Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:08 AM - Re: rapco pads (Alan Mekler MD)
2. 04:31 AM - Re: rapco pads (Jesse Saint)
3. 04:58 AM - Re: rapco pads (dmaib@me.com)
4. 05:16 AM - Re: Winter Milestone (Bill Watson)
5. 06:43 AM - Re: Winter Milestone (Kelly McMullen)
6. 06:43 AM - Re: Winter Milestone (woxofswa)
7. 07:10 AM - Re: Re: rapco pads (Jesse Saint)
8. 07:42 AM - Re: rapco pads (John Cox)
9. 08:24 AM - Re: rapco pads (dmaib@me.com)
10. 08:41 AM - Re: Winter Milestone (Bill Watson)
11. 09:01 AM - Re: Re: rapco pads (Tim Olson)
12. 10:21 AM - Re: rapco pads (dmaib@me.com)
13. 10:27 AM - Re: rapco pads (Bob Turner)
14. 01:52 PM - Fuel consumption test results (Mike Whisky)
15. 02:36 PM - Re: rapco pads (Kelly McMullen)
16. 04:25 PM - Re: Fuel consumption test results (Jesse Saint)
17. 05:01 PM - Re: rapco pads (Alan Mekler MD)
18. 05:21 PM - Re: Fuel consumption test results (dmaib@me.com)
19. 05:36 PM - Re: Fuel consumption test results (Pascal)
20. 05:59 PM - Re: Fuel consumption test results (Carl Froehlich)
21. 06:59 PM - Re: Fuel consumption test results (Jesse Saint)
22. 07:00 PM - Re: rapco pads (Kelly McMullen)
23. 07:12 PM - Re: rapco pads (Tim Olson)
24. 07:38 PM - Re: It's Pretty Darn Good in the Bahamas - trip report (rvdave)
25. 07:46 PM - Re: rapco pads (Pascal)
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 |
|
no i didnt build my plane so i need a mechanic. both my A&Ps have built and own
RVs.
alan
On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
>
> I have a early version of the 112's and they have been working very nicely and
evenly. I gather you need a mechanic because you didnt build the plane? I never
let anyone touch my plane. Heard of too many planes going down within 1 hour
of a mechanic signing it off as good for the annual. I replaced my pads last
November with the Rapcos and they too were very well work through.
> pascal
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Kelly McMullen
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:16 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: rapco pads
>
>
> Being experimental, it is your choice to take his advise or ignore it.
> Looks are not one of my criteria.
>
> On 2/10/2014 5:54 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote:
>> kelly,
>> pads had enough thickness but my mechanic didnt like the the way they looked.
>> alan
>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 7:33 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com <mailto:apilot2@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Having pads uneven is not a problem. Having petroleum on them in the form of
5606 is. A thorough cleaning with BrakeKlean to remove the 5606 can resurect
a pad if there is enough thickness to justify. Also, if you decide to replace,
just do the caliper that needs pads. No need to do the other side.
>>> Kelly
>>> A&P/IA
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alan Mekler MD <amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>>
>>>
>>> well i tried the cheaper rapco brake pads. i had a caliber leak
>>> and although the pads had only 40 hours on them they wore
>>> unevenly. My regular mechanic said to replace them.
>>> Has anyone else had problems with the Rapco pads?
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> ==========
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> le, List Admin.
>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
>>> *
>>>
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
That is an interesting question. I doubt it works the same way. There is no a
irworthy or unairworthy signoff on an experimental. It's signed of as "in a c
ondition for safe operation." If an A&P signs it as "not in a condition...",
I think the discrepancies would need to be fixed then an A&P or the Repairm
an would need to sign it of as "in a condition...". I am not sure, though. I
know there is nothing in any of the Operating Limitations that I have looke
d through that allows it. They don't specifically give the authority to anyb
ody to do maintenance, they just specifically that the Condition Inspection m
ust be signed off by an A&P or the Repairman.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This raises an interesting question. For a type certified aircraft an IA i
s required for annual inspection, which can be signed off as unairworthy wit
h a list of discrepancies. Any A&P can then fix the discrepancies and sign t
hem off, making the aircraft airworthy.
> For a non-builder an A&P is only required for annual condition inspection.
Can someone advise from Ops Limits if anyone can take care of the discrepan
cies found on the inspection? It would make sense to me, since anyone can do
maintenance on amateur built, without any certificate for anything repair/m
aintenance/mod, but for the annual, where repairman or A&P is needed.
>
>
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have a early version of the 112's and they have been working very nicel
y and evenly. I gather you need a mechanic because you didn=99t build t
he plane? I never let anyone touch my plane. Heard of too many planes going d
own within 1 hour of a mechanic signing it off as good for the annual. I rep
laced my pads last November with the Rapcos and they too were very well work
through.
>> pascal
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Kelly McMullen
>> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:16 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: rapco pads
>>
>>
>>
>> Being experimental, it is your choice to take his advise or ignore it.
>> Looks are not one of my criteria.
>>
>>> On 2/10/2014 5:54 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote:
>>> kelly,
>>> pads had enough thickness but my mechanic didn=99t like the the wa
y they looked.
>>> alan
>>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 7:33 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com <mailto:a
pilot2@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having pads uneven is not a problem. Having petroleum on them in the fo
rm of 5606 is. A thorough cleaning with BrakeKlean to remove the 5606 can re
surect a pad if there is enough thickness to justify. Also, if you decide to
replace, just do the caliper that needs pads. No need to do the other side.
>>>> Kelly
>>>> A&P/IA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alan Mekler MD <amekler@metrocast.net <
mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>>
>>>>
>>>> well i tried the cheaper rapco brake pads. i had a caliber leak
>>>> and although the pads had only 40 hours on them they wore
>>>> unevenly. My regular mechanic said to replace them.
>>>> Has anyone else had problems with the Rapco pads?
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> ==========
>>>> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> ==========
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> ==========
>>>> le, List Admin.
>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matron
ics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
/contribution
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =========================
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> =========================
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> =========================
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> =========================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
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 |
|
[quote="jesse(at)saintaviation.co"]That is an interesting question. I doubt it
works the same way. There is no airworthy or unairworthy signoff on an experimental.
It's signed of as "in a condition for safe operation." If an A&P signs
it as "not in a condition...", I think the discrepancies would need to be fixed
then an A&P or the Repairman would need to sign it of as "in a condition...".
I am not sure, though. I know there is nothing in any of the Operating Limitations
that I have looked through that allows it. They don't specifically give
the authority to anybody to do maintenance, they just specifically that the Condition
Inspection must be signed off by an A&P or the Repairman.
Jesse SaintI-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org (jesse@itecusa.org)
www.itecusa.org (http://www.itecusa.org)
www.mavericklsa.com (http://www.mavericklsa.com)
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
[quote]This raises an interesting question. For a type certified aircraft an IA
is required for annual inspection, which can be signed off as unairworthy with
a list of discrepancies. Any A&P can then fix the discrepancies and sign them
off, making the aircraft airworthy.
For a non-builder an A&P is only required for annual condition inspection. Can
someone advise from Ops Limits if anyone can take care of the discrepancies found
on the inspection? It would make sense to me, since anyone can do maintenance
on amateur built, without any certificate for anything repair/maintenance/mod,
but for the annual, where repairman or A&P is needed.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Pascal wrote:
>
> I have a early version of the 112's and they have been working very nicely and
evenly. I gather you need a mechanic because you didnt build the plane? I never
let anyone touch my plane. Heard of too many planes going down within 1 hour
of a mechanic signing it off as good for the annual. I replaced my pads last
November with the Rapcos and they too were very well work through.
> pascal
>
> --
I imagine if you are having an A&P sign off your Condition Inspection he or she
would not usually sign it as "not in a condition for safe operation" but would
say something like "once these discrepancies are taken care of I will then sign
it off as "in condition for safe operation". Anybody can work on the airplane
to fix the discrepancies.
--------
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
Transition Trainer
New Smyrna Beach, FL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418522#418522
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: Winter Milestone |
I had the pink cowling (and the old green top). Evidence of the misfit
you describe remains evident on my finished aircraft, or at least
evidence of what I had to do to fix it. I thought the problem was mine
alone.
In retrospect, what I did was build up the inner surface with some
combination of flock/mill/chop. I don't think I added any cloth. Then I
ground away the outer surface until flush with the upper outer surface.
The 'trick' I used to do a precision grinding job was to use some sort
of fat (1/2") grinding bit mounted in a drill stop cage so I could drill
a series of holes with the exact depth that I wanted to grind away.
Then I filled those holes with black tinted filler (the black tint was
from the windshield fairing work). That enabled me to grind the surface
down with whatever tool I chose. When the black disappeared, I had
ground away the right amount of material.
I only remember all of that because it was completed post paint and
evidence is still visible underneath the spinner. Please don't look.
Bill "still enjoying playing with the composites and glass dust" Watson
On 2/10/2014 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> I agree that the cowling is easier than the doors and canopy.
> However, just wondering if I am the only one where the cowl molding
> just is not right.
> While the inner nose behind spinner fits just fine, the outer nose,
> outside the openings, the lower half extends 1/8 to 1/4" further
> forward than the upper cowl.
> Since this is some of the thickest part of the glass, it isn't a
> matter of flexing or trimming. While I will fix it, I'm not happy that
> the fit wasn't better right out of the mold. It is the pink version of
> the cowling, and I've got the rest of it fitting fine. Oh well, at
> least hangar temps are getting back to where needed (mid 70s to 80s)
> for mixing epoxy, etc. Apologies to those stuck in cold country.
> Kelly
>
> On 2/10/2014 5:15 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
>>
>> Hey Dave, I'm sitting here feeling good with you. Getting up off the
>> floor and up to full height is a major for sure! Strapping on that
>> beast of a Lycosaur is even better.
>>
>> The '10 was my first but as a repeat offender.... is your 'six
>> suddenly getting smaller? I know my Maule was getting slower.
>>
>> I remember the winter 2008 when I finally had all the big pieces
>> ordered and built up. The fuselage was still on it's rollers but I
>> spent a day just moving all the pieces around the hangar and taking
>> pictures. It started looking like a bunch of pieces that WOULD fly
>> sometime soon. The big January pick me up!
>>
>> The glass work on the cowling was a piece of cake compared to the
>> doors and cabin work. The part you might want to skip is fitting the
>> pants but I'm sure you know better.
>>
>> Thanks for sharing.
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
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: Winter Milestone |
I'm thinking it might easier to create close to matching profile with
Superfill, then put a couple layers of glass over that for outer strength,
without grinding away much of the existing. A few ounces heavier, but no
question of strength.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I had the pink cowling (and the old green top). Evidence of the misfit
> you describe remains evident on my finished aircraft, or at least evidence
> of what I had to do to fix it. I thought the problem was mine alone.
>
> In retrospect, what I did was build up the inner surface with some
> combination of flock/mill/chop. I don't think I added any cloth. Then I
> ground away the outer surface until flush with the upper outer surface.
>
>
> I only remember all of that because it was completed post paint and
> evidence is still visible underneath the spinner. Please don't look.
>
> Bill "still enjoying playing with the composites and glass dust" Watson
>
>
>>
>
>
--
- sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
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: | Re: Winter Milestone |
The trap I fell into was putting the cowl halves together but off off the airplane
and then making the front faces behind the prop perfectly flat. You can't
do that because the natural moulded-in contour state of the cowl halves, is slightly
different than the installed contour which creates a pursing effect of
the front lips. Perfectly planar off the airplane (easiest to work) gave me a
wider gap at the sides than the top and bottom once installed. I also had to
build up material behind the lip, especially on the bottom, to be able to make
a nice even gap all around when installed.
So glad that composite work is in the rear view mirror.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. FWF complete.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418529#418529
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 |
|
I would agree. With certified Annual Inspections, the rules say that an IA can
sign it as in airworthy and provide a list if discrepancies to the owner/operator
and a A&P can put it back into service by signing off the repair of those
discrepancies.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 7:57 AM, "dmaib@me.com" <dmaib@me.com> wrote:
>
>
> [quote="jesse(at)saintaviation.co"]That is an interesting question. I doubt it
works the same way. There is no airworthy or unairworthy signoff on an experimental.
It's signed of as "in a condition for safe operation." If an A&P signs
it as "not in a condition...", I think the discrepancies would need to be fixed
then an A&P or the Repairman would need to sign it of as "in a condition...".
I am not sure, though. I know there is nothing in any of the Operating Limitations
that I have looked through that allows it. They don't specifically give
the authority to anybody to do maintenance, they just specifically that the
Condition Inspection must be signed off by an A&P or the Repairman.
>
> Jesse SaintI-TEC, Inc.
> jesse@itecusa.org (jesse@itecusa.org)
> www.itecusa.org (http://www.itecusa.org)
> www.mavericklsa.com (http://www.mavericklsa.com)
> C: 352-427-0285
> O: 352-465-4545
> F: 815-377-3694
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> [quote]This raises an interesting question. For a type certified aircraft an
IA is required for annual inspection, which can be signed off as unairworthy with
a list of discrepancies. Any A&P can then fix the discrepancies and sign them
off, making the aircraft airworthy.
>
> For a non-builder an A&P is only required for annual condition inspection. Can
someone advise from Ops Limits if anyone can take care of the discrepancies
found on the inspection? It would make sense to me, since anyone can do maintenance
on amateur built, without any certificate for anything repair/maintenance/mod,
but for the annual, where repairman or A&P is needed.
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Pascal wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have a early version of the 112's and they have been working very nicely and
evenly. I gather you need a mechanic because you didnt build the plane? I never
let anyone touch my plane. Heard of too many planes going down within 1 hour
of a mechanic signing it off as good for the annual. I replaced my pads last
November with the Rapcos and they too were very well work through.
>> pascal
>>
>> --
>
>
> I imagine if you are having an A&P sign off your Condition Inspection he or she
would not usually sign it as "not in a condition for safe operation" but would
say something like "once these discrepancies are taken care of I will then
sign it off as "in condition for safe operation". Anybody can work on the airplane
to fix the discrepancies.
>
> --------
> David Maib
> RV-10 #40559
> Transition Trainer
> New Smyrna Beach, FL
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418522#418522
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
An all too common misunderstanding with holders of the Amateur Built
Repairman is its limit to the single aircraft built. Though the builder
has some knowledge they are not authorized to repair or sign other logbooks
beyond their single serial number aircraft. They are limited like all
pilots to Part 43 Preventative.
Many cross that line regularly. The work takes an A & P signing and at
least observing the compliant repair. Talk to your FSDO. Then get it in
writing. Good Luck with that.
Try a letter from the EAA home office.
The Operator who places it back into service assumes much but not ALL of
the repaired/inspected liability. Ask yourself "How will anyone Find
out?". Attorneys - after an incident or accident. The feds first
question...."you lost the logbooks Right?"
Not going to tell Ya All how I know.
John
On Feb 11, 2014 4:34 AM, "Jesse Saint" <jesse@saintaviation.com> wrote:
> That is an interesting question. I doubt it works the same way. There is
> no airworthy or unairworthy signoff on an experimental. It's signed of as
> "in a condition for safe operation." If an A&P signs it as "not in a
> condition...", I think the discrepancies would need to be fixed then an A&P
> or the Repairman would need to sign it of as "in a condition...". I am not
> sure, though. I know there is nothing in any of the Operating Limitations
> that I have looked through that allows it. They don't specifically give the
> authority to anybody to do maintenance, they just specifically that the
> Condition Inspection must be signed off by an A&P or the Repairman.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse@itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org
> www.mavericklsa.com
> C: 352-427-0285
> O: 352-465-4545
> F: 815-377-3694
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This raises an interesting question. For a type certified aircraft an IA
> is required for annual inspection, which can be signed off as unairworthy
> with a list of discrepancies. Any A&P can then fix the discrepancies and
> sign them off, making the aircraft airworthy.
> For a non-builder an A&P is only required for annual condition inspection.
> Can someone advise from Ops Limits if anyone can take care of the
> discrepancies found on the inspection? It would make sense to me, since
> anyone can do maintenance on amateur built, without any certificate for
> anything repair/maintenance/mod, but for the annual, where repairman or A&P
> is needed.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have a early version of the 112's and they have been working very
>> nicely and evenly. I gather you need a mechanic because you didn't build
>> the plane? I never let anyone touch my plane. Heard of too many planes
>> going down within 1 hour of a mechanic signing it off as good for the
>> annual. I replaced my pads last November with the Rapcos and they too were
>> very well work through.
>> pascal
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Kelly McMullen
>> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:16 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: rapco pads
>>
>>
>>
>> Being experimental, it is your choice to take his advise or ignore it.
>> Looks are not one of my criteria.
>>
>> On 2/10/2014 5:54 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote:
>>
>>> kelly,
>>> pads had enough thickness but my mechanic didn't like the the way they
>>> looked.
>>> alan
>>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 7:33 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com <mailto:
>>> apilot2@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Having pads uneven is not a problem. Having petroleum on them in the
>>>> form of 5606 is. A thorough cleaning with BrakeKlean to remove the 5606 can
>>>> resurect a pad if there is enough thickness to justify. Also, if you decide
>>>> to replace, just do the caliper that needs pads. No need to do the other
>>>> side.
>>>> Kelly
>>>> A&P/IA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alan Mekler MD <amekler@metrocast.net<mailto:
>>>> amekler@metrocast.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>>
>>>>
>>>> well i tried the cheaper rapco brake pads. i had a caliber leak
>>>> and although the pads had only 40 hours on them they wore
>>>> unevenly. My regular mechanic said to replace them.
>>>> Has anyone else had problems with the Rapco pads?
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> ==========
>>>> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> ==========
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> ==========
>>>> le, List Admin.
>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http:
>>>> //www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.
>>>> matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ===================================
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ===================================
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ===================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
>
> *
>
> D============================================
> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
> D============================================
> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
> D============================================
> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
> D============================================
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
rvf10pro, are you saying that holders of Amateur Built Repairman certificates are
routinely signing off work on other aircraft than the one they hold the Repairman
Certificate for? As long as the aircraft is an amateur built aircraft,
I don't see that as a problem. Anybody can work on an amateur built aircraft.
Now if you are saying they are signing off Condition Inspections on aircraft other
than the one they hold the Repairman Certificate for, then that is a problem.
(unless they also hold an A&P)
--------
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
Transition Trainer
New Smyrna Beach, FL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418535#418535
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: Winter Milestone |
That sounds like a better approach.
I can't recall accurately but my guess is that I had already fit the
cowling to the fuselage and the top half gap at the prop was what I
wanted and the bottom turned out to be bit too tight. Probably a result
of spending more time getting the top half gap right and lazy about
getting underneath to insure a good fit on the bottom. By the time I
noticed the discrepancy it was too late.
On 2/11/2014 9:42 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> I'm thinking it might easier to create close to matching profile with
> Superfill, then put a couple layers of glass over that for outer
> strength, without grinding away much of the existing. A few ounces
> heavier, but no question of strength.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com
> <mailto:Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>> wrote:
>
> <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com <mailto:Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>>
>
> I had the pink cowling (and the old green top). Evidence of the
> misfit you describe remains evident on my finished aircraft, or at
> least evidence of what I had to do to fix it. I thought the
> problem was mine alone.
>
> In retrospect, what I did was build up the inner surface with some
> combination of flock/mill/chop. I don't think I added any cloth.
> Then I ground away the outer surface until flush with the upper
> outer surface.
>
>
> I only remember all of that because it was completed post paint
> and evidence is still visible underneath the spinner. Please
> don't look.
>
> Bill "still enjoying playing with the composites and glass dust"
> Watson
>
>
> ===================================
> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ===================================
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
> --
>
> - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
> *
>
>
> *
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.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 |
|
I'm not sure if "signing off" would be something that I'd
be comfortable doing in either case. At the point that a
signature goes to the paper, I'd think it should be the
repairman or an A&P. If I worked on your aircraft, and I'm
not the repairman, I'd expect YOU to sign it off because
YOU are the repairman. Kind of like I can work on a
Bonanza of mine (if I had one), but I'd have to have an A&P
sign off anything other than routine maintenance.
I know that may not fit with the real law....but I don't
know that I'd push my luck when I have no repairman
cert on anyone else's plane. It certainly could be
legal though I suppose.
Tim
On 2/11/2014 10:23 AM, dmaib@me.com wrote:
>
> rvf10pro, are you saying that holders of Amateur Built Repairman
> certificates are routinely signing off work on other aircraft than
> the one they hold the Repairman Certificate for? As long as the
> aircraft is an amateur built aircraft, I don't see that as a problem.
> Anybody can work on an amateur built aircraft. Now if you are saying
> they are signing off Condition Inspections on aircraft other than the
> one they hold the Repairman Certificate for, then that is a problem.
> (unless they also hold an A&P)
>
> -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach,
> FL
>
>
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 |
|
I totally agree with Tim. I routinely help my buddie's on their RV's and they help
me with mine. I would never expect any of them to sign anything in my maintenance
logs nor would I expect them to want me to sign off something in their
logs. There is not even any requirement to "sign off" or log routine maintenance
in the aircraft logs. I think the majority of us do log maintenance, but it
is not required.
I was a bit surprised to hear John's comment that this is something that happens
fairly frequently.
--------
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
Transition Trainer
New Smyrna Beach, FL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418542#418542
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 |
|
I agree. After all it says right on the repairman certificate, "valid only for
serial number 1234".
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418543#418543
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: | Fuel consumption test results |
Hi I just copied my request from VAF here as well to seek your feedback:
I did fuel consumption test runs with 55%, 65% and 75% at 3000 ft and 6000ft as
well as 9500 ft (55% & 65%). What did you guys measure or is there a chart to
see fuel consumption over altitude for different power settings?
This is how I did it.
1) Set power e.g. 2300 RPM, 20.7 MAP which gives me 55% HP
2) Autopilot alt hold e.g.. 3000ft
2) I lean slowly about .2 gal/2min until the last EGT peaked and runs about 15F
LOP stayed with this setting to record speeds and fuel flow. (My injection nozzle
restrictors still have a gami spread of about 0.9 gal).
My results are:
55% pwr
3000 ft 9.11 gal/h 134 TAS
6000 ft 9 gal/h 140 TAS
9000 ft 9.25 gal/h ? 154 TAS
65% pwr
3000 ft 10.7 gal/h 144 TAS
6000 ft 10.57 gal/h 157 TAS
9500 ft 10.4 gal/h 160 TAS
75% pwr
3000 ft 12.4 gal/h 162 TAS
6000 ft 12.28 gal/h 167 TAS
thanks
Michael
--------
RV-10 builder (flying, test phase)
#511
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418550#418550
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 |
|
John, lets make this very simple and clear.
Anyone can work on an experimental, subject to the discretion and sanity
of the owner.
Only a Repairman or A&P can do and sign off a Condition inspection, and
for Repairman, they can only do for the serial number/registration
number on their certificate. Now if they sell the plane they built and
buy another aircraft of the same model that someone elxe built they can
go to FSDO and get their repairman certificate transferred to that new
single serial number. They can work on any other experimental, they just
can't do the condition inspection.
A repairman is NOT limited to preventive maintenance, they can do any
maintenance or modification they want. If it is major, then they need to
notify the FSDO and negotiate an appropriate reversion to Phase 1 for
that mod, such as replacing the Lyc with an Orenda engine. ;-))
On 2/11/2014 8:41 AM, John Cox wrote:
>
> An all too common misunderstanding with holders of the Amateur Built
> Repairman is its limit to the single aircraft built. Though the
> builder has some knowledge they are not authorized to repair or sign
> other logbooks beyond their single serial number aircraft. They are
> limited like all pilots to Part 43 Preventative.
>
> Many cross that line regularly. The work takes an A & P signing and at
> least observing the compliant repair. Talk to your FSDO. Then get it
> in writing. Good Luck with that.
>
> Try a letter from the EAA home office.
>
> The Operator who places it back into service assumes much but not ALL
> of the repaired/inspected liability. Ask yourself "How will anyone
> Find out?". Attorneys - after an incident or accident. The feds first
> question...."you lost the logbooks Right?"
>
> Not going to tell Ya All how I know.
>
> John
>
> On Feb 11, 2014 4:34 AM, "Jesse Saint" <jesse@saintaviation.com
> <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>> wrote:
>
> That is an interesting question. I doubt it works the same way.
> There is no airworthy or unairworthy signoff on an experimental.
> It's signed of as "in a condition for safe operation." If an A&P
> signs it as "not in a condition...", I think the discrepancies
> would need to be fixed then an A&P or the Repairman would need to
> sign it of as "in a condition...". I am not sure, though. I know
> there is nothing in any of the Operating Limitations that I have
> looked through that allows it. They don't specifically give the
> authority to anybody to do maintenance, they just specifically
> that the Condition Inspection must be signed off by an A&P or the
> Repairman.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse@itecusa.org <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
> www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>
> www.mavericklsa.com <http://www.mavericklsa.com>
> C: 352-427-0285 <tel:352-427-0285>
> O: 352-465-4545 <tel:352-465-4545>
> F: 815-377-3694 <tel:815-377-3694>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com
> <mailto:apilot2@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> This raises an interesting question. For a type certified
>> aircraft an IA is required for annual inspection, which can be
>> signed off as unairworthy with a list of discrepancies. Any A&P
>> can then fix the discrepancies and sign them off, making the
>> aircraft airworthy.
>> For a non-builder an A&P is only required for annual condition
>> inspection. Can someone advise from Ops Limits if anyone can take
>> care of the discrepancies found on the inspection? It would make
>> sense to me, since anyone can do maintenance on amateur built,
>> without any certificate for anything repair/maintenance/mod, but
>> for the annual, where repairman or A&P is needed.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com
>> <mailto:rv10flyer@live.com>> wrote:
>>
>> <mailto:rv10flyer@live.com>>
>>
>> I have a early version of the 112's and they have been
>> working very nicely and evenly. I gather you need a mechanic
>> because you didnt build the plane? I never let anyone touch
>> my plane. Heard of too many planes going down within 1 hour
>> of a mechanic signing it off as good for the annual. I
>> replaced my pads last November with the Rapcos and they too
>> were very well work through.
>> pascal
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Kelly McMullen
>> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:16 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: rapco pads
>>
>>
>> <kellym@aviating.com <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>>
>>
>> Being experimental, it is your choice to take his advise or
>> ignore it.
>> Looks are not one of my criteria.
>>
>> On 2/10/2014 5:54 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote:
>>
>> kelly,
>> pads had enough thickness but my mechanic didnt like the
>> the way they looked.
>> alan
>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 7:33 PM, Kelly McMullen
>> <apilot2@gmail.com <mailto:apilot2@gmail.com>
>> <mailto:apilot2@gmail.com <mailto:apilot2@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>
>> Having pads uneven is not a problem. Having petroleum
>> on them in the form of 5606 is. A thorough cleaning
>> with BrakeKlean to remove the 5606 can resurect a pad
>> if there is enough thickness to justify. Also, if you
>> decide to replace, just do the caliper that needs
>> pads. No need to do the other side.
>> Kelly
>> A&P/IA
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alan Mekler MD
>> <amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>
>> <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net
>> <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>>> wrote:
>>
>> <amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>
>> <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net
>> <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>>>
>>
>> well i tried the cheaper rapco brake pads. i had a
>> caliber leak
>> and although the pads had only 40 hours on them they wore
>> unevenly. My regular mechanic said to replace them.
>> Has anyone else had problems with the Rapco pads?
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> ==========
>> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ===================================
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ===================================
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ===================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
>> *
>>
>> D============================================
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D============================================
>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> D============================================
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D============================================
>>
>> *
>
> *
>
> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: Fuel consumption test results |
I do have a power chart, but those numbers look pretty normal to me. It would be
good to note your map, rpm and density altitude with those numbers if possible.
You should be able to get the peak spread down to 0.2gph.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 4:51 PM, "Mike Whisky" <rv-10@wellenzohn.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi I just copied my request from VAF here as well to seek your feedback:
>
> I did fuel consumption test runs with 55%, 65% and 75% at 3000 ft and 6000ft
as well as 9500 ft (55% & 65%). What did you guys measure or is there a chart
to see fuel consumption over altitude for different power settings?
>
> This is how I did it.
> 1) Set power e.g. 2300 RPM, 20.7 MAP which gives me 55% HP
> 2) Autopilot alt hold e.g.. 3000ft
> 2) I lean slowly about .2 gal/2min until the last EGT peaked and runs about 15F
LOP stayed with this setting to record speeds and fuel flow. (My injection
nozzle restrictors still have a gami spread of about 0.9 gal).
>
> My results are:
>
> 55% pwr
> 3000 ft 9.11 gal/h 134 TAS
> 6000 ft 9 gal/h 140 TAS
> 9000 ft 9.25 gal/h ? 154 TAS
>
> 65% pwr
> 3000 ft 10.7 gal/h 144 TAS
> 6000 ft 10.57 gal/h 157 TAS
> 9500 ft 10.4 gal/h 160 TAS
>
> 75% pwr
> 3000 ft 12.4 gal/h 162 TAS
> 6000 ft 12.28 gal/h 167 TAS
>
> thanks
> Michael
>
> --------
> RV-10 builder (flying, test phase)
> #511
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418550#418550
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
On Feb 11, 2014, at 5:07 AM, Alan Mekler MD <amekler@metrocast.net>
wrote:
<amekler@metrocast.net>
>
> no i didn=92t build my plane so i need a mechanic. both my A&Ps have
built and own RVs.
> alan
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have a early version of the 112's and they have been working very
nicely and evenly. I gather you need a mechanic because you didn=92t
build the plane? I never let anyone touch my plane. Heard of too many
planes going down within 1 hour of a mechanic signing it off as good for
the annual. I replaced my pads last November with the Rapcos and they
too were very well work through.
>> pascal
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Kelly McMullen
>> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:16 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: rapco pads
>>
>>
>> Being experimental, it is your choice to take his advise or ignore
it.
>> Looks are not one of my criteria.
>>
>> On 2/10/2014 5:54 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote:
>>> kelly,
>>> pads had enough thickness but my mechanic didn=92t like the the way
they looked.
>>> alan
>>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 7:33 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com
<mailto:apilot2@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having pads uneven is not a problem. Having petroleum on them in
the form of 5606 is. A thorough cleaning with BrakeKlean to remove the
5606 can resurect a pad if there is enough thickness to justify. Also,
if you decide to replace, just do the caliper that needs pads. No need
to do the other side.
>>>> Kelly
>>>> A&P/IA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alan Mekler MD
<amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>>
>>>>
>>>> well i tried the cheaper rapco brake pads. i had a caliber leak
>>>> and although the pads had only 40 hours on them they wore
>>>> unevenly. My regular mechanic said to replace them.
>>>> Has anyone else had problems with the Rapco pads?
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> ==========
>>>> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> ==========
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> ==========
>>>> le, List Admin.
>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel consumption test results |
Michael, those numbers look like just what I would expect to see. There are charts
in the Lycoming manual. I believe you can find it online.
--------
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
Transition Trainer
New Smyrna Beach, FL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418562#418562
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: Fuel consumption test results |
I have mine from .4 to .1 depending on the altitude and power setting. If
you work on the LOP ops Airflow suggests doing it above 12GPH (2400 and
24MAP) the plane moved into yellow territory when I do this but for the
short time I did it I was able to get a decent idea of a real spread. I than
did it at 55-60% and checked to see if the same EGT order followed. With
that call Don and airflow and give him your results, he should be able to
get you started. Additionally Tim's webpage has a great writeup on how he
went from .9 down to 0.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Saint
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel consumption test results
I do have a power chart, but those numbers look pretty normal to me. It
would be good to note your map, rpm and density altitude with those numbers
if possible. You should be able to get the peak spread down to 0.2gph.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 4:51 PM, "Mike Whisky" <rv-10@wellenzohn.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi I just copied my request from VAF here as well to seek your feedback:
>
> I did fuel consumption test runs with 55%, 65% and 75% at 3000 ft and
> 6000ft as well as 9500 ft (55% & 65%). What did you guys measure or is
> there a chart to see fuel consumption over altitude for different power
> settings?
>
> This is how I did it.
> 1) Set power e.g. 2300 RPM, 20.7 MAP which gives me 55% HP
> 2) Autopilot alt hold e.g.. 3000ft
> 2) I lean slowly about .2 gal/2min until the last EGT peaked and runs
> about 15F LOP stayed with this setting to record speeds and fuel flow. (My
> injection nozzle restrictors still have a gami spread of about 0.9 gal).
>
> My results are:
>
> 55% pwr
> 3000 ft 9.11 gal/h 134 TAS
> 6000 ft 9 gal/h 140 TAS
> 9000 ft 9.25 gal/h ? 154 TAS
>
> 65% pwr
> 3000 ft 10.7 gal/h 144 TAS
> 6000 ft 10.57 gal/h 157 TAS
> 9500 ft 10.4 gal/h 160 TAS
>
> 75% pwr
> 3000 ft 12.4 gal/h 162 TAS
> 6000 ft 12.28 gal/h 167 TAS
>
> thanks
> Michael
>
> --------
> RV-10 builder (flying, test phase)
> #511
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418550#418550
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Fuel consumption test results |
Here is a data run after I did my last nozzle adjustment. The table lists
fuel flow when each cylinder peaked. The numbers in () are the nozzle size
for each cylinder. Air Flow Performance provides nozzles in .0005"
increments. The nozzles fit Bendix, Precision and AFP injectors. Data
taken solo, full fuel.
Altitude RPM MP #1 (.028) #2 (.029) #3 (.027)
#4 (.027) #5 (.029) #6 (.0275) Spread TAS
6500 2350 23.3 12.8 12.9 12.9
12.9 12.8 12.9 0.1 180
5500 2340 23.3 12.3 12.3 12.4
12.4 12.2 12.3 0.2 176
3000 2270 21 9.8 9.8 9.8
9.8 9.8 9.8 0.0 142
4500 2200 20.8 9.1 9.1 9
9 9 9.1 0.1 154
4500 2200 19.9 9.1 9.1 9.1
9.1 9.4 9.3 0.3 150
Typical cross country cruise is above 6500', 2350 RPM, WOT and ~20 degrees
LOP. I plan for 168kts TAS. Fuel burn is of course dependent on altitude
but is typically 10.5 - 11.5GPH (pilot, passenger and some bags).
Of interest, the fuel flow spread (first to peak, last to peak) on the new
from Van's stock IO-540 was 1 GPH (standard injectors were all the same
size: .028"). At that spread LOP was a real rough engine. Now LOP is as
smooth as ROP.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel consumption test results
I do have a power chart, but those numbers look pretty normal to me. It
would be good to note your map, rpm and density altitude with those numbers
if possible. You should be able to get the peak spread down to 0.2gph.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 4:51 PM, "Mike Whisky" <rv-10@wellenzohn.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi I just copied my request from VAF here as well to seek your feedback:
>
> I did fuel consumption test runs with 55%, 65% and 75% at 3000 ft and
6000ft as well as 9500 ft (55% & 65%). What did you guys measure or is there
a chart to see fuel consumption over altitude for different power settings?
>
> This is how I did it.
> 1) Set power e.g. 2300 RPM, 20.7 MAP which gives me 55% HP
> 2) Autopilot alt hold e.g.. 3000ft
> 2) I lean slowly about .2 gal/2min until the last EGT peaked and runs
about 15F LOP stayed with this setting to record speeds and fuel flow. (My
injection nozzle restrictors still have a gami spread of about 0.9 gal).
>
> My results are:
>
> 55% pwr
> 3000 ft 9.11 gal/h 134 TAS
> 6000 ft 9 gal/h 140 TAS
> 9000 ft 9.25 gal/h ? 154 TAS
>
> 65% pwr
> 3000 ft 10.7 gal/h 144 TAS
> 6000 ft 10.57 gal/h 157 TAS
> 9500 ft 10.4 gal/h 160 TAS
>
> 75% pwr
> 3000 ft 12.4 gal/h 162 TAS
> 6000 ft 12.28 gal/h 167 TAS
>
> thanks
> Michael
>
> --------
> RV-10 builder (flying, test phase)
> #511
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418550#418550
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel consumption test results |
Some engines run LOP easier than others, but tuning the injectors helps a lot.
Airflow recommends putting a new set of 0.025" nozzles to start he process for
better atomization of fuel (up to 260hp in the 540, 0.026" over 260HP). I have
done this process with at least 8 engines all with very good results. I usually
do the tuning at the power setting that the owner likes to use for cruise.
I now stock nozzles to help people do all of the tuning in a short visit. This
and dynamic balancing are the best ways to get your engine running as smoothly
as possible, no matter what the power setting, and both LOP and ROP.
Jesse
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 8:58 PM, "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> Here is a data run after I did my last nozzle adjustment. The table lists
> fuel flow when each cylinder peaked. The numbers in () are the nozzle size
> for each cylinder. Air Flow Performance provides nozzles in .0005"
> increments. The nozzles fit Bendix, Precision and AFP injectors. Data
> taken solo, full fuel.
>
> Altitude RPM MP #1 (.028) #2 (.029) #3 (.027)
> #4 (.027) #5 (.029) #6 (.0275) Spread TAS
> 6500 2350 23.3 12.8 12.9 12.9
> 12.9 12.8 12.9 0.1 180
> 5500 2340 23.3 12.3 12.3 12.4
> 12.4 12.2 12.3 0.2 176
> 3000 2270 21 9.8 9.8 9.8
> 9.8 9.8 9.8 0.0 142
> 4500 2200 20.8 9.1 9.1 9
> 9 9 9.1 0.1 154
> 4500 2200 19.9 9.1 9.1 9.1
> 9.1 9.4 9.3 0.3 150
>
> Typical cross country cruise is above 6500', 2350 RPM, WOT and ~20 degrees
> LOP. I plan for 168kts TAS. Fuel burn is of course dependent on altitude
> but is typically 10.5 - 11.5GPH (pilot, passenger and some bags).
>
> Of interest, the fuel flow spread (first to peak, last to peak) on the new
> from Van's stock IO-540 was 1 GPH (standard injectors were all the same
> size: .028"). At that spread LOP was a real rough engine. Now LOP is as
> smooth as ROP.
>
> Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:24 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel consumption test results
>
>
> I do have a power chart, but those numbers look pretty normal to me. It
> would be good to note your map, rpm and density altitude with those numbers
> if possible. You should be able to get the peak spread down to 0.2gph.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse@itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org
> www.mavericklsa.com
> C: 352-427-0285
> O: 352-465-4545
> F: 815-377-3694
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Feb 11, 2014, at 4:51 PM, "Mike Whisky" <rv-10@wellenzohn.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi I just copied my request from VAF here as well to seek your feedback:
>>
>> I did fuel consumption test runs with 55%, 65% and 75% at 3000 ft and
> 6000ft as well as 9500 ft (55% & 65%). What did you guys measure or is there
> a chart to see fuel consumption over altitude for different power settings?
>>
>> This is how I did it.
>> 1) Set power e.g. 2300 RPM, 20.7 MAP which gives me 55% HP
>> 2) Autopilot alt hold e.g.. 3000ft
>> 2) I lean slowly about .2 gal/2min until the last EGT peaked and runs
> about 15F LOP stayed with this setting to record speeds and fuel flow. (My
> injection nozzle restrictors still have a gami spread of about 0.9 gal).
>>
>> My results are:
>>
>> 55% pwr
>> 3000 ft 9.11 gal/h 134 TAS
>> 6000 ft 9 gal/h 140 TAS
>> 9000 ft 9.25 gal/h ? 154 TAS
>>
>> 65% pwr
>> 3000 ft 10.7 gal/h 144 TAS
>> 6000 ft 10.57 gal/h 157 TAS
>> 9500 ft 10.4 gal/h 160 TAS
>>
>> 75% pwr
>> 3000 ft 12.4 gal/h 162 TAS
>> 6000 ft 12.28 gal/h 167 TAS
>>
>> thanks
>> Michael
>>
>> --------
>> RV-10 builder (flying, test phase)
>> #511
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418550#418550
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Yep, no question, replace.
On 2/11/2014 6:00 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 5:07 AM, Alan Mekler MD <amekler@metrocast.net
> <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>> wrote:
>
>> <amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>>
>>
>> no i didnt build my plane so i need a mechanic. both my A&Ps have
>> built and own RVs.
>> alan
>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com
>> <mailto:rv10flyer@live.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> <mailto:rv10flyer@live.com>>
>>>
>>> I have a early version of the 112's and they have been working very
>>> nicely and evenly. I gather you need a mechanic because you didnt
>>> build the plane? I never let anyone touch my plane. Heard of too
>>> many planes going down within 1 hour of a mechanic signing it off as
>>> good for the annual. I replaced my pads last November with the
>>> Rapcos and they too were very well work through.
>>> pascal
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Kelly McMullen
>>> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:16 PM
>>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: rapco pads
>>>
>>> <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>>
>>>
>>> Being experimental, it is your choice to take his advise or ignore it.
>>> Looks are not one of my criteria.
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2014 5:54 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote:
>>>> kelly,
>>>> pads had enough thickness but my mechanic didnt like the the way
>>>> they looked.
>>>> alan
>>>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 7:33 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:apilot2@gmail.com> <mailto:apilot2@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Having pads uneven is not a problem. Having petroleum on them in
>>>>> the form of 5606 is. A thorough cleaning with BrakeKlean to remove
>>>>> the 5606 can resurect a pad if there is enough thickness to
>>>>> justify. Also, if you decide to replace, just do the caliper that
>>>>> needs pads. No need to do the other side.
>>>>> Kelly
>>>>> A&P/IA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alan Mekler MD
>>>>> <amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>
>>>>> <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>
>>>>> <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>>
>>>>>
>>>>> well i tried the cheaper rapco brake pads. i had a caliber leak
>>>>> and although the pads had only 40 hours on them they wore
>>>>> unevenly. My regular mechanic said to replace them.
>>>>> Has anyone else had problems with the Rapco pads?
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> le, List Admin.
>>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>> ==========
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> http://www.matronics========================http://www.matronics.com/co================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
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 |
|
Those don't look so good. Are there any strange environmental
situations that you store or fly the airplane in?
I've had Rapco pads for about the last 3 or so changes now,
and they really look just like the Cleaveland ones pretty much
when they're worn down....and they have worked well almost
all the way down to the rivets. So I'm curious if there is
some strange environmental things going on.
Tim
On 2/11/2014 7:00 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 5:07 AM, Alan Mekler MD <amekler@metrocast.net
> <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>> wrote:
>
>> <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>>
>>
>> no i didnt build my plane so i need a mechanic. both my A&Ps have
>> built and own RVs.
>> alan
>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com
>> <mailto:rv10flyer@live.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> <mailto:rv10flyer@live.com>>
>>>
>>> I have a early version of the 112's and they have been working very
>>> nicely and evenly. I gather you need a mechanic because you didnt
>>> build the plane? I never let anyone touch my plane. Heard of too many
>>> planes going down within 1 hour of a mechanic signing it off as good
>>> for the annual. I replaced my pads last November with the Rapcos and
>>> they too were very well work through.
>>> pascal
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Kelly McMullen
>>> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:16 PM
>>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: rapco pads
>>>
>>> <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>>
>>>
>>> Being experimental, it is your choice to take his advise or ignore it.
>>> Looks are not one of my criteria.
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2014 5:54 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote:
>>>> kelly,
>>>> pads had enough thickness but my mechanic didnt like the the way
>>>> they looked.
>>>> alan
>>>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 7:33 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:apilot2@gmail.com> <mailto:apilot2@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Having pads uneven is not a problem. Having petroleum on them in
>>>>> the form of 5606 is. A thorough cleaning with BrakeKlean to remove
>>>>> the 5606 can resurect a pad if there is enough thickness to
>>>>> justify. Also, if you decide to replace, just do the caliper that
>>>>> needs pads. No need to do the other side.
>>>>> Kelly
>>>>> A&P/IA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alan Mekler MD
>>>>> <amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>
>>>>> <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>
>>>>> <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>>
>>>>>
>>>>> well i tried the cheaper rapco brake pads. i had a caliber leak
>>>>> and although the pads had only 40 hours on them they wore
>>>>> unevenly. My regular mechanic said to replace them.
>>>>> Has anyone else had problems with the Rapco pads?
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> le, List Admin.
>>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>> ==========
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> http://www.matronics========================http://www.matronics.com/co================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
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: It's Pretty Darn Good in the Bahamas - trip report |
I wanna go--gotta get it done!
--------
Dave Ford
RV6 flying
RV10 building
Cadillac, MI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418572#418572
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 |
|
what does the brake disc look like? these look like they are relatively
unused but almost like something effected them. Replacing was a good
call, but what caused this that may do the same thing to the new pads?
BTW- I did not mean any disrespect to the A&P, I was simply mentioning
that I don=92t always trust what they tell me about my airplane. in this
case he made a good call. It=92s not the Rapco its something the pads
are reacting to is my guess.
I would send this picture to Rapco and get their feedback.
Pascal
From: Alan Mekler MD
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: rapco pads
On Feb 11, 2014, at 5:07 AM, Alan Mekler MD <amekler@metrocast.net>
wrote:
<amekler@metrocast.net>
no i didn=92t build my plane so i need a mechanic. both my A&Ps have
built and own RVs.
alan
On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
I have a early version of the 112's and they have been working very
nicely and evenly. I gather you need a mechanic because you didn=92t
build the plane? I never let anyone touch my plane. Heard of too many
planes going down within 1 hour of a mechanic signing it off as good for
the annual. I replaced my pads last November with the Rapcos and they
too were very well work through.
pascal
-----Original Message----- From: Kelly McMullen
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:16 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: rapco pads
<kellym@aviating.com>
Being experimental, it is your choice to take his advise or ignore
it.
Looks are not one of my criteria.
On 2/10/2014 5:54 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote:
kelly,
pads had enough thickness but my mechanic didn=92t like the the
way they looked.
alan
On Feb 10, 2014, at 7:33 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com
<mailto:apilot2@gmail.com>> wrote:
Having pads uneven is not a problem. Having petroleum on them in
the form of 5606 is. A thorough cleaning with BrakeKlean to remove the
5606 can resurect a pad if there is enough thickness to justify. Also,
if you decide to replace, just do the caliper that needs pads. No need
to do the other side.
Kelly
A&P/IA
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alan Mekler MD
<amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>> wrote:
<amekler@metrocast.net <mailto:amekler@metrocast.net>>
well i tried the cheaper rapco brake pads. i had a caliber
leak
and although the pads had only 40 hours on them they wore
unevenly. My regular mechanic said to replace them.
Has anyone else had problems with the Rapco pads?
Alan
==========
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
--
- sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
*
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
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
*
*
*
http://www.matronics==================
======http://www.matronics.com/co==========
======
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! --
|