RV-List Digest Archive

Thu 09/10/09


Total Messages Posted: 4



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 07:19 AM - Re: At long last, First Flight. (n801bh@netzero.com)
     2. 08:25 AM - Re: At long last, First Flight. (Tracy Crook)
     3. 06:25 PM - Re: At long last, First Flight. (n801bh@netzero.com)
     4. 07:19 PM - Re: Nosewheel vibration update (jhnstniii@aol.com)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:19:40 AM PST US
    From: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
    Subject: Re: At long last, First Flight.
    Congrats to you Tracy. Experimental engines are ALOT of work.... Don't a sk how I know either <G>. As a side note here is a bizzare posting from some guy I have never met or even know... //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several fri ends....... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ On the "801" =93This is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incorrectly designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and compre ssion. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the wing spars. Zenairs ar e not over designed to begin with having very thin skins. "The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently confirm ing the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing 5.9 0 -6. 3 gallons an hour." The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine engi neering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or 37 poun ds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it the benef it of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now you have a 4 50 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at cruise. Something is seriously wrong. "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most airfr ames." What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP wit h a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine RPM. No way is that going to happen. This person is totally clueless. I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous airplanes I have seen in a very long time. Paul Lamar=94 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications, but.. I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic. My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental aircraft , so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life experiences from fabr icating stuff on race boats, cars and god only knows whatever I have mod ified in earlier years. I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built one , or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have been fl ying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes. My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hours. Bee n flown in air from 97f to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's. Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to display their cre ations. My responses.. 1- When is this " accident" going to happen ?? 2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web si te and look at the pics. 3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles bu t that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap. 4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And it is less then his "estimation" 5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I didn 't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free shot. 6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine has twice the "su ggested" HP and still has not broken in half. 7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to ALO T.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or 110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple conclusion. 8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can dream about. 9- BSFC of .45 ??? Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that ri ch. 10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously throttled back. 11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different re drive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain any m ore weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for sure doen not need any more power. 12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # from ? I turn the motor alot highe r then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter prop. 13- """ Totally Clueless""" Ya wanna bet.. And in closing all I can add is " I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous airplanes I have seen in a very long time. " Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????. Ben Haas. Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com ____________________________________________________________ Top brands, low prices. Find the right air conditioner for you. Click No w! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYTR2RTjYYOtEEUpWFyp DeOtPURJ5u1f8jvGC6BSZNUaMTx6s7yB3K/


    Message 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:25:46 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: At long last, First Flight.
    From: Tracy Crook <tracy@rotaryaviation.com>
    Thanks! It's always interesting to hear these critiques by Mr. Lamar : ) I know what you mean about the misunderstanding concerning fuel burn at cruise. Part of it is the assumption that cruise is always done at 75% power. The planes we build are generally hotrods compared to a lot of GA planes and the flight envelop includes a much wider spread of useful throttle settings. I wonder what he would have said about my 300 HP engin e burning 5.75 GPH : ) Of COURSE it wasn't making 75% of 300 HP at that time. Hell, when I'm just going up for an evening flight to watch the sun set I'm usually burning 3.8 GPH in my -4. I often get questions like "Aren't you worried about exceeding Vne with tha t big engine?". It's like there is an assumption that the throttle MUST be a t WOT. In truth, I will never be able to use all 300 HP the 20B is capable of. In level flight at SL I'm sure it will easily exceed Vne at WOT so can't use it there. I have a fixed pitch prop so I'll only see about 245 H P in climb at Vy due to rpm being lower. The main idea behind the 20B engin e was to have around 125 HP left when up in class A airspace. That's where the longer wing earns its keep as well. Don't sweat those words from such 'experts'. Keep on Experimenting! Tracy Crook On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:09 AM, n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com>wr ote: > Congrats to you Tracy. Experimental engines are ALOT of work.... Don't as k > how I know either <G>. > > As a side note here is a bizzare posting from some guy I have never met o r > even know... > > > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > > This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several > friends....... > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > On the "801" > > =93This is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incorrectly > designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and > compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds aluminum > block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up the fuselage to > take the vastly increased bending loads during landing and high G turns n ot > to mention the increased bending loads on the wing spars. Zenairs are not > over designed to begin with having very thin skins. > > "The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently confirmi ng > the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing 5.9 0 -6.3 > gallons an hour." > > The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine > engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or 37 > pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it the > benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is as low as > .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now you have a 45 0 > pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at cruise. > > Something is seriously wrong. > > "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for each > horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most > airframes." > > What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP with a > 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine RPM. No way i s > that going to happen. > > This person is totally clueless. > > I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous airplanes I > have seen in a very long time. > > Paul Lamar=94 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications, but.. > > I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic. > > My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other source to > go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental aircraft, so all > the calculations, fabrications and installations are a one off and done t o > the best of my ability using past life experiences from fabricating stuff on > race boats, cars and god only knows whatever I have modified in earlier > years. > > I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built one, > or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have been flyin g > for almost 30 years and owned several other planes. > > My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hours. Been > flown in air from 97f to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown from JA C, > 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of dozen times t o > test it for strength. Been flown in all other power settings to comfirm a nd > quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's. Flown to OSH and back... n ot > trucked there as others seem to do to display their creations. > > My responses.. > > 1- When is this " accident" going to happen ?? > > 2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web sit e > and look at the pics. > > 3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles but > that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is beefed up > internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap. > > 4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And it is > less then his "estimation" > > 5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I didn' t > state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free shot. > > 6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine has twice the > "suggested" HP and still has not broken in half. > > 7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to ALOT .. > A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or 110@ 17 GPH. > The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the fuel to go a litt le > faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built another type plane. You > would think a guy like him could draw a simple conclusion. > > 8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can dream > about. > > 9- BSFC of .45 ??? Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that ric h. > > > 10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously throttled > back. > > 11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different > redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain any > more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no brainer.. On MY > plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for sure doen not need an y > more power. > > 12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # from ? I turn the motor alot higher > then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but nothing worse th en > what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter prop. > > 13- """ Totally Clueless""" Ya wanna bet.. > > And in closing all I can add is > " I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous airplanes I > have seen in a very long time. " > > Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????. > > > Ben Haas. > > > Ben Haas > N801BH > www.haaspowerair.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Top brands, low prices. Find the right air conditioner for you. Click Now !<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2242/fc/BLSrjpYTR2RTjYYOtEEUpWFypD eOtPURJ5u1f8jvGC6BSZNUaMTx6s7yB3K/> > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > >


    Message 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:25:56 PM PST US
    From: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
    Subject: Re: At long last, First Flight.
    Thanks for the support Tracy. I did google his name a few days ago and f ound out about his Rotary board. I joined and have been reading the most "entertaining" comments he makes. To be fair I did email this to him fi rst to give him a chance to respond,,, something he didn't give me, but unfortunately it appears my response was deleted so his readers could no t view it. Wanna bet they will see it elsewhere ?? <GG> Oh yeah, it als o appears I have been BANNED from his forum too. Yippee. !!!! Tailwinds guys. Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Tracy Crook <tracy@rotaryaviation.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: At long last, First Flight. Thanks! It's always interesting to hear these critiques by Mr. Lamar : ) I know what you mean about the misunderstanding concerning fuel burn at cruise. Part of it is the assumption that cruise is always done at 75% power. The planes we build are generally hotrods compared to a lot of G A planes and the flight envelop includes a much wider spread of useful t hrottle settings. I wonder what he would have said about my 300 HP eng ine burning 5.75 GPH : ) Of COURSE it wasn't making 75% of 300 HP at th at time. Hell, when I'm just going up for an evening flight to watch th e sun set I'm usually burning 3.8 GPH in my -4. I often get questions like "Aren't you worried about exceeding Vne with that big engine?". It's like there is an assumption that the throttle M UST be at WOT. In truth, I will never be able to use all 300 HP the 20B is capable of. In level flight at SL I'm sure it will easily exceed Vn e at WOT so can't use it there. I have a fixed pitch prop so I'll only see about 245 HP in climb at Vy due to rpm being lower. The main idea behind the 20B engine was to have around 125 HP left when up in class A airspace. That's where the longer wing earns its keep as well. Don't sweat those words from such 'experts'. Keep on Experimenting! Tracy Crook On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:09 AM, n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com > wrote: Congrats to you Tracy. Experimental engines are ALOT of work.... Don't a sk how I know either <G>. As a side note here is a bizzare posting from some guy I have never met or even know... //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several fri ends....... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ On the "801" =93This is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incorrectly designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and compre ssion. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the wing spars. Zenairs ar e not over designed to begin with having very thin skins. "The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently confirm ing the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing 5.9 0 -6. 3 gallons an hour." The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine engi neering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or 37 poun ds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it the benef it of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now you have a 4 50 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at cruise. Something is seriously wrong. "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most airfr ames." What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP wit h a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine RPM. No way is that going to happen. This person is totally clueless. I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous airplanes I have seen in a very long time. Paul Lamar=94 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications, but.. I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic. My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental aircraft , so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life experiences from fabr icating stuff on race boats, cars and god only knows whatever I have mod ified in earlier years. I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built one , or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have been fl ying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes. My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hours. Bee n flown in air from 97f to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's. Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to display their cre ations. My responses.. 1- When is this " accident" going to happen ?? 2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web si te and look at the pics. 3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles bu t that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap. 4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And it is less then his "estimation" 5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I didn 't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free shot. 6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine has twice the "su ggested" HP and still has not broken in half. 7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to ALO T.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or 110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple conclusion. 8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can dream about. 9- BSFC of .45 ??? Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that ri ch. 10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously throttled back. 11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different re drive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain any m ore weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for sure doen not need any more power. 12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # from ? I turn the motor alot highe r then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter prop. 13- """ Totally Clueless""" Ya wanna bet.. And in closing all I can add is " I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous airplanes I have seen in a very long time. " Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????. Ben Haas. Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com ____________________________________________________________ Top brands, low prices. Find the right air conditioner for you. Click No w! t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-Listtp://forums.matro nics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======= ____________________________________________________________ Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYSwrCZwVgzMOllfnNlG ZHXtvC31FLHxDO9j3lXO5XK36BA7KWARDi/


    Message 4


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:19:56 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Nosewheel vibration update
    From: jhnstniii@aol.com
    Carl--Thank you!? We installed the MATCO nosewheel axle yesterday, carefully re-balanced the wheel/tire, and the vibration is gone. Why it works I don't know but it does.??The list rules! --LeRoy Johnston and David White RV-6A "Esperanza" (204 hours) -----Original Message----- From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich@verizon.net> Sent: Sun, Aug 30, 2009 6:20 pm Subject: RE: RV-List: Nosewheel vibration update Two things to try: 1.????? Install the MATCO nose wheel axle.? Here is the link: http://www.matcomfg.com/AXLEASSEMBLYA24125INCH-idv-3657-1.html? This allows for the axle bolt to be fully tighten without too much pre-load on the bearings.? This help my 8A nose gear problem. 2.????? Do the same balance on the main gear that you did on the nose gear.? I noted a significant improvement on the nose gear shimmy after I replace my main gear. ? Carl Froehlich RV-8A (525 hrs) RV-10 (fuselage) ? ? From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Orear Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 3:31 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Nosewheel vibration update ? This may seem rather rudimentary, but are you sure it is your nosewheel that is shimmying? ?I thought I had a nosewheel shake as well until a local pilot saw me land while waiting at the hold short line and reported that my left main was the culprit. ?I suspect uneven tire wear, but balancing out the wheel/tire resulted in some improvement. ?I plan to replace the main tires/tubes at next conditional inspection. ? Just a thought. ? ? ? Regards, ? Jeff Orear RV6A ?N782P Peshtigo, WI ? ? On Aug 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, jhnstniii@aol.com wrote: Listers--Promised I would report on our efforts to stop the vertical vibration of our nosewheel/pant assembly. We started with the tire. We bought a motorcycle wheel balancer (simple rod rolling on ball bearing supports type) and immediately noticed the tire was quite out of round and out of balance.?We thought "problem solved" and bought a new tire.?This one was round.?We added weights until it was balanced, and?during taxi testing were surprised to find there was no improvement.? We then tried different combinations of tire pressure and bearing torque (within the required limits).?The best was with very low tire pressure and medium torque, but we still had the problem at?20 mph or more.? So?then we glassed?a piece of wood (with four layers of medium weight glass) on to the leg from the bend at the bottom up to where it enters the cowling, hoping to change the vibration characteristics.?No improvement!? I wonde r if a little lead in the nose or tail of the pant might help (t he pant is balanced fore and aft right now so doing this would actually?unbalance it). We are running out of ideas. One of our hangar buddies was up at OSH watching the RVs taxi by for takeoff and he said many of them had vibrating nosewheels. We have the new type nosewheel fork. Don't know if there is a vibrational difference between this type and the old type. Any ideas? Thanks. LeRoy Johnston and David White RV-6A N176LD Esperanza 200+ hours flying.???????????????? ? 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/contribution ? ? ? ? http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ?




    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
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv-list
  • Browse RV-List 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.

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