Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:20 AM - Re: Paint Question (Jesse Saint)
2. 05:37 AM - Re: Paint Question (Marcus Cooper)
3. 05:52 AM - Re: Paint Question (Carl Froehlich)
4. 06:00 AM - Re: plastic protector (johngoodman)
5. 05:23 PM - RV10 performance (DLM)
6. 05:56 PM - Re: RV10 performance (pilotdds)
7. 06:14 PM - Re: RV10 performance (Dave Saylor)
8. 06:48 PM - Re: RV10 performance (Bob Turner)
9. 08:52 PM - Re: RV10 performance (Jesse Saint)
10. 09:11 PM - Re: RV10 performance (Tim Olson)
11. 09:20 PM - Re: RV10 performance (David Leikam)
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: Paint Question |
That should not be a problem. Filling the pinholes before flying would assure that
oil and stuff doesn't get trapped in the pinholes.
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 Jun 24, 2014, at 12:32 AM, "bob88" <marty.crooks@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> I plan to defer painting until I have flown a bit, and then have it done professionally.
The question is whether to put a coat of UV SmoothPrime on the fiberglass
parts as temporary protection. Will a professional paint shop have a problem
with this when the time comes for the final paint job?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425349#425349
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Paint Question |
Thats what I did, no problems whatsoever. Looks a lot nicer too!
Marcus
40286
On Jun 24, 2014, at 12:32 AM, bob88 <marty.crooks@comcast.net> wrote:
I plan to defer painting until I have flown a bit, and then have it done professionally.
The question is whether to put a coat of UV SmoothPrime on the fiberglass
parts as temporary protection. Will a professional paint shop have a problem
with this when the time comes for the final paint job?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425349#425349
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 |
|
A Lancair 4 builder at the airpark used SmoothPrime for protection during
construction. He would do all the body work, then coat/sand the SmoothPrime
until satisfied. The last step was to add another coat of SmoothPrime on
top but then not sand it. The final sanding would then be just before
paint.
If you are going to fly before paint then recommend you do all the
SmoothPrime/sand applications you want but the last step would be to use an
epoxy primer on top. What I learned with SmoothPrime on my plane is it
takes several days for this water based product to really cure - and then
never wet sand it. SmoothPrime is not designed to withstand the elements.
For the next airplane I'll most likely not use SmoothPrime. Instead I'll
use PPG filler primers (K36 and K38) after surface prep.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob88
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:33 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Paint Question
I plan to defer painting until I have flown a bit, and then have it done
professionally. The question is whether to put a coat of UV SmoothPrime on
the fiberglass parts as temporary protection. Will a professional paint shop
have a problem with this when the time comes for the final paint job?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425349#425349
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: plastic protector |
I used it, and really liked it. You need to put multiple coats on, so that it will
peel off later. I just painted it on with a brush. I can't think of the name,
but I got it from Aircraft Spruce. It comes in a quart plastic bottle, and
it's blue in color. I also have an identical bottle of mould release, that is
green in color - they seem to be identical.
Looking on the AC site, I see two products that it might be:
Plastiease 512B, or PVA Release Film.
John
--------
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425359#425359
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: | RV10 performance |
Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data point
I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field
elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a
wind the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb
has been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of
5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to
consider like nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has
anyone created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance
data? My C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on
200HP; Given the 260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30%
improvement in density altitude performance. Has anybody other DA data
points?
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: RV10 performance |
You wont be disappointed-but I would be cautious of a gross weight departur
e at 10000 density altitude in a cardinal but that's just me.TVL is a commo
n airport for me and the rv-10 is one of the best,no,the best non turbo per
formers I have flown out of there.Havent had to circle the lake yet.Every
rv-10 is a little different things like ei and higher compressions can make
an even bigger difference at high da.
-----Original Message-----
From: DLM <dlm34077@cox.net>
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 5:23 pm
Subject: RV10-List: RV10 performance
Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data point
I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field ele
vation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a wind
the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb has
been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of 50
00 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to consid
er like nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyon
e created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? M
y C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Gi
ven the 260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in den
sity altitude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
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: RV10 performance |
I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just
over 10,000.
Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from
Oshkosh.
Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned for
max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is about
3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by that
point since it was easy to identify.
That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over 9000,
right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were at least
1000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
--Dave
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077@cox.net> wrote:
> Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data
> point I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200
> field elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was
> not a wind the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of
> thumb has been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in
> excess of 5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other
> factors to consider like nearby terrain and weather but these are all
> subjective.. Has anyone created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and
> landing performance data? My C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a
> gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the 260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at
> least a 30% improvement in density altitude performance. Has anybody other
> DA data points?
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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: RV10 performance |
If you're using 2800 lbs for gross you will have a tough time finding comparisons,
since most people are using 2700. Remember climb rate is very sensitive to
weight.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425414#425414
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: RV10 performance |
We took off from UIO (SEQU) at probably 2,800 lbs, rolling uphill, and used a
bout 3,000 ft or less. I think one notch of flaps. The -10 performs great th
ere.
A -10 in Mexico is operating out of a 5,000 MSL airport 600M long and has to
stay about 2,500-2,600 max.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse@saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.co
m> wrote:
>
> I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just ov
er 10,000.
>
> Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from Oshko
sh.
>
> Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
>
> Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned for m
ax power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
>
> We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is abou
t 3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by that po
int since it was easy to identify.
>
> That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
>
> For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over 9000, r
ight at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were at least 10
00' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
>
> --Dave
>
>
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077@cox.net> wrote:
>> Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data poi
nt I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field el
evation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a wind t
he engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb has be
en any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of 5000 i
s Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to consider li
ke nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyone crea
ted or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? My C177R
G had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the 2
60 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in density altit
ude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
>>
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
>
>
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 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: RV10 performance |
The thing I keep thinking of when I think of our RV-10's is how amazingly ea
sy we have it. We basically can operate safely at most any temperature even
at high altitude, and we can carry nearly as much luggage as we can physica
lly fit into the plane. These planes are just amazing. The only real probl
em is, once you get used to these amazing capabilities, I'd bet that we beco
me far worse off as pilots if we moved back into the spam cans that we came f
rom. I've become so attached to my airplane that I don't know that I could e
ver be happy owing a Cessna 172 or piper warrior again.
Spoiled rotten, we are.
Thanks VANS for the great kit!
Tim
Do not archive
> On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com> wrote:
>
> We took off from UIO (SEQU) at probably 2,800 lbs, rolling uphill, and use
d about 3,000 ft or less. I think one notch of flaps. The -10 performs great
there.
>
> A -10 in Mexico is operating out of a 5,000 MSL airport 600M long and has t
o stay about 2,500-2,600 max.
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> 352-427-0285
> jesse@saintaviation.com
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.c
om> wrote:
>>
>> I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just o
ver 10,000.
>>
>> Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from Oshk
osh.
>>
>> Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
>>
>> Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned for
max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
>>
>> We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is abo
ut 3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by that p
oint since it was easy to identify.
>>
>> That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
>>
>> For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over 9000,
right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were at least 1
000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
>>
>> --Dave
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data po
int I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field e
levation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a wind
the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb has b
een any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of 5000
is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to consider l
ike nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyone cre
ated or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? My C177
RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the
260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in density alt
itude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
>>>
>>>
>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> 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=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> 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=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> 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=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=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 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: RV10 performance |
I am curious what the highest altitude anyone has taken their -10 up
to?
I had mine up to 17,000 this weekend twice to get over some cloud build
ups coming back from OR to WI. I was no where near gross but it made it
up there with ease.
Dave Leikam
On Jun 24, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
> The thing I keep thinking of when I think of our RV-10's is how
amazingly easy we have it. We basically can operate safely at most any
temperature even at high altitude, and we can carry nearly as much
luggage as we can physically fit into the plane. These planes are just
amazing. The only real problem is, once you get used to these amazing
capabilities, I'd bet that we become far worse off as pilots if we moved
back into the spam cans that we came from. I've become so attached to
my airplane that I don't know that I could ever be happy owing a Cessna
172 or piper warrior again.
>
> Spoiled rotten, we are.
> Thanks VANS for the great kit!
> Tim
> Do not archive
>
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com>
wrote:
>
>> We took off from UIO (SEQU) at probably 2,800 lbs, rolling uphill,
and used about 3,000 ft or less. I think one notch of flaps. The -10
performs great there.
>>
>> A -10 in Mexico is operating out of a 5,000 MSL airport 600M long and
has to stay about 2,500-2,600 max.
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> 352-427-0285
>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Dave Saylor
<dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was
just over 10,000.
>>>
>>> Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from
Oshkosh.
>>>
>>> Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
>>>
>>> Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and
leaned for max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
>>>
>>> We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which
is about 3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne
by that point since it was easy to identify.
>>>
>>> That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
>>>
>>> For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over
9000, right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were
at least 1000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
>>>
>>> --Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only
data point I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and
5200 field elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet.
This was not a wind the engine prior to brake release type of data
point. My rule of thumb has been any density altitude less than 10000
and runway length in excess of 5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of
course there are other factors to consider like nearby terrain and
weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyone created or seen the
Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? My C177RG had an
empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the 260
HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in density
altitude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
>>>
>>>
>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
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
>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>
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
>>> //forums.matronics.com
>>>
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
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
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
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
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
>> //forums.matronics.com
>>
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
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
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
>>
>
>
>
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! --
|