It will trim for a climb or descent as desired - but will always descend
>> if I zero out the elevator trim.
>> What do you folks think?
>> Meanwhile, what a wonderful machine!
>> Thanks,
>> Ralph
>> N822AR @ N06 - just under 31 hours
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
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: At long last, First Flight. |
Congratulations Tracy, been a long wait. Hope to see the plane at Loves
b-que first Sat in Nov.
Ollie
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: At long last, First Flight. |
Thanks Charlie.
The 'half throttle takeoff' was mainly a reaction to what happened in a
previous test flight in my RV-4. I had changed the gear reduction drive to
a higher ratio and installed a much longer prop turning the opposite
direction. The higher ratio allowed the rotary to get further into its
power band so I had significantly more power at takeoff ( running fixed
pitch prop). Between the increased and opposite direction P factor, I
almost crashed into the fence next to the runway on takeoff (cleared it by
inches). I learned to feed throttle in gradually rather than firewalling
it immediately as I had done in the past. That was with a 200 HP engine so
I was a little paranoid with 300 HP on tap.
On the -8 I also fed throttle gradually but stopped when the fuel flow
reached the same rate as the smaller engine at WOT in the -4 . Assuming all
other things being equal, a big engine will burn about the same amount of
fuel as a small one when making the same power. That was the goal on this
first takeoff. I'll explore the extra 100 HP later.
On rotary engines it is important to measure oil temperature after the oil
cooler just before it enters the engine because the rotors are 100% cooled
by oil flow. It is mainly an O-ring in the oil control rings that get
damaged by high oil temps. Not catastrophic but high oil consumption
results and requires a complete teardown to replace the O-rings. Rotors have
combustion chambers on three faces and they don't get a whole revolution
just to cool off like a piston does. But on the other hand they are made
of iron instead of aluminum. The oil temps are typically 40 degrees
higher in the pan prior to going through the cooler. I'm guessing Lyc's
oil temp is measured in the pan. On a 'perfect' rotary cooling system, we'd
like to see 180 F on both oil and coolant.
Tracy Crook
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:41 AM, charlie heathco <cheathco@cox.net> wrote:
> Congrats on first flight. Im curious about taking off with 1/2 thotle? Is
> this something common to the rotary? Re "hight temps" 200 deg on oil is not
> a problem with Lyc's, and seems car engine temps on coolant run that high or
> even higher? Charlie H
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Tracy Crook <tracy@rotaryaviation.com>
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 06, 2009 20:44
> *Subject:* RV-List: At long last, First Flight.
>
> Today there was nothing left to do on the Mazda 20B powered RV-8 but
> flight test it.
>
> For those of you not familiar with the rotary engine, The 20B is a 3
> rotor version of the 13B which powered the Mazda RX-7. The 20B makes about
> 300 HP in normally aspirated form. (it was turbocharged in the Japanese car
> it came from (never sold in the US). I've been flying an RV-4 with the
> Mazda 13B two rotor engine for 15 years, 1850 hrs. TT.
>
> Very hot day (93 F and high humidity) but ground tests of the cooling
> system had gone so well that I was confident of cooling in flight.
> Installed the radio and transponder in the panel (which for some reason I
> had neglected to do until this morning) and they both worked with no
> problems, which is always a surprise.
>
> High speed taxi tests had already been completed and the P-factor was no
> worse than the RV-4, in fact I think it has less. This may be premature
> because I haven't done a full throttle takeoff yet. The RV-8 has 1.25
> degrees right offset which I think helps a lot. The RV-4 has no offset.
> First flight was done without wheel pants or main gear intersection
> fairings.
>
> Just to make sure there were no surprises, takeoff was done at the same
> fuel flow as the RV-4 at WOT. I didn't note the manifold pressure but the
> throttle quadrant was barely over 1/2 throttle. Ground run on the -8 feels
> more stable than the -4 with considerably more rudder authority (it's
> physically bigger so no surprise). The plane broke ground at about the
> same point as the -4 but it feels like it levitates off rather than rotates
> off. Probably due to the higher wing incidence on the ground than the -4
> with the short gear legs but also due to the longer wing. I had extended
> both wings by about 18" so the wing loading and span loading are less than
> on the -4. It has about 13% more wing area than stock. This was actually
> the second time the -8 had air under the tires since it had floated off
> ground about a foot once before during a high speed taxi test.
>
> Airspeed was increasing rapidly after lift off but the ASI was not matching
> the visual ques. Normally I expect to see 120 mph at the end of the runway
> (2700 ft) but ASI shows only 80. Too late to abort but the airplane is
> climbing & sounding very nice. I had been doing a lot of seat-of-the pants
> takeoff and simulated dead stick landings (in the -4) in anticipation of
> today's tests so I would feel comfortable in the event of partial or
> complete panel failure (Blue Mountain EFIS1 with only a standard ASI for
> backup). Climb to 1000 feet felt effortless even after throttling back to 8
> GPH. I notice that I'm hunting for information and not absorbing much due
> to the very different instrument panel. Remembering that the EFIS1 has the
> primary ASI in a speed ribbon format, I hunt for it and see 0 MPH when I
> finally find it. The EM2 (an RWS engine monitor with backup ASI, VSI &
> Altitude) shows the same airspeed as the Van's steam gauge, now about 100
> MPH. First squawk of the flight and this means I will do the first landing
> sans airspeed indicator. I can't seem to locate the GPS ground speed on the
> display either. Glad I did all that practice.
>
> Time to settle in and start evaluating engine performance. I had taken off
> with the engine fairly warm so I was not surprised to see oil & water temps
> nearing 190 F after climbout. I continue collecting data hoping the temps
> will start coming down but it is soon apparent that they are stabilizing at
> about 200 on both oil and coolant. Very disappointing, since they had been
> well below this on the ground when at the same fuel flow I was currently
> flying at (I had backed it down to 5.75 gph by this time).
>
> The plane itself is flying beautifully. The aileron trim is able to trim
> out a very slight left wing heavy tendency and the ship feels like it is
> gliding through the air effortlessly. Again, no surprise, the plane feels
> just like an RV (Magnificent!). At this speed (guessing about 135 mph) the
> roll response is only slightly slower than the -4. The ailerons were
> extended with the wing so the RV feel has been preserved. I've completed a
> wide circuit of the pattern and in position to make an approach so I
> throttle back and I can immediately tell that the glide ratio is
> significantly higher than the -4. The longer wing is having more effect
> than I thought it would even with the heavier engine. This -8 with a 20B
> ended up weighing about 70 pounds more than the average one equipped with an
> 0 - 360 and fixed pitch prop and about the same as one equipped with an IO -
> 360 with constant speed prop. Empty weight (but with oil) is 1150 lbs. All
> the attention to weight control has paid off. I throttle up for a go around
> and the FBW throttle responds well, no detectable throttle lag at all.
>
> The higher than expected oil and water temps are distracting me from data
> gathering (Rats, I haven't had time to replace the EM2 with a data logging
> EM3 yet) so I make a few more circuits of the field and setup for an
> approach. I crank in more flaps early to kill off the airspeed and excess
> glide ratio and intentionally do not look at the ASI to avoid being
> confused. Wheel landing touchdown is perfect and now I glance at the ASI
> and see 40 MPH. Obviously wrong.
>
> All in all, a great first flight. The RV-8 is going to be exactly the
> airplane I was hoping for. Still a lot of testing and tweaking to do.
>
> Tracy Crook
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: | At long last, First Flight. |
Hi Tracy=2C
Great to hear you both in the Air !
CONGRATULATIONS and WELL DONE !!!
Chuck & Dave Rowbotham
RV-8A sold
Dave's building RV-9A
Subject: RV-List: At long last=2C First Flight.
From: tracy@rotaryaviation.com
Today there was nothing left to do on the Mazda 20B powered RV-8 but fligh
t test it.
For those of you not familiar with the rotary engine=2C The 20B is a 3 ro
tor version of the 13B which powered the Mazda RX-7. The 20B makes about 3
00 HP in normally aspirated form. (it was turbocharged in the Japanese car
it came from (never sold in the US). I've been flying an RV-4 with the Ma
zda 13B two rotor engine for 15 years=2C 1850 hrs. TT.
Very hot day (93 F and high humidity) but ground tests of the cooling syst
em had gone so well that I was confident of cooling in flight. Installed
the radio and transponder in the panel (which for some reason I had neglect
ed to do until this morning) and they both worked with no problems=2C which
is always a surprise.
High speed taxi tests had already been completed and the P-factor was no wo
rse than the RV-4=2C in fact I think it has less. This may be premature be
cause I haven't done a full throttle takeoff yet. The RV-8 has 1.25 degree
s right offset which I think helps a lot. The RV-4 has no offset. First f
light was done without wheel pants or main gear intersection fairings.
Just to make sure there were no surprises=2C takeoff was done at the same f
uel flow as the RV-4 at WOT. I didn't note the manifold pressure but the t
hrottle quadrant was barely over 1/2 throttle. Ground run on the -8 feels
more stable than the -4 with considerably more rudder authority (it's physi
cally bigger so no surprise). The plane broke ground at about the same po
int as the -4 but it feels like it levitates off rather than rotates off.
Probably due to the higher wing incidence on the ground than the -4 with th
e short gear legs but also due to the longer wing. I had extended both win
gs by about 18" so the wing loading and span loading are less than on the -
4. It has about 13% more wing area than stock. This was actually the sec
ond time the -8 had air under the tires since it had floated off ground abo
ut a foot once before during a high speed taxi test.
Airspeed was increasing rapidly after lift off but the ASI was not matching
the visual ques. Normally I expect to see 120 mph at the end of the runw
ay (2700 ft) but ASI shows only 80. Too late to abort but the airplane is c
limbing & sounding very nice. I had been doing a lot of seat-of-the pants
takeoff and simulated dead stick landings (in the -4) in anticipation of t
oday's tests so I would feel comfortable in the event of partial or complet
e panel failure (Blue Mountain EFIS1 with only a standard ASI for backup).
Climb to 1000 feet felt effortless even after throttling back to 8 GPH.
I notice that I'm hunting for information and not absorbing much due to the
very different instrument panel. Remembering that the EFIS1 has the prim
ary ASI in a speed ribbon format=2C I hunt for it and see 0 MPH when I fina
lly find it. The EM2 (an RWS engine monitor with backup ASI=2C VSI & Altit
ude) shows the same airspeed as the Van's steam gauge=2C now about 100 MPH.
First squawk of the flight and this means I will do the first landing san
s airspeed indicator. I can't seem to locate the GPS ground speed on the d
isplay either. Glad I did all that practice.
Time to settle in and start evaluating engine performance. I had taken off
with the engine fairly warm so I was not surprised to see oil & water temp
s nearing 190 F after climbout. I continue collecting data hoping the tem
ps will start coming down but it is soon apparent that they are stabilizing
at about 200 on both oil and coolant. Very disappointing=2C since they h
ad been well below this on the ground when at the same fuel flow I was curr
ently flying at (I had backed it down to 5.75 gph by this time).
The plane itself is flying beautifully. The aileron trim is able to trim o
ut a very slight left wing heavy tendency and the ship feels like it is gli
ding through the air effortlessly. Again=2C no surprise=2C the plane feels
just like an RV (Magnificent!). At this speed (guessing about 135 mph) th
e roll response is only slightly slower than the -4. The ailerons were ex
tended with the wing so the RV feel has been preserved. I've completed a w
ide circuit of the pattern and in position to make an approach so I throttl
e back and I can immediately tell that the glide ratio is significantly hig
her than the -4. The longer wing is having more effect than I thought it
would even with the heavier engine. This -8 with a 20B ended up weighing a
bout 70 pounds more than the average one equipped with an 0 - 360 and fixed
pitch prop and about the same as one equipped with an IO - 360 with consta
nt speed prop. Empty weight (but with oil) is 1150 lbs. All the attention
to weight control has paid off. I throttle up for a go around and the FBW
throttle responds well=2C no detectable throttle lag at all.
The higher than expected oil and water temps are distracting me from data g
athering (Rats=2C I haven't had time to replace the EM2 with a data logging
EM3 yet) so I make a few more circuits of the field and setup for an appro
ach. I crank in more flaps early to kill off the airspeed and excess glide
ratio and intentionally do not look at the ASI to avoid being confused. W
heel landing touchdown is perfect and now I glance at the ASI and see 40 MP
H. Obviously wrong.
All in all=2C a great first flight. The RV-8 is going to be exactly the ai
rplane I was hoping for. Still a lot of testing and tweaking to do.
Tracy Crook
_________________________________________________________________
Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you.
http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYC
B_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1
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: Trim for level flight |
On 2009-09-07, at 7:56 AM, "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm at just under 31 hours in my flight testing and have been
> getting things set up for hands-off and autopilot flying. I got the
> hands off part finished and found that I need a little up-trim to
> mainatain altitude - the left/right part is fine with zeroe'd roll
> trim and will allow for some fuel difference in the tanks before it
> tries to roll in any direction. Similarly, when I'm running the
> autopilot, it'll fly straight and level forever - so I zeroe'd out
> the elevator trim and turned off the autopilot - and got the
> expected descent - until I added back the up-trim.
>
> Leads me to think that my Horizontal Stabilizer needs to have its
> angle of attack lowered a little bit.
>
> My CG is in the forward part of the range but not waay forward. I'm
> going to try it with the CG a little farther aft and see what
> happens. The airframe is still 'dirty' as I haven't added leg
> fairings or covered the mainwheels - the nosewheel is covered per
> Vans requirements.
>
> It will trim for a climb or descent as desired - but will always
> descend if I zero out the elevator trim.
>
I wouldn't worry about this until you have all the fairings on. The
aircraft will be faster, and you need to trim more nose down as the
speed increases.
Kevin Horton
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: Trim for level flight |
When you eventually add gear and wheel fairings you will see much less
up-trim needed due to less drag from the current pitch-down drag of
gear. May even reverse the trim needed.
Jim McCulley
===================================================================================
Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm at just under 31 hours in my flight testing and have been getting
> things set up for hands-off and autopilot flying. I got the hands off
> part finished and found that I need a little up-trim to mainatain
> altitude - the left/right part is fine with zeroe'd roll trim and will
> allow for some fuel difference in the tanks before it tries to roll in
> any direction. Similarly, when I'm running the autopilot, it'll fly
> straight and level forever - so I zeroe'd out the elevator trim and
> turned off the autopilot - and got the expected descent - until I added
> back the up-trim.
>
> Leads me to think that my Horizontal Stabilizer needs to have its angle
> of attack lowered a little bit.
>
> My CG is in the forward part of the range but not waay forward. I'm
> going to try it with the CG a little farther aft and see what happens.
> The airframe is still 'dirty' as I haven't added leg fairings or covered
> the mainwheels - the nosewheel is covered per Vans requirements.
>
> It will trim for a climb or descent as desired - but will always descend
> if I zero out the elevator trim.
>
> What do you folks think?
>
> Meanwhile, what a wonderful machine!
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph
> N822AR @ N06 - just under 31 hours
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: | Re: Vetterman Exhaust Hangars |
I have the 4-into-4 Vetterman exhaust on my RV-8. The instructions stated to mount
the hangers to the engine mount. Here are some pictures of my installation.
There might be more options on the RV-7, don't know.
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mykitlog.com/dralle
At 08:15 PM 9/6/2009 Sunday, you wrote:
>Do not attach them to the engine mount. They need to be attached to the engine,
the exhaust has to move with the engine, I don't have pictures available but
I'm sure someone does.
>
>
><mailto:c172.58@juno.com>c172.58@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>Does any one have some photos of how the Vetterman exhaust hangars fit on a RV-7
IO-360 standard 4-pipe installation? The instructions seem to indicate that
you can either attach the hangars to the rear of the sump or to the engine
mount. It sounds like you're supposed to keep the clamps on the exhaust as far
aft as possible. If you do that, it doesn't apper that the hangar rods are
long enough if you want to hook them to the sump? What have othesr done here?
>>
>>Thanks for any help.
>>RV-7 963P FWF
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: | At long last, First Flight. |
Congrats Tracy and well done. Keep us posted as to the progress and enjoy
the bird!
Cheers,
Stein
do not archive
_________________________________________
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tracy Crook
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 8:45 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: At long last, First Flight.
Today there was nothing left to do on the Mazda 20B powered RV-8 but
flight test it.
For those of you not familiar with the rotary engine, The 20B is a 3
rotor version of the 13B which powered the Mazda RX-7. The 20B makes about
300 HP in normally aspirated form. (it was turbocharged in the Japanese car
it came from (never sold in the US). I've been flying an RV-4 with the
Mazda 13B two rotor engine for 15 years, 1850 hrs. TT.
Very hot day (93 F and high humidity) but ground tests of the cooling
system had gone so well that I was confident of cooling in flight.
Installed the radio and transponder in the panel (which for some reason I
had neglected to do until this morning) and they both worked with no
problems, which is always a surprise.
High speed taxi tests had already been completed and the P-factor was no
worse than the RV-4, in fact I think it has less. This may be premature
because I haven't done a full throttle takeoff yet. The RV-8 has 1.25
degrees right offset which I think helps a lot. The RV-4 has no offset.
First flight was done without wheel pants or main gear intersection
fairings.
Just to make sure there were no surprises, takeoff was done at the same
fuel flow as the RV-4 at WOT. I didn't note the manifold pressure but the
throttle quadrant was barely over 1/2 throttle. Ground run on the -8 feels
more stable than the -4 with considerably more rudder authority (it's
physically bigger so no surprise). The plane broke ground at about the
same point as the -4 but it feels like it levitates off rather than rotates
off. Probably due to the higher wing incidence on the ground than the -4
with the short gear legs but also due to the longer wing. I had extended
both wings by about 18" so the wing loading and span loading are less than
on the -4. It has about 13% more wing area than stock. This was actually
the second time the -8 had air under the tires since it had floated off
ground about a foot once before during a high speed taxi test.
Airspeed was increasing rapidly after lift off but the ASI was not
matching the visual ques. Normally I expect to see 120 mph at the end of
the runway (2700 ft) but ASI shows only 80. Too late to abort but the
airplane is climbing & sounding very nice. I had been doing a lot of
seat-of-the pants takeoff and simulated dead stick landings (in the -4) in
anticipation of today's tests so I would feel comfortable in the event of
partial or complete panel failure (Blue Mountain EFIS1 with only a standard
ASI for backup). Climb to 1000 feet felt effortless even after throttling
back to 8 GPH. I notice that I'm hunting for information and not absorbing
much due to the very different instrument panel. Remembering that the
EFIS1 has the primary ASI in a speed ribbon format, I hunt for it and see 0
MPH when I finally find it. The EM2 (an RWS engine monitor with backup ASI,
VSI & Altitude) shows the same airspeed as the Van's steam gauge, now about
100 MPH. First squawk of the flight and this means I will do the first
landing sans airspeed indicator. I can't seem to locate the GPS ground
speed on the display either. Glad I did all that practice.
Time to settle in and start evaluating engine performance. I had taken
off with the engine fairly warm so I was not surprised to see oil & water
temps nearing 190 F after climbout. I continue collecting data hoping the
temps will start coming down but it is soon apparent that they are
stabilizing at about 200 on both oil and coolant. Very disappointing,
since they had been well below this on the ground when at the same fuel flow
I was currently flying at (I had backed it down to 5.75 gph by this time).
The plane itself is flying beautifully. The aileron trim is able to trim
out a very slight left wing heavy tendency and the ship feels like it is
gliding through the air effortlessly. Again, no surprise, the plane feels
just like an RV (Magnificent!). At this speed (guessing about 135 mph) the
roll response is only slightly slower than the -4. The ailerons were
extended with the wing so the RV feel has been preserved. I've completed a
wide circuit of the pattern and in position to make an approach so I
throttle back and I can immediately tell that the glide ratio is
significantly higher than the -4. The longer wing is having more effect
than I thought it would even with the heavier engine. This -8 with a 20B
ended up weighing about 70 pounds more than the average one equipped with an
0 - 360 and fixed pitch prop and about the same as one equipped with an IO -
360 with constant speed prop. Empty weight (but with oil) is 1150 lbs. All
the attention to weight control has paid off. I throttle up for a go around
and the FBW throttle responds well, no detectable throttle lag at all.
The higher than expected oil and water temps are distracting me from data
gathering (Rats, I haven't had time to replace the EM2 with a data logging
EM3 yet) so I make a few more circuits of the field and setup for an
approach. I crank in more flaps early to kill off the airspeed and excess
glide ratio and intentionally do not look at the ASI to avoid being
confused. Wheel landing touchdown is perfect and now I glance at the ASI
and see 40 MPH. Obviously wrong.
All in all, a great first flight. The RV-8 is going to be exactly the
airplane I was hoping for. Still a lot of testing and tweaking to do.
Tracy Crook
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: Loop problem --- the rest of the story. |
I agree with Charlie's comments. One time I made a very mild comment
on a political diatribe that was raging on Doug's site. I was
immediately slapped hard, and publicly, on the forum by one of the
moderators who had been engaging in the political argument himself.
He had taken my comment to disagree with his position. (not quite
sure how he determined that either!) Since I enjoy and participate in
both forums, I learned the lesson that keeping out of the political
jousting matches that pop up on both forums, is right for me. Matt's
suggestion that we take the political debate to some other site is a
good one. There are plenty of them out there!
David Maib
40559
Flying
On Sep 6, 2009, at 11:50 PM, Charlie England wrote:
> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> Matt Redmond wrote:
>> Please take no offense, boys, because I'm as up for a political
>> argument/discussion as anyone, being the proud right-wing wackjob
>> that I am... but...
>> I think Doug Reeves has the right idea when it comes to his
>> board, and that is: can we please leave the political discussions
>> somewhere else? Seriously, I might think you're a complete
>> communist pinko idiot, but that doesn't mean I can't learn
>> something RV-related from you - or vice-versa (unlikely) - and I'd
>> hate to see otherwise friendly relationships crapped up because of
>> this sh!t. ...or maybe I'm being a pollyanna (but at least I've
>> got my AR-15(s)).
>> Matt
>
> Having cyber-lived in both worlds (Matt's & Doug's), I strongly
> prefer Matt's.
>
> Doug's VAF limits discussions to RV's *only* when the non-RV (read
> that 'political') posts disagree with the so-called moderators'
> opinions. That forum is highly censored, and with very obvious
> political bias. I've personally pointed out the biased censorship
> in direct emails to Doug on numerous occasions. The 1st time, he
> responded & said that if there were non-RV comments being allowed,
> he was unaware of them & would personally correct them, and to
> please report any in the future. Repeated followup emails to Doug
> reporting new occurrences have resulted in zero responses. The
> biased censorship continues. You can often see a biased post that
> leans one way (allowed) followed by a contrary response. Within
> hours (or minutes), the contrary post disappears. The original will
> remain. Only Doug and his censors know how many posts bearing
> contrary opinions never even make it to the public forum. If we
> were talking about government, it would be downright Orwellian.
>
> In my not so humble opinion, suppression of alternate political
> viewpoints is a very ugly thing, & contrary to the spirit at the
> heart of this country's greatness.
>
> I'd like to believe that we can not only learn about RV's from
> someone with a different political viewpoint, but that we can learn
> about alternative political views, as well.
>
> Charlie
>
>
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: | Oshkosh 09 video |
Someone sent me this link to a great Oshkosh 2009 (yea, I know - Air Venture
2009). It's got RV's in it and everything else it would seem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKU0uQki5Dc
Terry
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: | At long last, First Flight. |
Tracy, very nice!
I am looking forward to more results as you chase the bugs out. There is a
lot of potential in your project.
John Huft
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 7:45 PM
Subject: RV-List: At long last, First Flight.
Today there was nothing left to do on the Mazda 20B powered RV-8 but flight
test it.
For those of you not familiar with the rotary engine, The 20B is a 3 rotor
version of the 13B which powered the Mazda RX-7. The 20B makes about 300 HP
in normally aspirated form. (it was turbocharged in the Japanese car it
came from (never sold in the US). I've been flying an RV-4 with the Mazda
13B two rotor engine for 15 years, 1850 hrs. TT.
Very hot day (93 F and high humidity) but ground tests of the cooling
system had gone so well that I was confident of cooling in flight.
Installed the radio and transponder in the panel (which for some reason I
had neglected to do until this morning) and they both worked with no
problems, which is always a surprise.
High speed taxi tests had already been completed and the P-factor was no
worse than the RV-4, in fact I think it has less. This may be premature
because I haven't done a full throttle takeoff yet. The RV-8 has 1.25
degrees right offset which I think helps a lot. The RV-4 has no offset.
First flight was done without wheel pants or main gear intersection
fairings.
Just to make sure there were no surprises, takeoff was done at the same fuel
flow as the RV-4 at WOT. I didn't note the manifold pressure but the
throttle quadrant was barely over 1/2 throttle. Ground run on the -8 feels
more stable than the -4 with considerably more rudder authority (it's
physically bigger so no surprise). The plane broke ground at about the
same point as the -4 but it feels like it levitates off rather than rotates
off. Probably due to the higher wing incidence on the ground than the -4
with the short gear legs but also due to the longer wing. I had extended
both wings by about 18" so the wing loading and span loading are less than
on the -4. It has about 13% more wing area than stock. This was actually
the second time the -8 had air under the tires since it had floated off
ground about a foot once before during a high speed taxi test.
Airspeed was increasing rapidly after lift off but the ASI was not matching
the visual ques. Normally I expect to see 120 mph at the end of the runway
(2700 ft) but ASI shows only 80. Too late to abort but the airplane is
climbing & sounding very nice. I had been doing a lot of seat-of-the pants
takeoff and simulated dead stick landings (in the -4) in anticipation of
today's tests so I would feel comfortable in the event of partial or
complete panel failure (Blue Mountain EFIS1 with only a standard ASI for
backup). Climb to 1000 feet felt effortless even after throttling back to 8
GPH. I notice that I'm hunting for information and not absorbing much due
to the very different instrument panel. Remembering that the EFIS1 has the
primary ASI in a speed ribbon format, I hunt for it and see 0 MPH when I
finally find it. The EM2 (an RWS engine monitor with backup ASI, VSI &
Altitude) shows the same airspeed as the Van's steam gauge, now about 100
MPH. First squawk of the flight and this means I will do the first landing
sans airspeed indicator. I can't seem to locate the GPS ground speed on the
display either. Glad I did all that practice.
Time to settle in and start evaluating engine performance. I had taken off
with the engine fairly warm so I was not surprised to see oil & water temps
nearing 190 F after climbout. I continue collecting data hoping the temps
will start coming down but it is soon apparent that they are stabilizing at
about 200 on both oil and coolant. Very disappointing, since they had been
well below this on the ground when at the same fuel flow I was currently
flying at (I had backed it down to 5.75 gph by this time).
The plane itself is flying beautifully. The aileron trim is able to trim
out a very slight left wing heavy tendency and the ship feels like it is
gliding through the air effortlessly. Again, no surprise, the plane feels
just like an RV (Magnificent!). At this speed (guessing about 135 mph) the
roll response is only slightly slower than the -4. The ailerons were
extended with the wing so the RV feel has been preserved. I've completed a
wide circuit of the pattern and in position to make an approach so I
throttle back and I can immediately tell that the glide ratio is
significantly higher than the -4. The longer wing is having more effect
than I thought it would even with the heavier engine. This -8 with a 20B
ended up weighing about 70 pounds more than the average one equipped with an
0 - 360 and fixed pitch prop and about the same as one equipped with an IO -
360 with constant speed prop. Empty weight (but with oil) is 1150 lbs. All
the attention to weight control has paid off. I throttle up for a go around
and the FBW throttle responds well, no detectable throttle lag at all.
The higher than expected oil and water temps are distracting me from data
gathering (Rats, I haven't had time to replace the EM2 with a data logging
EM3 yet) so I make a few more circuits of the field and setup for an
approach. I crank in more flaps early to kill off the airspeed and excess
glide ratio and intentionally do not look at the ASI to avoid being
confused. Wheel landing touchdown is perfect and now I glance at the ASI
and see 40 MPH. Obviously wrong.
All in all, a great first flight. The RV-8 is going to be exactly the
airplane I was hoping for. Still a lot of testing and tweaking to do.
Tracy Crook
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | circuit diagram for van's gauges. |
Is there anywhere I can download the circuit diagram that comes with van's
gauges? I looked at van's website, but they don't seem to have it available
for download.
--
Tom Sargent
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! --
|