Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:49 AM - Re: Engine purchase (Dan Masys)
2. 06:22 AM - Re: What's the nose and main wheels required tire pressure? (johngoodman)
3. 07:11 AM - Re: Re: Engine purchase (Kelly McMullen)
4. 07:34 AM - New AFS touchscreen EFIS (Mike Whisky)
5. 08:03 AM - Re: Re: Engine purchase (Marcus Cooper)
6. 11:50 AM - Abgas UL 91 approved by Lycoming for the IO-540-D models (Mike Whisky)
7. 12:51 PM - Re: Re: What's the nose and main wheels required tire pressure? (Jayrowe)
8. 01:28 PM - Re: What's the nose and main wheels required tire pressure? (johngoodman)
9. 03:48 PM - Re: What's the nose and main wheels required tire pressure? (Bob Turner)
10. 05:14 PM - Re: What's the nose and main wheels required tire pressure? (rv10flyer)
11. 05:33 PM - Re: Re: What's the nose and main wheels required tire pressure? (Tim Olson)
12. 05:48 PM - Unleaded aviation fuel - what are our General Aviation champions doing to make 91/96UL AVGAS available? (was Avgas UL 91 approved by Lycoming for the IO-540-D models) (Carl Froehlich)
13. 08:18 PM - Re: Unleaded aviation fuel - what are our General Aviation champions doing to make 91/96UL AVGAS available? (was Avgas UL 91 approved by Lycoming for the IO-540-D models) (Kelly McMullen)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine purchase |
>Time: 01:09:08 PM PST US
>Subject: RV10-List: Engine purchase
>From: "bob88" <marty.crooks@comcast.net>
>
>I have located Lycoming IO540 C4B5 (as opposed to the Vans current D4A5
model)
>with 700 hr on it for $18.5K. Anyone have opinions about the price or the
difference
>in the model?
I found a really amazingly good deal advertised in Trade-a-Plane for a
newly rebuilt IO-360 engine, overhauled by an A&P/IA, for my RV-7A. The
engine failed catastrophically at 85 hrs. The seller is now in federal
prison in Oklahoma, and I get a small check from the Dept. of Justice about
twice a year, which will repay the price of the engine (as mandated by the
courts) in about 80 years. When disassembled by an FAA authorized repair
station, the engine contained parts that were stamped "Not Airworthy".
Not everybody in aviation is honest. When I built the RV-10, the clear
choice was a factory new engine, which has performed flawlessly for the past
600 hrs TTSN.
Caveat emptor...
Dan Masys
RV-10 N104LD
RV-12 N122LD
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What's the nose and main wheels required tire pressure? |
I can't resist jumping into this one. I have 106 landings on the original Van's
tires. I have only filled them once - when I built them. They still have 42 in
the mains and 40 in the nose. I don't have wheel pants (hate 'em). Here is a
photo. Notice no uneven wear.
John
--------
#40572 Phase One complete and flying.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399274#399274
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rv10tire_566.jpg
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: | Re: Engine purchase |
While there are always bad actors, one also has to understand that
choices are often made between seller/overhauler and the customer that
affect the end result.
Engines for experimental aircraft do not have to meet the standards for
certified engines. That can be good or bad. Parts can be reused that
would be rejected for certified engines. Some may be fine, others
dangerous. There isn't a universal answer.
If one doe not have the expertise to make those choices, then sticking
with a reputable shop or factory may be the best choice.
Some of us have the knowledge and ability to custom build an engine for
our project, but choose to not do so for many reasons, including getting
flying sooner rather than later.
I just did a safety seminar discussion on the crash of an RV-6, where
the owner chose to weld repair the governor line from the rear mounted
governor to the front of the engine. Such a repair is prohibited on
certified Lycoming engines by AD, for good reason. The repair failed and
the owner did not survive the ensuing crash.
Choose wisely.
Kelly
A&P/IA
On 4/24/2013 5:46 AM, Dan Masys wrote:
>
>> Time: 01:09:08 PM PST US
>> Subject: RV10-List: Engine purchase
>> From: "bob88" <marty.crooks@comcast.net>
>>
>> I have located Lycoming IO540 C4B5 (as opposed to the Vans current D4A5
> model)
>> with 700 hr on it for $18.5K. Anyone have opinions about the price or the
> difference
>> in the model?
> I found a really amazingly good deal advertised in Trade-a-Plane for a
> newly rebuilt IO-360 engine, overhauled by an A&P/IA, for my RV-7A. The
> engine failed catastrophically at 85 hrs. The seller is now in federal
> prison in Oklahoma, and I get a small check from the Dept. of Justice about
> twice a year, which will repay the price of the engine (as mandated by the
> courts) in about 80 years. When disassembled by an FAA authorized repair
> station, the engine contained parts that were stamped "Not Airworthy".
>
> Not everybody in aviation is honest. When I built the RV-10, the clear
> choice was a factory new engine, which has performed flawlessly for the past
> 600 hrs TTSN.
>
> Caveat emptor...
>
> Dan Masys
> RV-10 N104LD
> RV-12 N122LD
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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: | New AFS touchscreen EFIS |
Here is a quick video of the new touchscreen EFIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ABnIId2m0E
Mike
--------
RV-10 builder (final assembly)
#511
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399280#399280
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: Engine purchase |
I had a similar RV-6 event with an O-360 overhauled by an engine shop, although
the parts were correct they were not assembled correctly and the engine self
destructed at about 80 hours. For my Skybolt I got an 1100 SMOH engine from an
Aztec that a hanger fell on. Worked great. While a freshly overhauled engine
should be the way to go in a perfect world, and you certainly should get more
life out of it, there is something to be said about an engine that has already
been running for a while and proved that the mechanic didn't come up short
somewhere. I put a new IO-540 from Aerosport in the RV-10 and it has also worked
great. So nothing definitive, but a couple things to consider.
IMHO a 8
700 hour engine will give you plenty of time left before you should have to do
anything. I'd be more concerned about how recently it ran and what sort of life
it had during those 700 hours.
Marcus
On Apr 24, 2013, at 8:46 AM, "Dan Masys" <dmasys@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Time: 01:09:08 PM PST US
> Subject: RV10-List: Engine purchase
> From: "bob88" <marty.crooks@comcast.net>
>
> I have located Lycoming IO540 C4B5 (as opposed to the Vans current D4A5
model)
> with 700 hr on it for $18.5K. Anyone have opinions about the price or the
difference
> in the model?
I found a really amazingly good deal advertised in Trade-a-Plane for a
newly rebuilt IO-360 engine, overhauled by an A&P/IA, for my RV-7A. The
engine failed catastrophically at 85 hrs. The seller is now in federal
prison in Oklahoma, and I get a small check from the Dept. of Justice about
twice a year, which will repay the price of the engine (as mandated by the
courts) in about 80 years. When disassembled by an FAA authorized repair
station, the engine contained parts that were stamped "Not Airworthy".
Not everybody in aviation is honest. When I built the RV-10, the clear
choice was a factory new engine, which has performed flawlessly for the past
600 hrs TTSN.
Caveat emptor...
Dan Masys
RV-10 N104LD
RV-12 N122LD
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: | Abgas UL 91 approved by Lycoming for the IO-540-D models |
See press release from today
http://www.lycoming.com/news-and-events/press-releases/release-4-23-2013.html
Not sure what the price difference of UL91 is compared to 100LL.
Mike
--------
RV-10 builder (final assembly)
#511
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399293#399293
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What's the nose and main wheels required tire pressure? |
John Goodman: I understand you don't like wheel pants but in my 10 they make a
huge difference in airspeed. I took mine off before flying from KLVK to KSNS
for painting. After reaching cruise altitude (8.5K) I noted a 12K drop from
my usual IAS after double checking all my settings. I also had removed the main
gear fairings but not the nose wheel. After the paint job and with the fairings
and pants back on the IAS were back to the former "normals". In fact I may
have gained a knot or two (? clear coat?). Jay Rowe N333GR
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 24, 2013, at 6:22 AM, "johngoodman" <johngoodman@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I can't resist jumping into this one. I have 106 landings on the original Van's
tires. I have only filled them once - when I built them. They still have 42
in the mains and 40 in the nose. I don't have wheel pants (hate 'em). Here is
a photo. Notice no uneven wear.
> John
>
> --------
> #40572 Phase One complete and flying.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399274#399274
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rv10tire_566.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: What's the nose and main wheels required tire pressure? |
jfrjr(at)roadrunner.com wrote:
> John Goodman: I understand you don't like wheel pants but in my 10 they make
a huge difference in airspeed. I took mine off before flying from KLVK to KSNS
for painting. After reaching cruise altitude (8.5K) I noted a 12K drop from
my usual IAS after double checking all my settings. I also had removed the
main gear fairings but not the nose wheel. After the paint job and with the fairings
and pants back on the IAS were back to the former "normals". In fact I
may have gained a knot or two (? clear coat?). Jay Rowe N333GR
>
Did you remove the wheel pant brackets? Probably not. I have all the fairings,
but no pants. My hubcaps probably give me a knot, as well. I'm guessing that the
lack of pants costs me 5 knots, max. The ability to pre-flight the wheel every
time is worth it - form follows function.
John
--------
#40572 Phase One complete and flying.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399298#399298
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: What's the nose and main wheels required tire pressure? |
I think you're both right. Like Jay, I noticed something like a 12 knot gain between
fairings and no fairings. But I also noticed, as Vans has said, that most
of the gain was due to the gear leg fairings, not the wheel pants.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399306#399306
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What's the nose and main wheels required tire pressure? |
I can believe 5 kts like Bob. A round tube has 9 times the drag of a airfoil shape.
John, you started out with 42 psi and one year later ended with 42 psi? You have
some super rubber there! Or maybe every time you fly with your tires exposed,
the 160 kt air molecules are keeping the pressure maintained.
I do love the looks and speed of my pants. Exposed tires/brakes were really nice
for rentals. On mine, my preflight consist of ensuring they are not flat and
that I have good brake pressure.
--------
Wayne G.
SB 12/01/2009-12/01/2011
TT= 103
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399310#399310
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: What's the nose and main wheels required tire pressure? |
I really wouldn't be hard to get rid of the ugly exposed wheels by putting the
fairings on, but install a Camlok or similar latch right over the brakes if you
really wanted the speed, efficiency, AND ability to do a full preflight of the
wheels often. There is middle ground.
Tim
On Apr 24, 2013, at 7:13 PM, "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can believe 5 kts like Bob. A round tube has 9 times the drag of a airfoil
shape.
>
> John, you started out with 42 psi and one year later ended with 42 psi? You have
some super rubber there! Or maybe every time you fly with your tires exposed,
the 160 kt air molecules are keeping the pressure maintained.
>
> I do love the looks and speed of my pants. Exposed tires/brakes were really nice
for rentals. On mine, my preflight consist of ensuring they are not flat and
that I have good brake pressure.
>
> --------
> Wayne G.
> SB 12/01/2009-12/01/2011
> TT= 103
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399310#399310
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Unleaded aviation fuel - what are our General Aviation champions |
doing to make 91/96UL AVGAS available? (was Avgas UL 91 approved by Lycoming
for the IO-540-D models)
Not really RV related, so delete now if you like.
While Lycoming is taking a much needed step toward a fuel that we can
actually afford, I'm afraid our aviation champions simply reject any option
other than a still non-existent 100LL drop in replacement. Below is an
email I wrote to both the EAA and AOPA last January. EAA did not respond.
AOPA sent a disjointed response about auto fuel availability in Virginia.
Perhaps if we all pinged on AOPA and EAA they may hear us over the turbine
noise.
Carl
I note with interest articles such as in General Aviation on aviation fuel
predictions:
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2013/01/predictions-aviation-fuel-in-2013
/?utm_source=The+Pulse+Subscribers
<http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2013/01/predictions-aviation-fuel-in-201
3/?utm_source=The+Pulse+Subscribers&utm_campaign=6f588e756e-TP2013&utm_mediu
m=email> &utm_campaign=6f588e756e-TP2013&utm_medium=email
After a couple of decades of study and discussion, my evaluation is we are
on a trajectory toward avgas prices that simply end the private pilot aspect
of general aviation. We no longer have the luxury of time to cling to the
only acceptable option for 100LL as a full replacement drop in. I have
reviewed the "70%/30%" argument; 70% of all piston GA aircraft can run on
non-ethanol unleaded premium auto fuel based avgas such as 91/96UL, but the
remaining 30% of the piston GA aircraft that need 100LL consume 70% of the
fuel. This logic has run its course and now needs to be revised in the
light of current realities. I also question if we can rely on this
argument's base assumptions as they are untested by market demand as no
affordable unleaded aviation fuel is readily available, and is a backward
look at the legacy engine/aircraft population, not new engines/aircraft that
would be tailored for a 91/96UL environment.
For the private pilot segment of general aviation, a non-ethanol premium
auto fuel type product like 91/96UL is exactly the right solution and the
market base for the fuel makes it continued availability, at reasonable
prices, assured. While it is not a perfect, the clock is running out on
producing a 100LL replacement fuel. If such a full replacement is ever
delivered, the price for this novelty fuel is already estimated to be $.50
to $1 per gallon more than today's 100LL. The added cost will accelerate
the private pilot death spiral.
Although there are a few FBOs offering non-ethanol premium auto fuel the
market penetration is dismal. I also note little evidence of organized
efforts to promote widespread FBO, engine and aircraft manufacture embracing
of existing unleaded aviation fuel options. I recommend a new strategy. I
believe we have opportunity to bridge this fuel gap by a managed portfolio
of options. Some FBOs may choose to carry both 100LL and the lower octane
unleaded fuel, others may carry only one or the other based on their
customer demand. What is needed is advocacy to establish the required
policies and regulations, and collaboration with fuel suppliers, FBOs,
aircraft and engine manufactures, state and federal agencies. This will
mitigate the primary obstacle for 91/96UL adoption, legal risk.
While continued study of aviation fuel options is needed I believe we are at
a tipping point. $6+ per gallon is not sustainable for the majority of
private pilots paying for fuel out of their pocket. At the very least an
affordable unleaded aviation fuel option would help slow the continued
decline in the number of active private pilots.
Immediate action is needed to make an affordable 91/96UL type aviation fuel
widely available .
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Whisky
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:48 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Abgas UL 91 approved by Lycoming for the IO-540-D models
<mailto:rv-10@wellenzohn.net> rv-10@wellenzohn.net>
See press release from today
<http://www.lycoming.com/news-and-events/press-releases/release-4-23-2013.ht
ml>
http://www.lycoming.com/news-and-events/press-releases/release-4-23-2013.htm
l
Not sure what the price difference of UL91 is compared to 100LL.
Mike
--------
RV-10 builder (final assembly)
#511
Read this topic online here:
<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399293#399293>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399293#399293
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Unleaded aviation fuel - what are our General Aviation |
champions doing to make 91/96UL AVGAS available? (was Avgas UL 91 approved
by Lycoming for the IO-540-D models)
So far testing has not ruled out either the Swift Fuels 100UL, nor the
GAMI 100UL as drop-in replacements.
Since nearly 80% of all 100LL is burned by 20% of the fleet that
requires it, you are unlikely to see any FBOs willing to carry two
grades of fuel, thus a 100UL fuel will be the only choice. As it is,
most of the recip cargo planes are already operating at reduced power
from the 115/145 they were designed for. (Think DC-6, DC-7, etc.) Other
commercial aircraft like C414, C402, C421, PA-31. etc. also require 100
octane minimum. The privately flown lower compression aircraft that can
operate on 96 or lower octane only purchase something less than 20 % of
avgas sold, so are very unlikely to ever have a separate fuel stocked
for them.
When FBOs needed to stock Jet A, that spelled the end of 80/87, as no
one is going to spend the money to have 3 sets of tanks and pumps.
On 4/24/2013 5:48 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
>
> Not really RV related, so delete now if you like.
>
> While Lycoming is taking a much needed step toward a fuel that we can
> actually afford, I'm afraid our aviation champions simply reject any
> option other than a still non-existent 100LL drop in replacement.
> Below is an email I wrote to both the EAA and AOPA last January. EAA
> did not respond. AOPA sent a disjointed response about auto fuel
> availability in Virginia.
>
> Perhaps if we all pinged on AOPA and EAA they may hear us over the
> turbine noise.
>
> Carl
>
> I note with interest articles such as in General Aviation on aviation
> fuel predictions:
> http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2013/01/predictions-aviation-fuel-in-2013/?utm_source=The+Pulse+Subscribers&utm_campaign=6f588e756e-TP2013&utm_medium=email
>
> After a couple of decades of study and discussion, my evaluation is we
> are on a trajectory toward avgas prices that simply end the private
> pilot aspect of general aviation. We no longer have the luxury of time
> to cling to the only acceptable option for 100LL as a full replacement
> drop in. I have reviewed the 70%/30% argument; 70% of all piston GA
> aircraft can run on non-ethanol unleaded premium auto fuel based avgas
> such as 91/96UL, but the remaining 30% of the piston GA aircraft that
> need 100LL consume 70% of the fuel. This logic has run its course and
> now needs to be revised in the light of current realities. I also
> question if we can rely on this arguments base assumptions as they
> are untested by market demand as no affordable unleaded aviation fuel
> is readily available, and is a backward look at the legacy
> engine/aircraft population, not new engines/aircraft that would be
> tailored for a 91/96UL environment.
>
> For the private pilot segment of general aviation, a non-ethanol
> premium auto fuel type product like 91/96UL is exactly the right
> solution and the market base for the fuel makes it continued
> availability, at reasonable prices, assured. While it is not a
> perfect, the clock is running out on producing a 100LL replacement
> fuel. If such a full replacement is ever delivered, the price for this
> novelty fuel is already estimated to be $.50 to $1 per gallon more
> than todays 100LL. The added cost will accelerate the private pilot
> death spiral.
>
> Although there are a few FBOs offering non-ethanol premium auto fuel
> the market penetration is dismal. I also note little evidence of
> organized efforts to promote widespread FBO, engine and aircraft
> manufacture embracing of existing unleaded aviation fuel options. I
> recommend a new strategy. I believe we have opportunity to bridge this
> fuel gap by a managed portfolio of options. Some FBOs may choose to
> carry both 100LL and the lower octane unleaded fuel, others may carry
> only one or the other based on their customer demand. What is needed
> is advocacy to establish the required policies and regulations, and
> collaboration with fuel suppliers, FBOs, aircraft and engine
> manufactures, state and federal agencies. This will mitigate the
> primary obstacle for 91/96UL adoption, legal risk.
>
> While continued study of aviation fuel options is needed I believe we
> are at a tipping point. $6+ per gallon is not sustainable for the
> majority of private pilots paying for fuel out of their pocket. At the
> very least an affordable unleaded aviation fuel option would help slow
> the continued decline in the number of active private pilots.
>
> Immediate action is needed to make an affordable 91/96UL type aviation
> fuel widely available .
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Whisky
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:48 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Abgas UL 91 approved by Lycoming for the IO-540-D
> models
>
> <mailto:rv-10@wellenzohn.net>>
>
> See press release from today
>
> http://www.lycoming.com/news-and-events/press-releases/release-4-23-2013.html
>
> Not sure what the price difference of UL91 is compared to 100LL.
>
> Mike
>
> --------
>
> RV-10 builder (final assembly)
>
> #511
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399293#399293
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
>
> *
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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! --
|