Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:41 AM - Re: MT Prop(s) (Gordon Anderson)
2. 05:00 AM - Re: PCU5000-X (Bob-TCW)
3. 06:47 AM - Re: MT Prop(s) (Robert Brunkenhoefer)
4. 07:29 AM - RV main gear vibration (Carroll L. Verhage)
5. 07:41 AM - Re: MT Prop(s) (Don McDonald)
6. 07:55 AM - Re: MT Prop(s) (Robert Brunkenhoefer)
7. 08:14 AM - Re: MT Prop(s) (Michael Kraus)
8. 08:19 AM - Re: MT Prop(s) (Pascal)
9. 08:42 AM - Re: MT Prop(s) (Deems Davis)
10. 09:07 AM - Re: MT Prop(s) (Danny Riggs)
11. 11:08 AM - Re: RV main gear vibration (Kevin Belue)
12. 11:54 AM - Re: RV main gear vibration (Ben Westfall)
13. 12:43 PM - Re: RV main gear vibration (Michael Kraus)
14. 12:55 PM - Main gear vibration (Carroll L. Verhage)
15. 01:23 PM - Re: Main gear vibration (Gordon Anderson)
16. 02:22 PM - Re: Main gear vibration (Seano)
17. 07:33 PM - Re: Main gear vibration ()
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 |
|
Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off distance?
In theory that should also be better with the MT.
Gordon Anderson
41014 Switzerland
On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote:
>
> I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged by fod
during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also
I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of deceleration
on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few landings
and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and had a complete
overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is still in its shipping
crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new
MT at a less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different than other
MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference.
The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell Blended
Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what other MT prop owners
have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody
ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side
comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what
others "think" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew with
Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really
fat blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I
remember correctly.
>>
>> Any others want to share their thoughts?
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> 352-427-
>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I also used the pcu5000 on my -10. It has worked perfectly without any rpm. adjustments.
One thing that confused me for a while during installation was the
instructions for adjusting the position of the control arm. The loosen the
6 screws and move the outer ring just didn't compute. For the longest time I
thought you had to rotate the ring to one of six positions as defined by the
screw pattern. What I was missing was that the outer ring was so nicely machined
that I didn't realize that with the screws loose, the ring allowed a sliding
motion between the body and the control arm. This Allows complete freedom
in setting the control arm position
Bob
N541RV flying
Sent from asmy iPhone
On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:53 AM, "Pascal" <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
>
> Same feedback as Carl. During the time my TC advised going the PCU route versus
the MT route. Been working very nicely for me. I do recall I paid about $180
more for my governor however.
> -----Original Message----- From: Carl Froehlich
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 7:33 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: PCU5000-X
>
>
> I bought the PCU5000-X for the RV-8A several years ago. At the time many RV
builders were reporting surge/hunting problems with the then Van's recommend MT
governor, and very positive reports were being circulated on the PCU unit.
There was a group buy on VAF for the PCU5000-X so I went that route. Final cost
to me was a few dollars below Van's listed price for the MT unit.
>
> My very positive experience with the PCU unit on the RV-8A drove the decision
to use it on the RV-10. Luck was with me as there was another group buy going
on VAF so again I got it for a few dollars below the Van's list price for the
Hartzell and MT units.
>
> I read that MT has taken action to address the earlier performance issues, but
I cannot go beyond my very limited study. For that matter all my information
on the MT unit is second hand so consider it in that light.
>
> Perhaps you can organize another PCU5000-X group buy. Everyone RV builder planning
on a CS prop should have an interest.
>
> Carl
>
> On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> For those that chose the PCU5000, do you feel it is worth the extra several
hundred over an MT or Hartzell governor? I'm finding so far that I can get the
MT prop with MT governor as a package at significantly better price than if I
have by PCU5000 separate from the prop.
>> What features do you consider significantly better with the PCU5000?
>> Kelly
>> On 12/10/2012 7:51 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
>>>
>>> I found a photo taken during baffle fabrication (I made mine as Im using a
plenum). Dont know how much different, if any this will be if you use the Vans
baffle kit. Please look beyond the temporary hardware in the photo.
>>>
>>> The listed Vans mixture and governor cables were the correct length (I am not
using a quadrant), but the Vans recommended throttle cable was too short. I
got the 50.5 throttle cable that Vans list for the RV-7 and it worked fine.
>>>
>>> Carl
>>>
>>> RV-10 (60 hours)
>>>
>>> RV-8A (700 hours)
>>>
>>> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Carpenter
>>> *Sent:* Monday, December 10, 2012 9:17 PM
>>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
>>> *Subject:* RV10-List: PCU5000-X
>>>
>>> For those of you with the PCU5000-X and the YIO-540-D4A5, who routed cables
per the vans FF instructions, what counter lever rotation and what clocking angle
did you specify (if you got it right)?
>>>
>>> Jeff Carpenter
>>>
>>> 40304
>>>
>>> * *
>>> * *
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> *www.aeroelectric.com*
>>> *www.buildersbooks.com*
>>> *www.homebuilthelp.com*
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>>> **
>>> **
>>> * *
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Take off distance at RUIDOSO is slightly longer and rate of climb is noticeably
less. Robert SRR 6800ft
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 12, 2012, at 2:41 AM, Gordon Anderson <mregoan@hispeed.ch> wrote:
>
> Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off distance?
In theory that should also be better with the MT.
>
> Gordon Anderson
> 41014 Switzerland
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>> I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged by fod
during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also
I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of
deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few
landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and had a complete
overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is still in its shipping
crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new
MT at a less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different than other
MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference.
The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell
Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what other MT prop owners
have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody
ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side
comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what
others "think" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew
with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really
fat blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if
I remember correctly.
>>>
>>> Any others want to share their thoughts?
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint
>>> 352-427-
>>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | RV main gear vibration |
Kevin, The holes that need to be oblonged are the holes in the gear
mounting bracket (those that were drilled 7.9 mm on the building
instructions). You will have to remove the seat(s), the R side panel
and the seat mounting bracket. Jack the wheel up untill it is just
touching the floor before removing the landing gear bolt. Have some one
turn the landing gear leg while You run the drill bit through the
landing gear and bracket mounting hole. This will oblong the bracket
holes but not the gear leg. Stop twisting the landing gear leg when the
wheel is tracking properly. The oblongation will be as little as a few
thousandths to pehapes 1/16th inch. Make a shim to make the bracket
hole round and replace the bolt.
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 |
|
Here's my 3 cents....- A USAF U2 pilot with a F1 Rocket (IO540) replaced
his 2 blade hartzel with a 3 blade MT.- He said climb rate a little bette
r, and lost about 3-5 knots-at top speed (not cruise).- That was the-
info that convinced me to buy an MT.- I was not concerned with anything b
ut being smooth.- I've riden in quite a few 10's and so far none have had
as low of vibration levels.- Just lay your hand on the glare shield.-
Although I've got some extra hp, I have not had another 10 (7 so far) that
was as fast.--With the extra hp and the 3 blade, I can run the rpm all
the way down to 2,000 without any problem.... and usually-cruise around 2
,100.... and at that rpm can consistently run below 10 gph.-=0A=0A=0AFrom
: Gordon Anderson <mregoan@hispeed.ch>=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com =0ASen
t: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:41 AM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(
h>=0A=0AGreat information Robert.- Did you also notice a difference in ta
ke-off distance?- In theory that should also be better with the MT.=0A=0A
Gordon Anderson=0A41014 Switzerland=0A=0AOn Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Rober
enhoefer <robertbrunk@mac.com>=0A> =0A> I- switched out my MT for the 2bl
aded vans sells when my MT got damaged by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb
is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than
before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of deceleration on throttle b
ack. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few landings and approaches
. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and had a complete overhaul done. It
is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is still in its shipping crate. I can
be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new MT at a less
than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it.=0A> =0A>
Sent from my iPad=0A> =0A> On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse
Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com>=0A>> =0A>> I saw an RV-10 the other day wi
th an MT prop that looked different than other MT's that I have seen on the
-10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference. The owner claimed t
hat this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop, whi
ch I doubt, but wanted to know what other MT prop owners have experienced i
n cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody ever done the
test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side compari
son on the same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what others "thi
nk" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew with Rob H
ickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really fat bl
ades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I re
member correctly.=0A>> =0A>> Any others want to share their thoughts?=0A>>
=0A>> Jesse Saint=0A>> 352-427- =0A>> jesse@saintaviation.com=0A>> =0A>> Se
======================
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 |
|
I can confirm what Don says about smoothness, quietness, and low rpm performance.
Robert
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Don McDonald <building_partner@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here's my 3 cents.... A USAF U2 pilot with a F1 Rocket (IO540) replaced his
2 blade hartzel with a 3 blade MT. He said climb rate a little better, and lost
about 3-5 knots at top speed (not cruise). That was the info that convinced
me to buy an MT. I was not concerned with anything but being smooth. I've
riden in quite a few 10's and so far none have had as low of vibration levels.
Just lay your hand on the glare shield. Although I've got some extra hp, I
have not had another 10 (7 so far) that was as fast. With the extra hp and the
3 blade, I can run the rpm all the way down to 2,000 without any problem....
and usually cruise around 2,100.... and at that rpm can consistently run below
10 gph.
>
> From: Gordon Anderson <mregoan@hispeed.ch>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:41 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s)
>
>
> Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off distance?
In theory that should also be better with the MT.
>
> Gordon Anderson
> 41014 Switzerland
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote:
>
> >
> > I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged by
fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also
I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of
deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few
landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and had a complete
overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is still in its shipping
crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new
MT at a less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving
it.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different than other
MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference.
The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell
Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what other MT prop owners
have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody
ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side
comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what
others "think" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew
with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really
fat blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if
I remember correctly.
> >>
> >> Any others want to share their thoughts?
> >>
> >> Jesse Saint
> >> 352-427-
> >> jesse@saintaviation.com
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >>
> >> ; * The Builder's Bookstore http://wwnbsp; p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target=_blank>http://www.matro========
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Me too, and I like the extra ground clearance as I fly exclusively off of a g
rass strip.
I can say I don't like removing the lower cowl though... With the nose gear
and that extra blade.... It's a tight fit. Other than that, I love the prop
!!
-Mike Kraus
RV-4 sold :-(
RV-10 flying :-)
KitFox SS7 Radial building :-)
On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk@mac.com> wro
te:
> I can confirm what Don says about smoothness, quietness, and low rpm perfo
rmance. Robert
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Don McDonald <building_partner@yahoo.com> wro
te:
>
>> Here's my 3 cents.... A USAF U2 pilot with a F1 Rocket (IO540) replaced h
is 2 blade hartzel with a 3 blade MT. He said climb rate a little better, a
nd lost about 3-5 knots at top speed (not cruise). That was the info that c
onvinced me to buy an MT. I was not concerned with anything but being smoot
h. I've riden in quite a few 10's and so far none have had as low of vibrat
ion levels. Just lay your hand on the glare shield. Although I've got some
extra hp, I have not had another 10 (7 so far) that was as fast. With the e
xtra hp and the 3 blade, I can run the rpm all the way down to 2,000 without
any problem.... and usually cruise around 2,100.... and at that rpm can con
sistently run below 10 gph.
>>
>> From: Gordon Anderson <mregoan@hispeed.ch>
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:41 AM
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s)
>>
>>
>> Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off d
istance? In theory that should also be better with the MT.
>>
>> Gordon Anderson
>> 41014 Switzerland
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote:
>>
com>
>> >
>> > I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged
by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estim
ate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater
rate of deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted to it on
first few landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and h
ad a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is sti
ll in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are lookin
g for a like new MT at a less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500
hours and loving it.
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> > On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com> wrot
e:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different tha
n other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know t
he difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the H
artzell Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what other M
T prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-b
lade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install the othe
r to do a side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I would l
ike to hear what others "think" they are gaining or losing with different pr
opellers. I flew with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartz
ell with the really fat blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7
knots in cruise, if I remember correctly.
>> >>
>> >> Any others want to share their thoughts?
>> >>
>> >> Jesse Saint
>> >> 352-427-
>> >> jesse@saintaviation.com
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPad
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ; * The Builder's Bookstore http://wwnbsp; p://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target=_blank>http://www.matro===
=====
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =========================
=========
>> " face="courier new,courier">www.aeroelectric.com
>> >www.buildersbooks.com
>> uilthelp.com
>> matronics.com/contribution
>> =========================
=========
>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> =========================
=========
>> cs.com
>> =========================
=========
>>
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 |
|
The =9Cgeneral=9D rule is that a 2 blade is about 2-3kts
faster in cruise but a 3 blade is much more smooth.
Deems can comment on this, as I believe he has a Aerocomposite, but if
marketing is correct they have a prop that is faster than Don=99s
and 2 bladed aircraft
http://www.aerocomposites.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_i
d=D84B9F8D-5004-D739-A5A07B7031786BA9
Propeller tests conducted have involved aircraft with cruise speeds
ranging from 200 to 350-mph. In many flight tests, pilots reported
increases in cruise speed ranging from 5 mph to 10 mph. In one test, it
was reported that the two propellers tested had about the same cruise
speeds but that the AeroComposites propeller resulted in better aircraft
acceleration, especially at the higher power settings. Cruise speed
improvements reported are attributable to the thin, low drag
AeroComposites blade designs where the blade design is biased toward
cruise rather than takeoff/climb performance. In all tests conducted,
quieter operation, fast speed control response, and smooth operation
(little to no vibration) were reported. Increases in climb rates have
been reported in a number of applications on the order of 300
feet/minute. Significant weight savings were also realized in
installations where AeroComposites propellers were replacing aluminum
propellers (savings ranged from 17 to more than 25 lbs).
If memory serves me, they are more expensive than the MT
From: Don McDonald
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s)
Here's my 3 cents.... A USAF U2 pilot with a F1 Rocket (IO540) replaced
his 2 blade hartzel with a 3 blade MT. He said climb rate a little
better, and lost about 3-5 knots at top speed (not cruise). That was
the info that convinced me to buy an MT. I was not concerned with
anything but being smooth. I've riden in quite a few 10's and so far
none have had as low of vibration levels. Just lay your hand on the
glare shield. Although I've got some extra hp, I have not had another
10 (7 so far) that was as fast. With the extra hp and the 3 blade, I
can run the rpm all the way down to 2,000 without any problem.... and
usually cruise around 2,100.... and at that rpm can consistently run
below 10 gph.
From: Gordon Anderson <mregoan@hispeed.ch>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s)
Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off
distance? In theory that should also be better with the MT.
Gordon Anderson
41014 Switzerland
On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote:
<robertbrunk@mac.com>
>
> I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got
damaged by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably
less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The
MT has a noticeably greater rate of deceleration on throttle back.
Actually had to get adapted to it on first few landings and approaches.
I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and had a complete overhaul done. It
is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is still in its shipping crate. I
can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new MT at a
less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com>
wrote:
>
<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>
>> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different
than other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I
don't know the difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is
as fast as the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted
to know what other MT prop owners have experienced in cruise performance
versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove
one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side comparison on the
same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what others "think" they
are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew with Rob Hickman
at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really fat
blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if
I remember correctly.
>>
>> Any others want to share their thoughts?
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> 352-427-
>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>> ; * The Builder's Bookstore http://wwnbsp;
p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"
target=_blank>http://www.matro========
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 |
|
I'm off the ground before an unloaded Maule. And faster than a speeding
bullet. In an airborne drag race, I consistently 'walk-away' from All
RV10's with either a 2 bld Hartzell or 3bld MT . (the burn-outs are
exhilerating!!, but waiting for the christmas tree lights is still a bit
problemmatic).
Deems
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
> The =93general=94 rule is that a 2 blade is about 2-3kts faster in crui
se
> but a 3 blade is much more smooth.
> Deems can comment on this, as I believe he has a Aerocomposite, but if
> marketing is correct they have a prop that is faster than Don=92s and 2
> bladed aircraft
> http://www.aerocomposites.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_i
d=D84B9F8D-5004-D739-A5A07B7031786BA9
> Propeller tests conducted have involved aircraft with cruise speeds
> ranging from 200 to 350-mph. In many flight tests, pilots reported
> increases in cruise speed ranging from 5 mph to 10 mph. In one test, it
> was reported that the two propellers tested had about the same cruise
> speeds but that the AeroComposites propeller resulted in better aircraft
> acceleration, especially at the higher power settings. Cruise speed
> improvements reported are attributable to the thin, low drag AeroComposit
es
> blade designs where the blade design is biased toward cruise rather than
> takeoff/climb performance. In all tests conducted, quieter operation, fas
t
> speed control response, and smooth operation (little to no vibration) wer
e
> reported. Increases in climb rates have been reported in a number of
> applications on the order of 300 feet/minute. Significant weight savings
> were also realized in installations where AeroComposites propellers were
> replacing aluminum propellers (savings ranged from 17 to more than 25 lbs
).
>
>
> If memory serves me, they are more expensive than the MT
>
>
> *From:* Don McDonald <building_partner@yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:41 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s)
>
> Here's my 3 cents.... A USAF U2 pilot with a F1 Rocket (IO540) replaced
> his 2 blade hartzel with a 3 blade MT. He said climb rate a little bette
r,
> and lost about 3-5 knots at top speed (not cruise). That was the info th
at
> convinced me to buy an MT. I was not concerned with anything but being
> smooth. I've riden in quite a few 10's and so far none have had as low o
f
> vibration levels. Just lay your hand on the glare shield. Although I've
> got some extra hp, I have not had another 10 (7 so far) that was as fast.
With
> the extra hp and the 3 blade, I can run the rpm all the way down to 2,000
> without any problem.... and usually cruise around 2,100.... and at that r
pm
> can consistently run below 10 gph.
>
> *From:* Gordon Anderson <mregoan@hispeed.ch>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:41 AM
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s)
>
>
> Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off
> distance? In theory that should also be better with the MT.
>
> Gordon Anderson
> 41014 Switzerland
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote:
>
> robertbrunk@mac.com>
> >
> > I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged
> by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I
> estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably
> greater rate of deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapte
d
> to it on first few landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in
> Florida and had a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for
> sale. It is still in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383
if you are looking for a like new MT at a less than new price. Regards,
> Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different tha
n
> other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know
> the difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as t
he
> Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what oth
er
> MT prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell
> 2-blade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install th
e
> other to do a side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I
> would like to hear what others "think" they are gaining or losing with
> different propellers. I flew with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has th
e
> 3-blade Hartzell with the really fat blades, and he said he thought he wa
s
> losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I remember correctly.
> >>
> >> Any others want to share their thoughts?
> >>
> >> Jesse Saint
> >> 352-427-
> >> jesse@saintaviation.com
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >>
> >> ; * The Builder's Bookstore http://wwnbsp;
> p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"
> target=_blank>http://www.matro========
>
>
> <http://www.homebuilthelp.com/> <http://www.buildersbooks.com/>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
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 |
|
another nice thing about the MT is that it is about 22 pounds lighter (I fo
rget the exact difference) than the two blade metal prop. That makes a lot
of difference since the -10 tends to be really nose heavy.
From: rv10flyer@live.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s)
The =93general=94 rule is that a 2 blade is about 2-3kts faster in cruise b
ut a
3 blade is much more smooth.
Deems can comment on this=2C as I believe he has a Aerocomposite=2C but if
marketing is correct they have a prop that is faster than Don=92s and 2 bla
ded
aircraft http://www.aerocomposites.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage
&page_id=D84B9F8D-5004-D739-A5A07B7031786BA9
Propeller tests conducted have involved aircraft with
cruise speeds ranging from 200 to 350-mph. In many flight tests=2C pilots r
eported
increases in cruise speed ranging from 5 mph to 10 mph. In one test=2C it
was reported that the two propellers tested had about the same
cruise speeds but that the AeroComposites propeller resulted in better airc
raft
acceleration=2C especially at the higher power settings. Cruise speed
improvements reported are attributable to the thin=2C low drag AeroComposit
es
blade designs where the blade design is biased toward cruise rather than
takeoff/climb performance. In all tests conducted=2C quieter operation=2C f
ast speed
control response=2C and smooth operation (little to no vibration) were repo
rted.
Increases in climb rates have been reported in a number of applications on
the
order of 300 feet/minute. Significant weight savings were also realized in
installations where AeroComposites propellers were replacing aluminum prope
llers
(savings ranged from 17 to more than 25 lbs).
If memory serves me=2C they are more expensive than
the MT
From: Don McDonald
Sent: Wednesday=2C December 12=2C 2012 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s)
Here's my 3 cents.... A
USAF U2 pilot with a F1 Rocket (IO540) replaced his 2 blade hartzel with a
3
blade MT. He said climb rate a little better=2C and lost about 3-5 knots a
t
top speed (not cruise). That was the info that convinced me to buy an
MT. I was not concerned with anything but being smooth. I've riden
in quite a few 10's and so far none have had as low of vibration levels.
Just lay your hand on the glare shield. Although I've got some extra hp=2C
I
have not had another 10 (7 so far) that was as fast. With the extra hp and
the 3 blade=2C I can run the rpm all
the way down to 2=2C000 without any problem.... and usually cruise around
2=2C100.... and at that rpm can consistently run below 10 gph.
From: Gordon Anderson
<mregoan@hispeed.ch>
rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent:
Wednesday=2C December 12=2C 2012 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT
Prop(s)
<mregoan@hispeed.ch>
Great
information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off
distance? In theory that should also be better with the MT.
Gordon
Anderson
41014 Switzerland
On Dec 12=2C 2012=2C at 5:10 AM=2C Robert
Brunkenhoefer wrote:
Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk@mac.com>
>
> I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got
damaged by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm)
I
estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably
greater rate of deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted
to it
on first few landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida a
nd
had a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is s
till
in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking
for a
like new MT at a less than new price. Regards=2C Robert N661G KCRP 500hours
and
loving it.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 11=2C 2012=2C
at 8:07 PM=2C Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com>
wrote:
>
<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>
>> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different
than other MT's that I have seen on the -10=2C but still a 3-blade. I don't
know
the difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the
Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop=2C which I doubt=2C but wanted to know what o
ther MT
prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-bl
ade.
Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to
do a
side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way=2C I would like to
hear
what others "think" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I
flew
with Rob Hickman at what was AFS=2C who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the r
eally
fat blades=2C and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise
=2C if I
remember correctly.
>>
>> Any others want to share their
thoughts?
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> 352-427-
>>
jesse@saintaviation.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>> =3B * The
Builder's Bookstore http://wwnbsp=3B
p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"
target=_blank>http://www.matro========
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: | RV main gear vibration |
I thought that's what you were talking about - thanks for clarifying!
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Carroll L. Verhage wrote:
Kevin, The holes that need to be oblonged are the holes in the gear
mounting bracket (those that were drilled 7.9 mm on the building
instructions). You will have to remove the seat(s), the R side panel
and the seat mounting bracket. Jack the wheel up untill it is just
touching the floor before removing the landing gear bolt. Have some one
turn the landing gear leg while You run the drill bit through the
landing gear and bracket mounting hole. This will oblong the bracket
holes but not the gear leg. Stop twisting the landing gear leg when
the wheel is tracking properly. The oblongation will be as little as a
few thousandths to pehapes 1/16th inch. Make a shim to make the
bracket hole round and replace the bolt.
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: | RV main gear vibration |
How does one go about making a shim? It just seems the shim
we=99re talking about would be nearly impossible to make correctly
or am I not envisioning something properly.
The way I picture this in my head the shims would likely be a tiny moon
shaped sliver installed on the non-oblonged side of the hole (the side
that the drill bit did not widen) between the nut head and bolt within
the gear leg housing hole? Would the shims have to be the same
thickness as the gear leg housing? I imagine you could cut/grind on a
washer to make this or am I missing something? Does the curvature of
the gear leg housing have to be matched?
Ben Westfall
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Carroll L. Verhage wrote:
Kevin, The holes that need to be oblonged are the holes in the gear
mounting bracket (those that were drilled 7.9 mm on the building
instructions). You will have to remove the seat(s), the R side panel
and the seat mounting bracket. Jack the wheel up untill it is just
touching the floor before removing the landing gear bolt. Have some one
turn the landing gear leg while You run the drill bit through the
landing gear and bracket mounting hole. This will oblong the bracket
holes but not the gear leg. Stop twisting the landing gear leg when
the wheel is tracking properly. The oblongation will be as little as a
few thousandths to pehapes 1/16th inch. Make a shim to make the
bracket hole round and replace the bolt.
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: RV main gear vibration |
Have Uncle JB Weld it! Fast and easy!
Do not archive....
-Mike Kraus
RV-4 sold :-(
RV-10 flying :-)
KitFox SS7 Radial building :-)
On Dec 12, 2012, at 2:54 PM, "Ben Westfall" <rv10@sinkrate.com> wrote:
> How does one go about making a shim? It just seems the shim we=99re
talking about would be nearly impossible to make correctly or am I not envi
sioning something properly.
>
> The way I picture this in my head the shims would likely be a tiny moon sh
aped sliver installed on the non-oblonged side of the hole (the side that th
e drill bit did not widen) between the nut head and bolt within the gear leg
housing hole? Would the shims have to be the same thickness as the gear le
g housing? I imagine you could cut/grind on a washer to make this or am I m
issing something? Does the curvature of the gear leg housing have to be mat
ched?
>
> Ben Westfall
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Carroll L. Verhage wrote:
>
> Kevin, The holes that need to be oblonged are the holes in the gear mou
nting bracket (those that were drilled 7.9 mm on the building instructions)
. You will have to remove the seat(s), the R side panel and the seat mount
ing bracket. Jack the wheel up untill it is just touching the floor before
removing the landing gear bolt. Have some one turn the landing gear leg w
hile You run the drill bit through the landing gear and bracket mounting ho
le. This will oblong the bracket holes but not the gear leg. Stop twistin
g the landing gear leg when the wheel is tracking properly. The oblongatio
n will be as little as a few thousandths to pehapes 1/16th inch. Make a sh
im to make the bracket hole round and replace the bolt.
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: | Main gear vibration |
Lew, I think it is easier to oblong the thin walled mounting bracket
tube than drill out the bracket and leg. This is some hard steel and I
would be afraid of weakening the landing leg by drilling it's hole
bigger. The gear fixation bolt is 3/8 inch. A 3/8 inch washer has the
right inside curvature. You will have grind the eliptical moon shape on
the out side of the washer. It will be small, perhapes only 1/32 to
1/16 inch thick by 3/8 inch. None-the-less, You need to take up the
space in the oblong hole so the gear leg can not rotate in the mounting
bracket tube. The gear leg is 2 inches thick and will not oblong as
easily as the thin wall of the tube while turning the 7.9mm bit in the
bracket and leg while twisting the leg.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main gear vibration |
Hope this isn't a late night dumb question, but here goes. Since most of
my landings are somewhat unstraight anyway, I am wondering why an
unequal toe-in on left and right gears would matter? Presumeably the
aircraft will just track in the direction giving equal side forces from
the wheels (plus or minus crosswinds) which would be a degree or two off
fuselage centerline. Is the critical issue causing vibration perhaps
the total toe-in, rather than the inequality?
Having been instructed by the plans to drum up a peculiarly (under)sized
drill-bit to ensure there is minimal bolt clearance, it seems
questionable to enlarge the holes in any way which might introduce
(more) slop in the system (which already exists with the 7.9mm hole).
Just my 2 centimes.
Gordon Anderson
41014 Switzerland
On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:55 PM, Carroll L. Verhage wrote:
> Lew, I think it is easier to oblong the thin walled mounting bracket
tube than drill out the bracket and leg. This is some hard steel and I
would be afraid of weakening the landing leg by drilling it's hole
bigger. The gear fixation bolt is 3/8 inch. A 3/8 inch washer has the
right inside curvature. You will have grind the eliptical moon shape on
the out side of the washer. It will be small, perhapes only 1/32 to
1/16 inch thick by 3/8 inch. None-the-less, You need to take up the
space in the oblong hole so the gear leg can not rotate in the mounting
bracket tube. The gear leg is 2 inches thick and will not oblong as
easily as the thin wall of the tube while turning the 7.9mm bit in the
bracket and leg while twisting the leg.
>
>
>
>
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: Main gear vibration |
I agree Gordon, but over time when 90% of your taxiing is straight ahead I b
elieve you would wear one tire quicker than the other. As far as the shimmy g
oes I believe toe in or out doesn't make much difference. It would get worse
when braking causing the wheel to track out when there is brake pressure. T
his didn't happen in my case.
Vans told me a larger bolt holding the gear would work fine. Personally I wo
uldn't oval the weldment. I aligned mine for tire wear and hoping it would h
elp the shimmy that others have had. Not sure if it helped for shimmy becaus
e it hadn't flown before I aligned mine. I do know the gear stiffeners fixed
my shimmy.
My .02
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 12, 2012, at 16:22, Gordon Anderson <mregoan@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> Hope this isn't a late night dumb question, but here goes. Since most of m
y landings are somewhat unstraight anyway, I am wondering why an unequal toe
-in on left and right gears would matter? Presumeably the aircraft will jus
t track in the direction giving equal side forces from the wheels (plus or m
inus crosswinds) which would be a degree or two off fuselage centerline. Is
the critical issue causing vibration perhaps the total toe-in, rather than t
he inequality?
>
> Having been instructed by the plans to drum up a peculiarly (under)sized d
rill-bit to ensure there is minimal bolt clearance, it seems questionable to
enlarge the holes in any way which might introduce (more) slop in the syste
m (which already exists with the 7.9mm hole).
>
> Just my 2 centimes.
>
> Gordon Anderson
> 41014 Switzerland
>
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:55 PM, Carroll L. Verhage wrote:
>
>> Lew, I think it is easier to oblong the thin walled mounting bracket tub
e than drill out the bracket and leg. This is some hard steel and I would b
e afraid of weakening the landing leg by drilling it's hole bigger. The gear
fixation bolt is 3/8 inch. A 3/8 inch washer has the right inside curvatur
e. You will have grind the eliptical moon shape on the out side of the wash
er. It will be small, perhapes only 1/32 to 1/16 inch thick by 3/8 inch. N
one-the-less, You need to take up the space in the oblong hole so the gear l
eg can not rotate in the mounting bracket tube. The gear leg is 2 inches th
ick and will not oblong as easily as the thin wall of the tube while turning
the 7.9mm bit in the bracket and leg while twisting the leg.
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main gear vibration |
Hey Carroll,
Thanks. Got it. I also thought of landing on the mains would equalize
the toe in ... until the nose wheel contacts, and I seem to remember
someone saying the shimmy didn=99t start for them until nose wheel
was down and roll out around 35 mph =93 which would make sense (as
well as wondering about the nose wheel itself =93 tension/air
pressure).
Later, =93 Lew
do not archive
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! --
|