Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:04 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Danny Riggs)
2. 06:23 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Carl Froehlich)
3. 06:51 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Bill Watson)
4. 07:09 AM - Re: Re Turbine RV-10 (Kelly McMullen)
5. 07:41 AM - Re: Re Turbine RV-10 (Jim Combs)
6. 02:40 PM - Re: Re Turbine RV-10 (Kelly McMullen)
7. 02:53 PM - Re: Re Turbine RV-10 (Kevin Belue)
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: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I've been keeping an eye on that -10 turbine conversion since it first appe
ared at the air shows. The only advantage I could see was for areas where a
v gas was not available or too expensive. The engineering and fabrication i
nvolved had to been quite complicated. Of course the "cool factor" is off t
he charts!
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
From: apilot2@gmail.com
See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's Kitpla
nes.
250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts push
ing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the Lyc.
But=2C initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After they
rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes=2C they have it up to ma
tching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K an
d maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the engi
ne/prop combo cost as much as an entire=2C well equipped Lyc powered -10. B
ut if you fly where avgas is unobtainable=2C makes sense.
I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed=2C but apparen
tly it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the SMA 230
hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly=2C with Jet
A or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for fuel ef
ficiency.
On Fri=2C Apr 24=2C 2015 at 9:40 AM=2C Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
wrote:
The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes. 'Anybody' c
an build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit. 'Anybody' can
mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain it. NO ONE ha
s come up with an alternative engine solution that the rest of us can buy
at any price point=2C that performs better and longer than what we can buy
from Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying. I hope for success
but don't plan on it.
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: Fuel Return Line Location? |
Also off the charts is the fuel burn and the price tag. The engine alone
costs more than a flying RV-10 with a brand new Lycoming, and fuel burn in
cruise is almost double that of a Lycoming RV-10 (21.7gph versus 11.5gph).
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Danny Riggs
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 7:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
I've been keeping an eye on that -10 turbine conversion since it first
appeared at the air shows. The only advantage I could see was for areas
where av gas was not available or too expensive. The engineering and
fabrication involved had to been quite complicated. Of course the "cool
factor" is off the charts!
_____
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
From: apilot2@gmail.com
See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's
Kitplanes.
250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the
Lyc.
But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After they
rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it up to
matching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K
and maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the
engine/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped Lyc powered -10.
But if you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but apparently
it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the SMA 230 hp
French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly, with Jet A or
diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for fuel
efficiency.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes. 'Anybody'
can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit. 'Anybody' can
mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain it. NO ONE has
come up with an alternative engine solution that the rest of us can buy at
any price point, that performs better and longer than what we can buy from
Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying. I hope for success but
don't plan on it.
ist" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
ank>http://forums.matronics.com
rget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I just checked it out. Very cool... or hot or whatever.
I thought the fuel burn numbers were more like 50%+ greater than the Lyc
- expressed in GPH or MPG. But I might wrong there.
Anyway, the turbines always get my attention because I live on a grass
strip with a Jet-A tank (!!). Let's see, we sell the Lyc, modify the
'10, mortgage the house... oh nevermind.
The tale of the exhaust stack problem is interesting. Far beyond where
they guys with the turbine RV-8 were with the cutoff stack. I think it
was reviewed a year or two ago. Apparently it produced so much back
pressure in the engine it couldn't achieve anywhere near full power.
On 4/24/2015 11:57 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's
> Kitplanes.
> 250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
> pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of
> the Lyc.
> But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After
> they rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it
> up to matching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel
> below 10K and maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to
> mention the engine/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped
> Lyc powered -10. But if you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
> I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but
> apparently it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe
> the SMA 230 hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount
> and fly, with Jet A or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even
> beat the Lyc for fuel efficiency.
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com
> <mailto:Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>> wrote:
>
> <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com <mailto:Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>>
> at
>
>
> The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes.
> 'Anybody' can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched
> kit. 'Anybody' can mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us
> could maintain it. NO ONE has come up with an alternative engine
> solution that the rest of us can buy at any price point, that
> performs better and longer than what we can buy from Lycoming.
> Many people have tried and are trying. I hope for success but
> don't plan on it.
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://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: | Re: Re Turbine RV-10 |
You might right about the fuel burn..definitely more than the Lyc.
It would be fun to fly with the quiet turbine and simplicity, as long as
someone else was paying the bills.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> I just checked it out. Very cool... or hot or whatever.
>
> I thought the fuel burn numbers were more like 50%+ greater than the Lyc -
> expressed in GPH or MPG. But I might wrong there.
>
> Anyway, the turbines always get my attention because I live on a grass
> strip with a Jet-A tank (!!). Let's see, we sell the Lyc, modify the '10,
> mortgage the house... oh nevermind.
>
> The tale of the exhaust stack problem is interesting. Far beyond where
> they guys with the turbine RV-8 were with the cutoff stack. I think it was
> reviewed a year or two ago. Apparently it produced so much back pressure
> in the engine it couldn't achieve anywhere near full power.
>
> On 4/24/2015 11:57 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's
> Kitplanes.
> 250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
> pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the
> Lyc.
> But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After they
> rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it up to
> matching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K
> and maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the
> engine/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped Lyc powered -10.
> But if you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
> I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but
> apparently it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the
> SMA 230 hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly,
> with Jet A or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for
> fuel efficiency.
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> at
>>
>>
>>
>> The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes. 'Anybody'
>> can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit. 'Anybody'
>> can mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain it. NO ONE
>> has come up with an alternative engine solution that the rest of us can
>> buy at any price point, that performs better and longer than what we can
>> buy from Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying. I hope for
>> success but don't plan on it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> 04/24/15
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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: Re Turbine RV-10 |
The engine web page is here:
http://www.pbsvb.com/customer-industries/aerospace/aircraft-engines/tp-100-turboprop-engine
It's rated at 200 HP. These guys extended the fuel tanks at least one bay
per side. Useful load is reduced.
JimC
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
> You might right about the fuel burn..definitely more than the Lyc.
> It would be fun to fly with the quiet turbine and simplicity, as long as
> someone else was paying the bills.
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I just checked it out. Very cool... or hot or whatever.
>>
>> I thought the fuel burn numbers were more like 50%+ greater than the Lyc
>> - expressed in GPH or MPG. But I might wrong there.
>>
>> Anyway, the turbines always get my attention because I live on a grass
>> strip with a Jet-A tank (!!). Let's see, we sell the Lyc, modify the '10,
>> mortgage the house... oh nevermind.
>>
>> The tale of the exhaust stack problem is interesting. Far beyond where
>> they guys with the turbine RV-8 were with the cutoff stack. I think it was
>> reviewed a year or two ago. Apparently it produced so much back pressure
>> in the engine it couldn't achieve anywhere near full power.
>>
>> On 4/24/2015 11:57 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>> See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's
>> Kitplanes.
>> 250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
>> pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the
>> Lyc.
>> But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After they
>> rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it up to
>> matching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K
>> and maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the
>> engine/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped Lyc powered -10.
>> But if you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
>> I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but
>> apparently it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the
>> SMA 230 hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly,
>> with Jet A or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for
>> fuel efficiency.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> at
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes.
>>> 'Anybody' can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit.
>>> 'Anybody' can mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain
>>> it. NO ONE has come up with an alternative engine solution that the rest
>>> of us can buy at any price point, that performs better and longer than
>>> what we can buy from Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying. I
>>> hope for success but don't plan on it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> 04/24/15
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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: Re Turbine RV-10 |
Apparently you are calculating differently than whoever supplied Amy with
data.
>From her article, 180 ft/lb torque = 241 shp + 9 hp exhaust thrust for 250
total. IIRC they were getting ~175kts on ~19gph. To get that speed on Lyc
you likely would need to burn at least 13gph LOP for 75% power.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Jim Combs <jiminlexky@gmail.com> wrote:
> The engine web page is here:
>
>
> http://www.pbsvb.com/customer-industries/aerospace/aircraft-engines/tp-100-turboprop-engine
>
> It's rated at 200 HP. These guys extended the fuel tanks at least one bay
> per side. Useful load is reduced.
>
> JimC
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You might right about the fuel burn..definitely more than the Lyc.
>> It would be fun to fly with the quiet turbine and simplicity, as long as
>> someone else was paying the bills.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I just checked it out. Very cool... or hot or whatever.
>>>
>>> I thought the fuel burn numbers were more like 50%+ greater than the Lyc
>>> - expressed in GPH or MPG. But I might wrong there.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the turbines always get my attention because I live on a grass
>>> strip with a Jet-A tank (!!). Let's see, we sell the Lyc, modify the '10,
>>> mortgage the house... oh nevermind.
>>>
>>> The tale of the exhaust stack problem is interesting. Far beyond where
>>> they guys with the turbine RV-8 were with the cutoff stack. I think it was
>>> reviewed a year or two ago. Apparently it produced so much back pressure
>>> in the engine it couldn't achieve anywhere near full power.
>>>
>>> On 4/24/2015 11:57 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>
>>> See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's
>>> Kitplanes.
>>> 250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
>>> pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the
>>> Lyc.
>>> But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After
>>> they rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it up to
>>> matching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K
>>> and maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the
>>> engine/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped Lyc powered -10.
>>> But if you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
>>> I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but
>>> apparently it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the
>>> SMA 230 hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly,
>>> with Jet A or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for
>>> fuel efficiency.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> at
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes.
>>>> 'Anybody' can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit.
>>>> 'Anybody' can mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain
>>>> it. NO ONE has come up with an alternative engine solution that the rest
>>>> of us can buy at any price point, that performs better and longer than
>>>> what we can buy from Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying. I
>>>> hope for success but don't plan on it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> 04/24/15
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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: Re Turbine RV-10 |
I'd like to see what the fuel flow is at 150kts. I doubt it changes much wit
h speed changes....
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 25, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently you are calculating differently than whoever supplied Amy with d
ata.
> =46rom her article, 180 ft/lb torque = 241 shp + 9 hp exhaust thrust for
250 total. IIRC they were getting ~175kts on ~19gph. To get that speed on L
yc you likely would need to burn at least 13gph LOP for 75% power.
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Jim Combs <jiminlexky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The engine web page is here:
>>
>> http://www.pbsvb.com/customer-industries/aerospace/aircraft-engines/tp-10
0-turboprop-engine
>>
>> It's rated at 200 HP. These guys extended the fuel tanks at least one ba
y per side. Useful load is reduced.
>>
>> JimC
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrot
e:
>>> You might right about the fuel burn..definitely more than the Lyc.
>>> It would be fun to fly with the quiet turbine and simplicity, as long as
someone else was paying the bills.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com> wro
te:
>>>> I just checked it out. Very cool... or hot or whatever.
>>>>
>>>> I thought the fuel burn numbers were more like 50%+ greater than the Ly
c - expressed in GPH or MPG. But I might wrong there.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the turbines always get my attention because I live on a grass s
trip with a Jet-A tank (!!). Let's see, we sell the Lyc, modify the '
10, mortgage the house... oh nevermind.
>>>>
>>>> The tale of the exhaust stack problem is interesting. Far beyond where
they guys with the turbine RV-8 were with the cutoff stack. I think it was
reviewed a year or two ago. Apparently it produced so much back pressure i
n the engine it couldn't achieve anywhere near full power.
>>>>
>>>> On 4/24/2015 11:57 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>>> See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's K
itplanes.
>>>>> 250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the L
yc.
>>>>> But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After th
ey rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it up to ma
tching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K and
maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the engine
/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped Lyc powered -10. But if
you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
>>>>> I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but appa
rently it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the SMA 23
0 hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly, with Jet A
or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for fuel effic
iency.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com> w
rote:
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes. 'Anyb
ody' can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit. 'Anybody
' can mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain it. NO ON
E has come up with an alternative engine solution that
the rest of us can buy at any price point, that performs better and longer
than what we can buy from Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying.
I hope for success but don't plan on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>> 04/24/15
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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! --
|