Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:24 AM - Re: Need 30 year update (FLYaDIVE)
2. 06:42 AM - Re: Need 30 year update (discover)
3. 11:15 AM - Re: Need 30 year update (Gary L Vogt)
4. 03:44 PM - Re: Need 30 year update (benlowther)
5. 03:53 PM - Re: Need 30 year update (cannuck)
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: Need 30 year update |
Dan:
You have to understand three points before you can understand:
1 - How fuel injection works on our engines.
2 - What has to be done to satisfy the FAA.
3 - What truly controls progress in certified aircraft aviation.
A1 - Fuel injection for our engines does not work - Not in the way you
think it should work. Here is why - Fuel is injected into ALL the
cylinders at the same time. Yes, ALL the cylinders. It is injected into
the same area just before the intake valve where the primer primer line
goes. And (repeating myself) it is injected into ALL the cylinders at the
same time. ONLY the cylinder that has an open Intake Valve lets the fuel
into the cylinder and Only that cylinder that puts a Spark to the air:fuel
mixture fires. The other cylinders suck in the fuel and spit it out. What
a waste! So, if aircraft engines just went to a INDIVIDUAL injection
system, just think of how much less fuel would be used.
A2 - Now, this information I do NOT have first hand experience with. But,
you will always hear from those that attempt to get or have gotten an STC;
how difficult it is to work with the FAA to obtain the authorization
FIRST, they are a Government organization and that equates to INEFFICIENT
- LAZY and self-professed JOB SECURITY. The only other job that is as good
is a Weatherman. They can be wrong all the time and still keep their job.
SECOND, O! Wait a second, there is no second reason. the FIRST covers it
all.
A3 - One would consider an engine company as an engineering company.
Engineering - Innovation and Progress driving a better product. NOT SO!
Layers, Law Suits and Litigation is the backbone of engine companies.
They truly believe that 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Putting it
another way: They Lost and Won all their battles - The engine is at a
state of "If it breaks it ain't our fault!" We proved IN COURT, how good
our engine is. So why open up an new can of worms. Progress is hindered
by LAWYERS and supported by FOLLOWERS.
Dan, if you want Engineering - Innovation and Progress - Go EXPERIMENTAL.
At least until the Government takes that away from us also. O! They are,
they WILL. Just read the latest Accident Reports from the FAA. They are
pointing fingers right now... Only time until they get all the senators on
their side and have the UN-knowledgeable populous supporting them. HELL!
It worked for the EPA, why not the FAA!
Barry
================================
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Dan Veeneman <dan@rotorshop.com> wrote:
> This is something I haven't understood. Fuel injection has been
> standard in automobiles for decades now, eliminating the hassles with a
> carb and improving efficiency. Why isn't it more prevalent in
> single-engine airplanes? Is it just because the general aviation fleet is
> so old and doing the swap is too much (paper)work?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: Need 30 year update |
I agree with Barry's post but would add that the carbureted engines also provide
a continuous flow of fuel to the intakes. So the aircraft injection doesn't
differ from the carburafion in that sense. Also, automotive injection if its not
Multi-point Sequential sprays a continuous mist into the intake. Throttle bodies
work this way with a single point injection. This type of injection is more
effecient than carburation and doesnt require a venturi so icing, while still
possible, isnt considered a prolem like it is with a Carb. The Continuous
Injection System, CIS, was originally a Bosch design. Originally, there were no
electric circuits involved or any computer. It's very simple and rarely fails
so it is a good system for aircraft. The systems common today in autos all have
a limp home mode that would lead to a forced landing in an aircraft. Those
that require a computer that is. Aircraft had multi point fuel injection back
even before WWII according to my Dad who worked on them. They had a fuel injection
pump like a diesel still uses tody and did not rely on any electric or computer
systems. They say they are more suited to supercharging than carbs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=396083#396083
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: Need 30 year update |
[Barry] A1 - Fuel injection for our engines does not work - Not in the way
you think it should work. =C2-Here is why - Fuel is injected into ALL the
cylinders at the same time. =C2-Yes, ALL the cylinders. =C2-It is inje
cted into the same area just=C2-before=C2-the intake valve where the pr
imer primer line goes. =C2-And (repeating myself) it is injected into ALL
the cylinders at the same time. =C2-ONLY the cylinder that has an open I
ntake Valve lets the fuel into the cylinder and Only that cylinder that put
s a Spark to the air:fuel mixture fires. =C2-The other cylinders suck in
the fuel and spit it out. =C2-What a waste! =C2-So, if aircraft engines
just went to a=C2-INDIVIDUAL=C2-injection system, just think of how mu
ch less fuel would be used. =C2-=0A=0A-------------------=0ADan, this is
so much BullShit that I'm going to have to completely rewrite it. =C2-Bar
ry, go back to electronics. =C2-Stick with what you know. =C2-=0A=0A1.
Fuel injection in aircraft engines has been working fine for generations.
=C2-Stuart Hilborn, an American, became the first hot rodder to use fuel
injection in drag cars and land speed racers.=0A2. Aircraft fuel injection
uses what is known as "drool injection." =C2-There are no electronics inv
olved, obviously, since the application first started in the 30s. =C2-It'
s a totally mechanical system.=0A=C2- =C2-=A2 the system used by
Hilborn, is a drool injection system. =C2-The reason it works well in rac
ing is that it is designed for a narrow operation range;=C2-=0A=C2- =C2
- =C2- not unlike aircraft engines.=C2-=0A=C2- =C2-=A2 Zora
Arkus Duntov began working on a fuel injection system for the small block
Chevy in 1955. =C2-At that time, the only option was a drool system.=0A
=C2- =C2- =C2-- It had to be streetable. =C2-However, it was design
ed to run at WOT (wide-open-throttle). =C2-=0A=C2- =C2- =C2-- There
is a guy here in Auburn who as a 57 FI Corvette engine in his "T" hot rod.
=C2-I asked for and got a ride around the block. =C2-=0A=C2- =C2-
=C2- =C2-It idled smoothly, acceleration was awesome, and seemed quite
docile.=0A=C2- =C2-=A2 Early GM electronic fuel injection (80s) u
sed what is known as 'Batch" injection. =C2-That is, one bank of cylinder
s on a V8 would get one shot of fuel.=C2-=0A3. The "Primer" port is NOT u
sed. =C2-There is a port on the top of the cylinder just opposite the pri
mer port. =C2-The fuel injection nozzle goes in there. =C2-=0A=C2-
=C2-=A2 Fuel is never injected into the cylinder. =C2-The only ap
plication of fuel being injected into the cylinder, i.e., the cylinder head
, is in 'Direct Injection.' =C2-=0A=C2- =C2- =C2- The history of di
rect injection goes back to 1925.=0A4. Because the injector nozzle is desig
ned to entrain air, the top of the engine, in this area near the injectors,
must be kept clean.=0A5. High pressure fuel pumps, both mechanical and ele
ctric, either together or separately, can provide the high pressure fuel ne
eded at the injector.=0A6. While it is true that the injector constantly 'd
rools' fuel into the port,=C2-not much is wasted =C2-at normal operatin
g speeds.=0A=C2- =C2-=A2 In Barry's rant, he states that "The oth
er cylinders suck in the fuel and spit it out." I hope you are aware that t
he Otto cycle does not have a cycle in=0A=C2- =C2- =C2- which the val
ves open and just pump air though.=0A7. The mechanical aircraft 'drool' fue
l injection is designed to work best at 55% to 100% power. =C2-It does an
adequate job elsewhere.=C2-=0A=C2- =C2-=A2 Since we typically
pick an rpm range to operate (cruise) in, this isn't an issue. =C2-Very l
ittle time is spent idling in traffic on the Golden Gate.=0A8. Obviously, S
equential Port Fuel Injection, operating closed loop with O2 sensors, would
be the ideal. =C2-=0A=C2- =C2- =C2-I have the engineering drawings
and calculations if you have the money. =C2-=0A=0AA2:=C2-=0ABarry has
absolutely no experience working with the FAA. =C2-I have. =C2-Barry di
srespects people he has never met and knows nothing about. =C2-=0A1. I pe
rsonally know many of them at the ACO in LA. =C2-All of them are hard wor
king and doing the best they can. =C2-=0A2. My only gripe is that the new
guard is geared for developing transport aircraft. =C2-There are not man
y left who understand GA. =C2-=0A=C2- =A2 That is why the system
encourages the use of DERs; Designated Engineering Representatives. =C2-
=0A3. Yes, the FAA has required me to do some lame ass things. =C2-=0A=C2
- =A2 [example] They originally wanted me to weave in aluminum stra
nds into my cowling for lightening protection.=0A=C2- =C2- - the DER ga
ve them data showing other GA aircraft with fiberglass cowlings didn't use
lightening protection.=0A=0AA3:=0ABarry advocates a system of no checks and
balances, no safety, no recourse for faulty parts, no recourse for bad eng
ineering.=0A1. I see examples of bad engineering everyday. =C2-Lots of ex
amples in the Grumman, particularly the 90s AG5B.=0A2. I see shit that has
been approved at a manufacturing level that is no where near prime time rea
dy.=0A=C2- =C2-=A2 some things are just fucking stupid. =C2-See
my "dumb design decisions" on my web site.=0A3. Yes, the system does not e
ncourage great innovation. =C2-But, it will make you think about what may
, or may not, be affected by a mod. =C2-=0A=0ASo, regarding 'real' fuel i
njection. =C2-If you've got the money to build some prototypes, let's bui
ld a direct injected IO360. =C2-The cylinder head would need to be modifi
ed only slightly. =C2-It would need a completely new piston design. =C2
-And, it will need a LOT of electronics. =C2-And, with that, a complete
ly redundant electronic system, complete with battery and charging circuit.
=C2-That's the tough part. =C2-For what? =C2-A little better torque
in mid range and better fuel economy? So, you want to add a $10,000 fuel in
jection to your already fuel injected engine to save a gallon or two an hou
r?=0A=0AGary L Vogt=0AAuCountry Aviation=0AAuburn, CA =C2-=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A________________________________=0A From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive@gmail.com>
=0ATo: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:24
AM=0ASubject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Need 30 year update=0A =0A=0ADan:=0A
=0AYou have to understand three points before you can understand:=0A1 - How
fuel injection works on our engines.=0A2 - What has to be done to=C2-sat
isfy=C2-the FAA.=0A3 - What=C2-truly=C2-controls progress in certifie
d aircraft aviation.=0A=0AA1 - Fuel injection for our engines does not work
- Not in the way you think it should work. =C2-Here is why - Fuel is inj
ected into ALL the cylinders at the same time. =C2-Yes, ALL the cylinders
. =C2-It is injected into the same area just=C2-before=C2-the intake
valve where the primer primer line goes. =C2-And (repeating myself) it is
injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time. =C2-ONLY the cylinder
that has an open Intake Valve lets the fuel into the cylinder and Only that
cylinder that puts a Spark to the air:fuel mixture fires. =C2-The other
cylinders suck in the fuel and spit it out. =C2-What a waste! =C2-So, i
f aircraft engines just went to a=C2-INDIVIDUAL=C2-injection system, ju
st think of how much less fuel would be used. =C2-=0A=0AA2 - Now, this in
formation I do NOT have first hand=C2-experience with. =C2-But, you wil
l always hear from those that attempt to get or have gotten an STC; how=C2
-difficult=C2-it is to work with the FAA to obtain the=C2-authorizati
on=C2- =C2-FIRST, they are a Government=C2-organization and that equa
tes to=C2-INEFFICIENT - LAZY and=C2-self-professed JOB SECURITY. =C2-
The only other job that is as good is a Weatherman. =C2-They can be wrong
all the time and still keep their job. =C2-SECOND, O! =C2-Wait a secon
d, there is no second reason. the FIRST covers it all.=0A=0AA3 - One would
consider an engine company as an engineering company. =C2-Engineering -
=C2-Innovation=C2-and Progress driving a better product. =C2-NOT SO!
=0ALayers, Law Suits and=C2-Litigation is the backbone of engine companie
s. =C2-They=C2-truly=C2-believe=C2-that 'If it ain't broke, don't f
ix it'. =C2-Putting it another way: =C2-They Lost and Won all their bat
tles - The engine is at a state of "If it breaks it ain't our fault!" We pr
oved IN COURT, how good our engine is. =C2-So why open up an new can of w
orms. =C2-Progress is hindered by LAWYERS and supported by FOLLOWERS.=0A
=0ADan, if you want=C2-Engineering -=C2-Innovation=C2-and Progress -
Go EXPERIMENTAL. =C2-At least until the Government takes that away from u
s also. =C2-O! =C2-They are, they WILL. =C2-Just read the latest Acci
dent Reports from the FAA. =C2-They are pointing fingers right now... =C2
-Only time until they get all the senators on their side and have the UN-
knowledgeable=C2-populous supporting them. =C2-HELL! =C2-It worked fo
r the EPA, why not the FAA!=0A=0ABarry=0A===========
=======================C2-=C2
-=0A=0AOn Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Dan Veeneman <dan@rotorshop.com>
wrote:=0A=0AThis is something I haven't understood.=C2- Fuel injection ha
s been standard in automobiles for decades now, eliminating the hassles wit
h a carb and improving efficiency.=C2- Why isn't it more prevalent in sin
gle-engine airplanes?=C2- Is it just because the general aviation fleet i
s so old and doing the swap is too much (paper)work?=0A>=0A>Cheers,=0A>=0A>
Dan=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?TeamGrumman-List=0Atp://forums.matronics.com=0A_blank">http://www.matr
====
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: Need 30 year update |
Just for the record, the inlet valve on any cylinder only opens on the intak
e cycle ie every 2 revolution. Our engines are 4-Cycle: 1. Intake 2. Compres
sion 3. Power (Ignition) 4. Exhaust. So the only fuel wasted is that which i
s not combusted during the power cycle ie rich mixture, poor ignition etc.
Ben
On 2013-03-12, at 7:15 PM, Gary L Vogt <teamgrumman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [Barry] A1 - Fuel injection for our engines does not work - Not in the way
you think it should work. Here is why - Fuel is injected into ALL the cyli
nders at the same time. Yes, ALL the cylinders. It is injected into the sa
me area just before the intake valve where the primer primer line goes. And
(repeating myself) it is injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time.
ONLY the cylinder that has an open Intake Valve lets the fuel into the cyli
nder and Only that cylinder that puts a Spark to the air:fuel mixture fires.
The other cylinders suck in the fuel and spit it out. What a waste! So, i
f aircraft engines just went to a INDIVIDUAL injection system, just think of
how much less fuel would be used.
> -------------------
> Dan, this is so much BullShit that I'm going to have to completely rewrite
it. Barry, go back to electronics. Stick with what you know.
>
> 1. Fuel injection in aircraft engines has been working fine for generation
s. Stuart Hilborn, an American, became the first hot rodder to use fuel inj
ection in drag cars and land speed racers.
> 2. Aircraft fuel injection uses what is known as "drool injection." There
are no electronics involved, obviously, since the application first started
in the 30s. It's a totally mechanical system.
> =A2 the system used by Hilborn, is a drool injection system. The
reason it works well in racing is that it is designed for a narrow operatio
n range;
> not unlike aircraft engines.
> =A2 Zora Arkus Duntov began working on a fuel injection system fo
r the small block Chevy in 1955. At that time, the only option was a drool s
ystem.
> - It had to be streetable. However, it was designed to run at WOT (w
ide-open-throttle).
> - There is a guy here in Auburn who as a 57 FI Corvette engine in his
"T" hot rod. I asked for and got a ride around the block.
> It idled smoothly, acceleration was awesome, and seemed quite docil
e.
> =A2 Early GM electronic fuel injection (80s) used what is known a
s 'Batch" injection. That is, one bank of cylinders on a V8 would get one s
hot of fuel.
> 3. The "Primer" port is NOT used. There is a port on the top of the cylin
der just opposite the primer port. The fuel injection nozzle goes in there.
> =A2 Fuel is never injected into the cylinder. The only applicati
on of fuel being injected into the cylinder, i.e., the cylinder head, is in '
Direct Injection.'
> The history of direct injection goes back to 1925.
> 4. Because the injector nozzle is designed to entrain air, the top of the e
ngine, in this area near the injectors, must be kept clean.
> 5. High pressure fuel pumps, both mechanical and electric, either together
or separately, can provide the high pressure fuel needed at the injector.
> 6. While it is true that the injector constantly 'drools' fuel into the po
rt, not much is wasted at normal operating speeds.
> =A2 In Barry's rant, he states that "The other cylinders suck in t
he fuel and spit it out." I hope you are aware that the Otto cycle does not h
ave a cycle in
> which the valves open and just pump air though.
> 7. The mechanical aircraft 'drool' fuel injection is designed to work best
at 55% to 100% power. It does an adequate job elsewhere.
> =A2 Since we typically pick an rpm range to operate (cruise) in, t
his isn't an issue. Very little time is spent idling in traffic on the Gold
en Gate.
> 8. Obviously, Sequential Port Fuel Injection, operating closed loop with O
2 sensors, would be the ideal.
> I have the engineering drawings and calculations if you have the mone
y.
>
> A2:
> Barry has absolutely no experience working with the FAA. I have. Barry d
isrespects people he has never met and knows nothing about.
> 1. I personally know many of them at the ACO in LA. All of them are hard w
orking and doing the best they can.
> 2. My only gripe is that the new guard is geared for developing transport a
ircraft. There are not many left who understand GA.
> =A2 That is why the system encourages the use of DERs; Designated E
ngineering Representatives.
> 3. Yes, the FAA has required me to do some lame ass things.
> =A2 [example] They originally wanted me to weave in aluminum stran
ds into my cowling for lightening protection.
> - the DER gave them data showing other GA aircraft with fiberglass cow
lings didn't use lightening protection.
>
> A3:
> Barry advocates a system of no checks and balances, no safety, no recourse
for faulty parts, no recourse for bad engineering.
> 1. I see examples of bad engineering everyday. Lots of examples in the Gr
umman, particularly the 90s AG5B.
> 2. I see shit that has been approved at a manufacturing level that is no w
here near prime time ready.
> =A2 some things are just fucking stupid. See my "dumb design dec
isions" on my web site.
> 3. Yes, the system does not encourage great innovation. But, it will make
you think about what may, or may not, be affected by a mod.
>
> So, regarding 'real' fuel injection. If you've got the money to build som
e prototypes, let's build a direct injected IO360. The cylinder head would n
eed to be modified only slightly. It would need a completely new piston des
ign. And, it will need a LOT of electronics. And, with that, a completely r
edundant electronic system, complete with battery and charging circuit. Tha
t's the tough part. For what? A little better torque in mid range and bett
er fuel economy? So, you want to add a $10,000 fuel injection to your alread
y fuel injected engine to save a gallon or two an hour?
>
> Gary L Vogt
> AuCountry Aviation
> Auburn, CA
>
>
>
>
> From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive@gmail.com>
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:24 AM
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Need 30 year update
>
> Dan:
>
> You have to understand three points before you can understand:
> 1 - How fuel injection works on our engines.
> 2 - What has to be done to satisfy the FAA.
> 3 - What truly controls progress in certified aircraft aviation.
>
> A1 - Fuel injection for our engines does not work - Not in the way you thi
nk it should work. Here is why - Fuel is injected into ALL the cylinders at
the same time. Yes, ALL the cylinders. It is injected into the same area j
ust before the intake valve where the primer primer line goes. And (repeati
ng myself) it is injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time. ONLY the
cylinder that has an open Intake Valve lets the fuel into the cylinder and O
nly that cylinder that puts a Spark to the air:fuel mixture fires. The othe
r cylinders suck in the fuel and spit it out. What a waste! So, if aircraf
t engines just went to a INDIVIDUAL injection system, just think of how much
less fuel would be used.
>
> A2 - Now, this information I do NOT have first hand experience with. But,
you will always hear from those that attempt to get or have gotten an STC; h
ow difficult it is to work with the FAA to obtain the authorization FIRST,
they are a Government organization and that equates to INEFFICIENT - LAZY a
nd self-professed JOB SECURITY. The only other job that is as good is a Wea
therman. They can be wrong all the time and still keep their job. SECOND, O
! Wait a second, there is no second reason. the FIRST covers it all.
>
> A3 - One would consider an engine company as an engineering company. Engi
neering - Innovation and Progress driving a better product. NOT SO!
> Layers, Law Suits and Litigation is the backbone of engine companies. The
y truly believe that 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Putting it another w
ay: They Lost and Won all their battles - The engine is at a state of "If i
t breaks it ain't our fault!" We proved IN COURT, how good our engine is. S
o why open up an new can of worms. Progress is hindered by LAWYERS and supp
orted by FOLLOWERS.
>
> Dan, if you want Engineering - Innovation and Progress - Go EXPERIMENTAL.
At least until the Government takes that away from us also. O! They are, t
hey WILL. Just read the latest Accident Reports from the FAA. They are poi
nting fingers right now... Only time until they get all the senators on the
ir side and have the UN-knowledgeable populous supporting them. HELL! It w
orked for the EPA, why not the FAA!
>
> Barry
> ========
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Dan Veeneman <dan@rotorshop.com> wrote:
>> This is something I haven't understood. Fuel injection has been standard
in automobiles for decades now, eliminating the hassles with a carb and imp
roving efficiency. Why isn't it more prevalent in single-engine airplanes?
Is it just because the general aviation fleet is so old and doing the swap i
s too much (paper)work?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: Need 30 year update |
discover wrote:
> Hi Cannuck,
> This is Ned
> I haven't posted a response yet...just to clarify that was Gary...I think.
> Doesn't Canada have a category that you can put a Tiger into that allows you
Canadians to treat it like our US experimentals? That's what I've been told anyway.
Heh?
> If I were you that's what I'd do no question. I'd take an old Tiger put whatever
power plant I liked in it, say like a 22:1 compression diesel and put Skyview
or Advanced Aero glass EFIS in it add that carbon fiber 20 gallon equivalent
CNG tank in the back then watch the autopilot fly taking off and landing while
only burning around $20 for a couple hours flight.....
> Ned
Unless the rules have changed, I could not fly an owner-maintained aircraft into
the US nor I believe night VFR - thus becomes nothing but a local toy.
--------
AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=396122#396122
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! --
|