Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:56 AM - collision avoidance (David McNeill)
2. 09:21 AM - Statistical Sample (John W. Cox)
3. 11:21 AM - Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing (Robin Marks)
4. 11:27 AM - Re: collision avoidance (linn Walters)
5. 11:54 AM - Re: collision avoidance (AirMike)
6. 12:21 PM - Re: Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing (John W. Cox)
7. 12:24 PM - Re: collision avoidance (David McNeill)
8. 12:41 PM - Re: collision avoidance (Kelly McMullen)
9. 02:02 PM - Re: collision avoidance (darnpilot@aol.com)
10. 02:22 PM - The Greenies are Coming (John W. Cox)
11. 02:25 PM - Re: collision avoidance (Kelly McMullen)
12. 02:50 PM - Re: collision avoidance (N212PJ)
13. 04:15 PM - Re: Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing (Tim Olson)
14. 04:50 PM - Re: Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
15. 05:07 PM - wing tip (Chris Hukill)
16. 05:22 PM - Re: wing tip (Ralph E. Capen)
17. 05:26 PM - Re: Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing (John W. Cox)
18. 05:38 PM - Re: wing tip (Bob-tcw)
19. 06:08 PM - Re: oil canning. (johngoodman)
20. 06:10 PM - Re: wing tip (Tim Olson)
21. 06:10 PM - wingtip (Bob-tcw)
22. 06:10 PM - wingtip (Bob-tcw)
23. 06:39 PM - oil canning. (John Gonzalez)
24. 07:54 PM - Re: Re: oil canning. (David McNeill)
25. 08:19 PM - Re: Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing (Indran Chelvanayagam)
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: | collision avoidance |
After two near misses in or above the CHD class D within the last three
months, I would like to hear from anyone who uses the Zaon MRX or XRX.
I currently have the MRX and it provides distance and relative altitude
separation. Bearing it lacks. The XRX is supposed to provide all. On
both misses, I believe the MRX got my attention (although I don't
specifically recall) and I spotted traffic between 11:45 and 12:15 at
1/4 mile and eithor <100 above and >100<200 below me. In one instance I
jammed the stick forward and lifted the tool box in the rear from the
floor. On both occasions I was monitoring CHD tower and no advisories
were issued. From what I could tell both of the other aircraft were
missed approachs or departures from CHD. When traveling through or
above CHD class D, I advise "don't expect anything from CHD tower" and
reduce to maneuvering speed. Incidentially I am currently flying the
Glastar but will put some PCAS in my 10 when it flies in 1st quarter.
Ryan TCAD is out (too expensive); Garmin 330 is out (have G327 and mode S is
becoming obsolete).
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: | Statistical Sample |
It looks from the attached information (which Tim began) that the total
fleet hours are now at 21,000.
If you are willing to update the info or add your flying RV-10 to the
mix, then send me the data and I will add it.
John Cox
#40 <<New Elapsed Time.xls>> 600
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: | Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing |
I have been thinking a lot about the oil cooling temp issues for the
-10. Some have chosen to upgraded the oil cooler. I have an interest in
controlling the oil temps by improving the air flow to the box and them
adding a gate in the oil cooler housing that will allow me to restrict
the air flow to the oil cooler in cold weather. (photo attached)
I am considering swapping out the standard Scat Tubing for Silicone
lined high temp Aeroduct hose. I have purchased this hose for my OH
Console to replace the hearting scat tubes. It's nice stuff! My thinking
is that this duct is much smoother and significantly less corrugated
that scat tubing which SHOULD improve airflow to the oil cooler. The
down side is that this ducting is only sold in 12 foot lengths at $150 /
12 feet. I probably need 2 feet.
My other concept is to take two 3" tubes from the baffling (one on each
side of the engine, I prefer this symmetry) and have both of these 3"
tubes feed the oil cooler box. I don't know if I will have room to run a
3" duct from the right side on the engine to the oil cooler mounted in
the typical location.
To further complicate things I will be using the James Cowl & Plenum.
I would appreciate any observations on using the smooth Silicone lined
Aeroduct hose vs. Scat Tube and or comments on two 3" tubes/duct vs. the
one larger tube/duct.
Thanks,
Robin
Thinking of an RV-8A...Mental illness runs in my family.
http://www.hrpworld.com/index.cfm?form_prod_id=3171&action=product&fo
rm_
cat_id=59,7
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: collision avoidance |
David McNeill wrote:
> After two near misses in or above the CHD class D within the last three
> months, I would like to hear from anyone who uses the Zaon MRX or XRX.
> I currently have the MRX and it provides distance and relative altitude
> separation. Bearing it lacks. The XRX is supposed to provide all. On
> both misses, I believe the MRX got my attention (although I don't
> specifically recall) and I spotted traffic between 11:45 and 12:15 at
> 1/4 mile and eithor <100 above and >100<200 below me. In one instance I
> jammed the stick forward and lifted the tool box in the rear from the
> floor. On both occasions I was monitoring CHD tower and no advisories
> were issued.
Playing Devils Advocate here ...... you were outside of their controlled
airspace.
> From what I could tell both of the other aircraft were
> missed approachs or departures from CHD.
Which means that maybe they were talking to center and not under tower
control either?? Just a thought. You did what you should have done
..... see and avoid. I shudder to think of all the 'new' panels that
require pilots to pull their attention from outside ...... to inside
...... and thereby missing an opportunity to see and avoid. I, too,
have had some way too close calls ...... even though almost all my
attention is outside the cockpit.
Linn
do not archive
> When traveling through or
> above CHD class D, I advise "don't expect anything from CHD tower" and
> reduce to maneuvering speed. Incidentially I am currently flying the
> Glastar but will put some PCAS in my 10 when it flies in 1st quarter.
>
> Ryan TCAD is out (too expensive); Garmin 330 is out (have G327 and
> mode S is becoming obsolete).
>
>
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: collision avoidance |
I have the XRX that I used in my 182 till I sold it last year to build the new
RV10. So far I am impressed with the unit and probably more important - the company.
The unit is not an excuse for heads down VFR flying. View it as a tool
in your tool box of avionics
I find that the delay is significant on the unit, but being aware of that gives
you a lot of what you need to know anyway. The Xaon people are very nice. My
unit is going back to them this week for a FREE software/firmware upgrade so that
it will link to my GPS496 unit and display on the display of the GPS496. Can
you get a better deal than that for TCAS for less than $2K.
Jason (the president of Xaon) is aways at OSH and is very approachable.
Last year he told me that he would trade my XRX in at full value when they come
out with their hard wired installation. He might even do the same on an MRX to
XRX upgrade.
--------
OSH '08 or Bust
Q/B Kit - Doors/windows/fiberglass stuff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152541#152541
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: | Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing |
Robin, that's a most interesting landing gear leg and brake assembly
(shown).
You will find many advantages to the course you are pursuing. LoPresti
would be please with your acknowledgement on air flow control. Let me
know how much you have left, I would be interested, Too. I am looking
at an improved flow path over the stock configuration.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 11:14 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing
I have been thinking a lot about the oil cooling temp issues for the
-10. Some have chosen to upgraded the oil cooler. I have an interest in
controlling the oil temps by improving the air flow to the box and them
adding a gate in the oil cooler housing that will allow me to restrict
the air flow to the oil cooler in cold weather. (photo attached)
I am considering swapping out the standard Scat Tubing for Silicone
lined high temp Aeroduct hose. I have purchased this hose for my OH
Console to replace the hearting scat tubes. It's nice stuff! My thinking
is that this duct is much smoother and significantly less corrugated
that scat tubing which SHOULD improve airflow to the oil cooler. The
down side is that this ducting is only sold in 12 foot lengths at $150 /
12 feet. I probably need 2 feet.
My other concept is to take two 3" tubes from the baffling (one on each
side of the engine, I prefer this symmetry) and have both of these 3"
tubes feed the oil cooler box. I don't know if I will have room to run a
3" duct from the right side on the engine to the oil cooler mounted in
the typical location.
To further complicate things I will be using the James Cowl & Plenum.
I would appreciate any observations on using the smooth Silicone lined
Aeroduct hose vs. Scat Tube and or comments on two 3" tubes/duct vs. the
one larger tube/duct.
Thanks,
Robin
Thinking of an RV-8A...Mental illness runs in my family.
http://www.hrpworld.com/index.cfm?form_prod_id=3171&action=product&fo
rm_
cat_id=59,7
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: | collision avoidance |
After some discussion I am of the opinion that my problem is with CHD tower.
One time I was in their class D and the other I was above their class D. The
other aircraft were near the top of their class D after departure from CHD
or a practice approach to CHD. There is another problem there also where I
had a different class D to the East going up another 1000 feet and class B
to the West that was at of below the HD class D upwards to 10000.
Essentially FAA has created a VFR funnel for North to South traffic there.
Since there was little or no COM traffic on CHD tower frequency, one would
think that they could at least provide advisories to the aircraft leaving
their airport. They have a radar slave unit there.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: collision avoidance
David McNeill wrote:
After two near misses in or above the CHD class D within the last three
months, I would like to hear from anyone who uses the Zaon MRX or XRX.
I currently have the MRX and it provides distance and relative altitude
separation. Bearing it lacks. The XRX is supposed to provide all. On
both misses, I believe the MRX got my attention (although I don't
specifically recall) and I spotted traffic between 11:45 and 12:15 at
1/4 mile and eithor <100 above and >100<200 below me. In one instance I
jammed the stick forward and lifted the tool box in the rear from the
floor. On both occasions I was monitoring CHD tower and no advisories
were issued.
Playing Devils Advocate here ...... you were outside of their controlled
airspace.
>From what I could tell both of the other aircraft were
missed approachs or departures from CHD.
Which means that maybe they were talking to center and not under tower
control either?? Just a thought. You did what you should have done .....
see and avoid. I shudder to think of all the 'new' panels that require
pilots to pull their attention from outside ...... to inside ...... and
thereby missing an opportunity to see and avoid. I, too, have had some way
too close calls ...... even though almost all my attention is outside the
cockpit.
Linn
do not archive
When traveling through or
above CHD class D, I advise "don't expect anything from CHD tower" and
reduce to maneuvering speed. Incidentially I am currently flying the
Glastar but will put some PCAS in my 10 when it flies in 1st quarter.
Ryan TCAD is out (too expensive); Garmin 330 is out (have G327 and mode S is
becoming obsolete).
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: collision avoidance |
I've experienced similar episodes most everywhere I've flown,
including FFZ and IWA airspace. Other than listening to their traffic
and keeping head on a swivel, there isn't a lot you can do. IMHO, an
in-cockpit device is useless unless you have a second pilot to watch
it. Especially in a high traffic area. Right now you have 1000ft
between the top of D and bottom of B airspace. If CHD has its way,
that will get reduced to 500 ft before too long. With the PHX Class B
redesign any in cockpit view has to be on map/gps for staying out of
the B airspace, not looking at some fishfinder.
On Dec 16, 2007 12:15 PM, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> David McNeill wrote:
>
>
> After two near misses in or above the CHD class D within the last three
> months, I would like to hear from anyone who uses the Zaon MRX or XRX.
> I currently have the MRX and it provides distance and relative altitude
> separation. Bearing it lacks. The XRX is supposed to provide all. On
> both misses, I believe the MRX got my attention (although I don't
> specifically recall) and I spotted traffic between 11:45 and 12:15 at
> 1/4 mile and eithor <100 above and >100<200 below me. In one instance I
> jammed the stick forward and lifted the tool box in the rear from the
> floor. On both occasions I was monitoring CHD tower and no advisories
> were issued. Playing Devils Advocate here ...... you were outside of their
> controlled airspace.
>
>
> >From what I could tell both of the other aircraft were
> missed approachs or departures from CHD. Which means that maybe they were
> talking to center and not under tower control either?? Just a thought. You
> did what you should have done ..... see and avoid. I shudder to think of
> all the 'new' panels that require pilots to pull their attention from
> outside ...... to inside ...... and thereby missing an opportunity to see
> and avoid. I, too, have had some way too close calls ...... even though
> almost all my attention is outside the cockpit.
> Linn
> do not archive
>
>
> When traveling through or
> above CHD class D, I advise "don't expect anything from CHD tower" and
> reduce to maneuvering speed. Incidentially I am currently flying the
> Glastar but will put some PCAS in my 10 when it flies in 1st quarter.
>
> Ryan TCAD is out (too expensive); Garmin 330 is out (have G327 and mode S
> is becoming obsolete).
>
>
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: collision avoidance |
I plan to use my G496 as a display for the XRX.? It feed its data to the 496 as
a pseudo TIS signal.? Pretty neat.? I will use the XRX as a receiver only and
mount it out of the way and out of sight.? I am going to wait until SNF to see
if something better is available, if not, this is what I am going to do by May
'08.? Has any one else done anything similar?
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 3:28 pm
Subject: Re: RV10-List: collision avoidance
I've experienced similar episodes most everywhere I've flown,
including FFZ and IWA airspace. Other than listening to their traffic
and keeping head on a swivel, there isn't a lot you can do. IMHO, an
in-cockpit device is useless unless you have a second pilot to watch
it. Especially in a high traffic area. Right now you have 1000ft
between the top of D and bottom of B airspace. If CHD has its way,
that will get reduced to 500 ft before too long. With the PHX Class B
redesign any in cockpit view has to be on map/gps for staying out of
the B airspace, not looking at some fishfinder.
On Dec 16, 2007 12:15 PM, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> David McNeill wrote:
>
>
> After two near misses in or above the CHD class D within the last three
> months, I would like to hear from anyone who uses the Zaon MRX or XRX.
> I currently have the MRX and it provides distance and relative altitude
> separation. Bearing it lacks. The XRX is supposed to provide all. On
> both misses, I believe the MRX got my attention (although I don't
> specifically recall) and I spotted traffic between 11:45 and 12:15 at
> 1/4 mile and eithor <100 above and >100<200 below me. In one instance I
> jammed the stick forward and lifted the tool box in the rear from the
> floor. On both occasions I was monitoring CHD tower and no advisories
> were issued. Playing Devils Advocate here ...... you were outside of their
> controlled airspace.
>
>
> >From what I could tell both of the other aircraft were
> missed approachs or departures from CHD. Which means that maybe they were
> talking to center and not under tower control either?? Just a thought. You
> did what you should have done ..... see and avoid. I shudder to think of
> all the 'new' panels that require pilots to pull their attention from
> outside ...... to inside ...... and thereby missing an opportunity to see
> and avoid. I, too, have had some way too close calls ...... even though
> almost all my attention is outside the cockpit.
> Linn
> do not archive
>
>
> When traveling through or
> above CHD class D, I advise "don't expect anything from CHD tower" and
> reduce to maneuvering speed. Incidentially I am currently flying the
> Glastar but will put some PCAS in my 10 when it flies in 1st quarter.
>
> Ryan TCAD is out (too expensive); Garmin 330 is out (have G327 and mode S
> is becoming obsolete).
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
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: | The Greenies are Coming |
Nothing fall through the cracks. We let it happen through our own
apathy or failure to clearly communicate our desires. It is a two way
street. One of the authors of our latest fiasco was even a major radio
talk show host and aviator. Oh the blasphemy.
Oregon is now acknowledging that in an effort to please our Left leaning
Governor, Senators and Representatives we would try to keep Oregon as
the farthest left of logical states on the Western Seaboard (and that's
no easy task with California so progressive). Everyone is now willing
to admit the language was poorly written, incompetently researched and
hastily passed.
The lessons for all pilots (Everywhere) is to keep abreast of
legislative trends. This same one is coming to a state near you, sooner
that you're ready for it. Montana took a pre-emptive effort to protect
the supply of Non Ethanol AVGAS throughout their distribution system.
Oregon is trying to correct the widespread damage by leaving a provision
for a new distribution and new sale of 91 octane Non Adulterated MOGAS
for use in aircraft using an EAA or Peterson sponsored STC. The
difficulty is that MOGAS does not stay as a "fresh consumable" as long
as AVGAS. It lacks stabilizers. The supply of this product is not
likely to gain market viability. The new loophole would permit FBO's to
buy another fuel tank, pay another licensing fee, track another fuel
source for sale and then try to find a distributor to bring very small
boutique quantities of this new 91 Octane MOGAS to airports around our
state on a frequent basis. Try to imagine the Supply and Demand model
for very small quantity distribution (less than 5,000 gals) to your
favorite airport.
On a second front, they are redefining the descriptor for AVGAS to
protect its cleanliness and not further disrupt our state based <<Bio
RFS Rule v17 DRAFT.doc>> aircraft and aviation industries.
We are still trying to jumpstart the Ethanol Industry before Iowa,
Nebraska and the Great Heartland takes away all our business with our
middle eastern brethren. Attached you may read the latest developments
to try and stem the damage that has now been done. Before making cross
country flights, research the grade and availability of your favorite
fuel. Not just its price.
Stay aware of your local legislative issues.
John Cox
#40600
Legislative Affairs for the Oregon Pilots Association
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: | Re: collision avoidance |
Not really. You can go west below 4000 ft and stay out of CHD
airspace, or you can go south through Willie airspace at 3500.
Remember that CHD and Willie both operate on two tower freqs, which
may or may not be operated by the same person, so they can be busy on
one side while you hear little or nothing on the other. While
advisories are nice, in Class D airspace I certainly don't expect them
for anything other than sequencing to the runway or conflicts between
arriving and departing traffic. As was mentioned, almost always a
missed approach will be back on approach freq and tower won't be
paying any attention to them. Not saying you are wrong, but a VFR
tower doesn't supply more than runway separation and anything extra is
gravy.
On Dec 16, 2007 1:20 PM, David McNeill <dlm46007@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> After some discussion I am of the opinion that my problem is with CHD tower.
> One time I was in their class D and the other I was above their class D. The
> other aircraft were near the top of their class D after departure from CHD
> or a practice approach to CHD. There is another problem there also where I
> had a different class D to the East going up another 1000 feet and class B
> to the West that was at of below the HD class D upwards to 10000.
> Essentially FAA has created a VFR funnel for North to South traffic there.
> Since there was little or no COM traffic on CHD tower frequency, one would
> think that they could at least provide advisories to the aircraft leaving
> their airport. They have a radar slave unit there.
>
> ________________________________
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:16 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: collision avoidance
>
>
> David McNeill wrote:
>
>
> After two near misses in or above the CHD class D within the last three
> months, I would like to hear from anyone who uses the Zaon MRX or XRX.
> I currently have the MRX and it provides distance and relative altitude
> separation. Bearing it lacks. The XRX is supposed to provide all. On
> both misses, I believe the MRX got my attention (although I don't
> specifically recall) and I spotted traffic between 11:45 and 12:15 at
> 1/4 mile and eithor <100 above and >100<200 below me. In one instance I
> jammed the stick forward and lifted the tool box in the rear from the
> floor. On both occasions I was monitoring CHD tower and no advisories
> were issued.Playing Devils Advocate here ...... you were outside of their
> controlled airspace.
>
>
> >From what I could tell both of the other aircraft were
> missed approachs or departures from CHD.Which means that maybe they were
> talking to center and not under tower control either?? Just a thought. You
> did what you should have done ..... see and avoid. I shudder to think of
> all the 'new' panels that require pilots to pull their attention from
> outside ...... to inside ...... and thereby missing an opportunity to see
> and avoid. I, too, have had some way too close calls ...... even though
> almost all my attention is outside the cockpit.
> Linn
> do not archive
>
>
> When traveling through or
> above CHD class D, I advise "don't expect anything from CHD tower" and
> reduce to maneuvering speed. Incidentially I am currently flying the
> Glastar but will put some PCAS in my 10 when it flies in 1st quarter.
>
> Ryan TCAD is out (too expensive); Garmin 330 is out (have G327 and mode S is
> becoming obsolete).
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
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: | collision avoidance |
I once was able to visit the guys handling the BED tower (Hanscom field), a
very busy GA airport near Logan, outside of Boston. This was where I
learned how to fly and before the new tower was built. My instructor
insisted that all his students spend an hour in the tower during busy times.
What a lesson! They had what looked like a very crude radar feed from
Logan, but mostly depended on the accuracy of radio reports and their eyes
to see what was happening, helped by some binoculars. They were plenty busy
tring to keep the incoming jets, Mooney's, Bonanza's, twins of all types,
the occassional commuter turbo prop, all from playing havoc with each other
and all the while avoiding the many student driven Katana's putting around
at 80 knots. It didn't happen the day I got to visit the tower, but it
wasn't unusual for them to "forget" an extended downwind plane when things
got hairy. I had two close calls coming into the pattern at BED, especially
one where an unfamiliar (to the area) pilot came across the field almost at
pattern altitude, scaring the tower personnel so much that they totally
forgot about me as they tried to get that a&& under control. Anyway, I
agree with the other posts. You cannot expect some of the tower personnel
to be doing much more than keeping folks separated, especially at busy
arrival or training times. PIC responsibility is paramont at these times.
John J
40328
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: collision avoidance
Not really. You can go west below 4000 ft and stay out of CHD airspace, or
you can go south through Willie airspace at 3500.
Remember that CHD and Willie both operate on two tower freqs, which may or
may not be operated by the same person, so they can be busy on one side
while you hear little or nothing on the other. While advisories are nice, in
Class D airspace I certainly don't expect them for anything other than
sequencing to the runway or conflicts between arriving and departing
traffic. As was mentioned, almost always a missed approach will be back on
approach freq and tower won't be paying any attention to them. Not saying
you are wrong, but a VFR tower doesn't supply more than runway separation
and anything extra is gravy.
On Dec 16, 2007 1:20 PM, David McNeill <dlm46007@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> After some discussion I am of the opinion that my problem is with CHD
tower.
> One time I was in their class D and the other I was above their class
> D. The other aircraft were near the top of their class D after
> departure from CHD or a practice approach to CHD. There is another
> problem there also where I had a different class D to the East going
> up another 1000 feet and class B to the West that was at of below the HD
class D upwards to 10000.
> Essentially FAA has created a VFR funnel for North to South traffic there.
> Since there was little or no COM traffic on CHD tower frequency, one
> would think that they could at least provide advisories to the
> aircraft leaving their airport. They have a radar slave unit there.
>
> ________________________________
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn
> Walters
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:16 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: collision avoidance
>
>
> David McNeill wrote:
>
>
> After two near misses in or above the CHD class D within the last
> three months, I would like to hear from anyone who uses the Zaon MRX or
XRX.
> I currently have the MRX and it provides distance and relative
> altitude separation. Bearing it lacks. The XRX is supposed to provide
> all. On both misses, I believe the MRX got my attention (although I
> don't specifically recall) and I spotted traffic between 11:45 and
> 12:15 at
> 1/4 mile and eithor <100 above and >100<200 below me. In one instance
> I jammed the stick forward and lifted the tool box in the rear from
> the floor. On both occasions I was monitoring CHD tower and no
> advisories were issued.Playing Devils Advocate here ...... you were
> outside of their controlled airspace.
>
>
> >From what I could tell both of the other aircraft were
> missed approachs or departures from CHD.Which means that maybe they
> were talking to center and not under tower control either?? Just a
> thought. You did what you should have done ..... see and avoid. I
> shudder to think of all the 'new' panels that require pilots to pull
> their attention from outside ...... to inside ...... and thereby
> missing an opportunity to see and avoid. I, too, have had some way
> too close calls ...... even though almost all my attention is outside the
cockpit.
> Linn
> do not archive
>
>
> When traveling through or
> above CHD class D, I advise "don't expect anything from CHD tower" and
> reduce to maneuvering speed. Incidentially I am currently flying the
> Glastar but will put some PCAS in my 10 when it flies in 1st quarter.
>
> Ryan TCAD is out (too expensive); Garmin 330 is out (have G327 and
> mode S is becoming obsolete).
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
> chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matron
> ics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
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: Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing |
You should be able to do some easy area of a circle type
calculations and determine if your dual-fed SCAT tubes
can provide the same amount of air all other things
being equal. As diameter goes up, the area increases
substantially so it might be hard to get 2 SCAT tubes
to have the same flow as one, without going to some
pretty good sized dual tubes. But, as long as you get
the air there I should work I'd think.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Robin Marks wrote:
> I have been thinking a lot about the oil cooling temp issues for the
> -10. Some have chosen to upgraded the oil cooler. I have an interest in
> controlling the oil temps by improving the air flow to the box and them
> adding a gate in the oil cooler housing that will allow me to restrict
> the air flow to the oil cooler in cold weather. (photo attached)
>
> I am considering swapping out the standard Scat Tubing for Silicone
> lined high temp Aeroduct hose. I have purchased this hose for my OH
> Console to replace the hearting scat tubes. Its nice stuff! My thinking
> is that this duct is much smoother and significantly less corrugated
> that scat tubing which SHOULD improve airflow to the oil cooler. The
> down side is that this ducting is only sold in 12 foot lengths at $150 /
> 12 feet. I probably need 2 feet.
>
> My other concept is to take two 3 tubes from the baffling (one on each
> side of the engine, I prefer this symmetry) and have both of these 3
> tubes feed the oil cooler box. I dont know if I will have room to run a
> 3 duct from the right side on the engine to the oil cooler mounted in
> the typical location.
>
> To further complicate things I will be using the James Cowl & Plenum.
>
> I would appreciate any observations on using the smooth Silicone lined
> Aeroduct hose vs. Scat Tube and or comments on two 3 tubes/duct vs. the
> one larger tube/duct.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
> Thinking of an RV-8AMental illness runs in my family.
>
>
>
> http://www.hrpworld.com/index.cfm?form_prod_id=3171&action=product&form_cat_id=59,7
> <http://www.hrpworld.com/index.cfm?form_prod_id=3171&action=product&form_cat_id=59,7>
>
>
> http://www.hrpworld.com/client_images/ecommerce/client_39/products/3171_hdr_2_l.jpg
>
> http://www.hrpworld.com/client_images/ecommerce/client_39/products/3171_1.jpg* *http://www.hrpworld.com/client_images/ecommerce/client_39/products/3171_2.jpg
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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: Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing |
Kind of a side note as we're talking about cooling and air flow. I took my
cowling off last week and noticed that the aluminum shielding I had applied
to
the bottom cowling had been peeled up just underneath the oil cooler. Now I
can't say for sure, but this seems to indicate that the air is flowing forwa
rd
in this location; probably not the most efficient flow pattern. Possibly
additional louvers in this location may help.
I have the stock oil cooler with a stock installation. You might notice I'v
e
added a few extra louvers on the bottom cowl. I've also added a "dryer vent
"
exhaust on the exit side of the oil cooler (see photo). My hope is this
would help the air exiting the oil cooler to more smoothly mix with the exi
ting
air. I have no hard data to back up whether these were actual improvements
in
air flow; however I'll say that my oil temp and CHTs have become lower and
more manageable with the changes.
-Jim
40134 - Flying
In a message dated 12/16/2007 2:27:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
robin1@mrmoisture.com writes:
I have been thinking a lot about the oil cooling temp issues for the -10.
Some have chosen to upgraded the oil cooler. I have an interest in control
ling
the oil temps by improving the air flow to the box and them adding a gate i
n
the oil cooler housing that will allow me to restrict the air flow to the
oil cooler in cold weather. (photo attached)
I am considering swapping out the standard Scat Tubing for Silicone lined
high temp Aeroduct hose. I have purchased this hose for my OH Console to
replace the hearting scat tubes. It=99s nice stuff! My thinking is th
at this duct is
much smoother and significantly less corrugated that scat tubing which SHOU
LD
improve airflow to the oil cooler. The down side is that this ducting is
only sold in 12 foot lengths at $150 / 12 feet. I probably need 2 feet.
My other concept is to take two 3=9D tubes from the baffling (one on
each side
of the engine, I prefer this symmetry) and have both of these 3=9D tu
bes feed
the oil cooler box. I don=99t know if I will have room to run a 3
=9D duct from
the right side on the engine to the oil cooler mounted in the typical
location.
To further complicate things I will be using the James Cowl & Plenum.
I would appreciate any observations on using the smooth Silicone lined
Aeroduct hose vs. Scat Tube and or comments on two 3=9D tubes/duct vs
. the one
larger tube/duct.
Thanks,
Robin
Thinking of an RV-8AMental illness runs in my family.
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
_http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew)
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
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 |
|
I'm about to fit the wingtips to the wing, and I need to determine the
neutral aileron position to align and trim the length of the trailing
edge of the tip with the aileron. Does the neutral position that is set
with the rigging of the wing bellcrank give a true neutral, or does the
aileron need to be set to trail with the flap for a accurate neutral
position? On the RV8, I had to wait until the wing was mounted to the
fuselage, install the flaps and rig to full up, then adjust the aileron
trail to the flap trail to get a true neutral. Am I better off waiting
until this scenario on the 10 as well?
Chris Hukill
(what, more fiberglass!)
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 |
|
On my 6A, I had an airfoil template that I used for the ailerons, flaps
and tip - even prior to inatallation of the wing to the fuse - and it
hasn't needed to be changed since I installed the wing.
I was planning to do the same again......
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Hukill
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 8:06 PM
Subject: RV10-List: wing tip
I'm about to fit the wingtips to the wing, and I need to determine the
neutral aileron position to align and trim the length of the trailing
edge of the tip with the aileron. Does the neutral position that is set
with the rigging of the wing bellcrank give a true neutral, or does the
aileron need to be set to trail with the flap for a accurate neutral
position? On the RV8, I had to wait until the wing was mounted to the
fuselage, install the flaps and rig to full up, then adjust the aileron
trail to the flap trail to get a true neutral. Am I better off waiting
until this scenario on the 10 as well?
Chris Hukill
(what, more fiberglass!)
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: | Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing |
High pressure and cooler air from the upper plenum escapes through the
oil heat exchanger and collides with the downflow past the cooling fins
on the port side. It is a great example of the burble generated from
the collision of air masses. It may also indicate an adhesion problem
between the film and the lower cowl finish coating.
John Cox
40600 - dreaming
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
JSMcGrew@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing
Kind of a side note as we're talking about cooling and air flow. I took
my cowling off last week and noticed that the aluminum shielding I had
applied to the bottom cowling had been peeled up just underneath the oil
cooler. Now I can't say for sure, but this seems to indicate that the
air is flowing forward in this location; probably not the most efficient
flow pattern. Possibly additional louvers in this location may help.
I have the stock oil cooler with a stock installation. You might notice
I've added a few extra louvers on the bottom cowl. I've also added a
"dryer vent" exhaust on the exit side of the oil cooler (see photo). My
hope is this would help the air exiting the oil cooler to more smoothly
mix with the exiting air. I have no hard data to back up whether these
were actual improvements in air flow; however I'll say that my oil temp
and CHTs have become lower and more manageable with the changes.
-Jim
40134 - Flying
In a message dated 12/16/2007 2:27:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
robin1@mrmoisture.com writes:
I ha ve been thinking a lot about the oil cooling temp issues
for the -10. Some have chosen to upgraded the oil cooler. I have an
interest in controlling the oil temps by improving the air flow to the
box and them adding a gate in the oil cooler housing that will allow me
to restrict the air flow to the oil cooler in cold weather. (photo
attached)
I am considering swapping out the standard Scat Tubing for
Silicone lined high temp Aeroduct hose. I have purchased this hose for
my OH Console to replace the hearting scat tubes. It's nice stuff! My
thinking is that this duct is much smoother and significantly less
corrugated that scat tubing which SHOULD improve airflow to the oil
cooler. The down side is that this ducting is only sold in 12 foot
lengths at $150 / 12 feet. I probably need 2 feet.
My other concept is to take two 3" tubes from the baffling (one
on each side of the engine, I prefer this symmetry) and have both of
these 3" tubes feed the oil cooler box. I don't know if I will have room
to run a 3" duct from the right side on the engine to the oil cooler
mounted in the typical location.
To further complicate things I will be using the James Cowl &
Plenum.
I would appreciate any observations on using the smooth Silicone
lined Aeroduct hose vs. Scat Tube and or comments on two 3" tubes/duct
vs. the one larger tube/duct.
Thanks,
Robin
Thinking of an RV-8A...Mental illness runs in my family.
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew
________________________________
See AOL's top rated recipes
<http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004> and
easy ways to stay in shape
<http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003>
for winter.
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 |
|
Chris, Other's will have to chime in, especially those flying. When I
did my wing tips I used the "neutral jig" which sets the aileron neutral
position, checked and aligned the flaps to the ailerons and then set my
wing tip trailing edges to the ailerons. I believe I had the "old
version" of wing tips as they were about 3/4" longer than the aileron,
but none the less, I had to cut the upper and lower wing tip surface at
the trailing edge to pull the wing tip into alignment with the aileron.
I used a long straight edge to align the wing tip to the aileron and
used it as a clamping jig while the resin dried. I remeber cutting
about 3" forward from the trailing edge to give the upper and lower tip
skin some compliance so I could easily align it with the aileron.
When I was done it came out swell.
Here's a picture when it was all done.
-Bob Newman
TCW Technologies
www.tcwtech.com
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: | Re: oil canning. |
JOhn,
You got my attention. I'll be closing up my QB wings in a week or two and I've
noticed a little "slop" in the open ribs, especially in the middle, when I tried
to precut the pitot mount hole. I'm guessing about two bays outside the last
inspection port, right?
John
--------
#40572 QB Wings, QB Fuse arrived
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152605#152605
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I would get it all in the wing rack and get the flaps installed
so they're all the way retracted, and then align the ailerons
to them and then mount the wingtip so it aligns with the flaps
and ailerons. That way when you're in cruise it's all lined
up nicely. If you just did it rough now, chances are it won't
be aligned well later and you may end up with the famous
"droopy aileron" syndrome have to deal with that later.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Chris Hukill wrote:
> I'm about to fit the wingtips to the wing, and I need to determine the
> neutral aileron position to align and trim the length of the trailing
> edge of the tip with the aileron. Does the neutral position that is set
> with the rigging of the wing bellcrank give a true neutral, or does the
> aileron need to be set to trail with the flap for a accurate neutral
> position? On the RV8, I had to wait until the wing was mounted to the
> fuselage, install the flaps and rig to full up, then adjust the aileron
> trail to the flap trail to get a true neutral. Am I better off waiting
> until this scenario on the 10 as well?
>
> Chris Hukill
> (what, more fiberglass!)
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Here's one more wingtip picture from the alignment process.
-Bob Newman
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Chris, I found one more picture. This was with the straight edge
clamped to the trailing edge of the aileron and wingtip as the resin
hardened.
-Bob Newman
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thanks Ron,
I had completed last night the rivetting of the bottom wing skin completing
step 11, section 20-5. As I stated, I noted the large amount of oil cannin
g in the squares aft of the main spar and I stopped. This morning I removed
the rivets that are forward of the J stiffner, all the way to the spar and
the skin released with no seen tweeks.
What I am having trouble understanding is that eventhough the rib flanges h
ave been crimped, the ribs seem to be loaded with pressure and they need to
be pulled into alignment with the skin holes. These pr loads seem to be wh
at is causing the oil canning.
Studing the ribs without the skin indicates that the pulling force each rib
exerts is in the opposite direction from the direction the flange is facin
g. Where the plans have us start is the centerpoint where both rib's pullin
g forces are coming together, directed toward one another(which means loose
skin). Perhaps if I would have proceeded the skin may have gotten tighter
toward the completion of step 12, as you suggested, but I was reluctant to
proceed.
Step 11 really doesn't spell out the order too well in how to rivet the ski
n to the underlying structure. It says nothing about how to proceed forward
of the J stiffner. I presume the entire J stiffner needs to be rivetted pr
ior to moving forward toward the main spar, no clecos forward of the J stif
fner, this allows us to get our hand up under the skin to access the J stif
fner. After it is rivetted, I presume we need to cleco the remaining struct
ure closed and access the interior from the access holes.
Sorry for the long post just don't want to have to drill these rivets out a
gain.
I seems so strange building structures which have these preloads on them an
d then asking another preloaded member to cancel the other out. I seem to n
ever get over this and how we are using controlled collisions to build stru
cture. Next plane will be fiberglass.
Thanks for any suggestions other than quiting,
JOhn G.
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: oil canning. |
When you are joining adjacent skins you should trim the edge so that there
is about a .020 gap when clecoed in place; this will allow the riveted skin
to expand to fill the gap. If the skins fit tightly before riveting there
will be excess metal to oil can. You can also see the ridge where the skins
join. Addtionally you can cleco the skin every other hole and lock the skin
in place before making a second pass and finishing the job.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of johngoodman
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 6:48 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: oil canning.
--> <johngoodman@earthlink.net>
JOhn,
You got my attention. I'll be closing up my QB wings in a week or two and
I've noticed a little "slop" in the open ribs, especially in the middle,
when I tried to precut the pitot mount hole. I'm guessing about two bays
outside the last inspection port, right?
John
--------
#40572 QB Wings, QB Fuse arrived
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152605#152605
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aeroduct vs. Scat Tubing |
Assuming laminar flow, flow through a tube is proportional to the
fourth power of the radius. Therefore to get the same flow through
two smaller tubes, the radius of each small tube has to be approx 84%
of the larger tube, without taking into account frictional losses.
Hope this helps
Indran
On 17/12/2007, at 9:14 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> You should be able to do some easy area of a circle type
> calculations and determine if your dual-fed SCAT tubes
> can provide the same amount of air all other things
> being equal. As diameter goes up, the area increases
> substantially so it might be hard to get 2 SCAT tubes
> to have the same flow as one, without going to some
> pretty good sized dual tubes. But, as long as you get
> the air there I should work I'd think.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Robin Marks wrote:
>> I have been thinking a lot about the oil cooling temp issues for
>> the -10. Some have chosen to upgraded the oil cooler. I have an
>> interest in controlling the oil temps by improving the air flow to
>> the box and them adding a gate in the oil cooler housing that will
>> allow me to restrict the air flow to the oil cooler in cold
>> weather. (photo attached)
>> I am considering swapping out the standard Scat Tubing for
>> Silicone lined high temp Aeroduct hose. I have purchased this hose
>> for my OH Console to replace the hearting scat tubes. Its nice
>> stuff! My thinking is that this duct is much smoother and
>> significantly less corrugated that scat tubing which SHOULD
>> improve airflow to the oil cooler. The down side is that this
>> ducting is only sold in 12 foot lengths at $150 / 12 feet. I
>> probably need 2 feet.
>> My other concept is to take two 3 tubes from the baffling (one on
>> each side of the engine, I prefer this symmetry) and have both of
>> these 3 tubes feed the oil cooler box. I dont know if I will
>> have room to run a 3 duct from the right side on the engine to
>> the oil cooler mounted in the typical location.
>> To further complicate things I will be using the James Cowl & Plenum.
>> I would appreciate any observations on using the smooth Silicone
>> lined Aeroduct hose vs. Scat Tube and or comments on two 3 tubes/
>> duct vs. the one larger tube/duct.
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> Thinking of an RV-8AMental illness runs in my family.
>> http://www.hrpworld.com/index.cfm?
>> form_prod_id=3171&action=product&form_cat_id=59,7 <http://
>> www.hrpworld.com/index.cfm?
>> form_prod_id=3171&action=product&form_cat_id=59,7> http://
>> www.hrpworld.com/client_images/ecommerce/client_39/products/
>> 3171_hdr_2_l.jpg
>> http://www.hrpworld.com/client_images/ecommerce/client_39/products/
>> 3171_1.jpg* *http://www.hrpworld.com/client_images/ecommerce/
>> client_39/products/3171_2.jpg
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>
>
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! --
|