---------------------------------------------------------- TeamGrumman-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 07/19/13: 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 01:51 PM - Re: Powerflow (FLYaDIVE) 2. 11:26 PM - Re: Powerflow (Gary L Vogt) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 01:51:12 PM PST US Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow From: FLYaDIVE Sure you do Gary: Just like you ignored the advice on how to do a repair... You are welcome or the advice on plating and metal coating... You are welcome. Gee... The All Great and Wonderful Oz - - Who doesn't realise ALL that HE thinks admires him and worships him; Only takes pity on him for he does not know how to say THANK YOU or GEE I WAS WRONG. Gee... 'Maybe YOU should stick to what you know best...' Oh wait You do ... Being a First Class Sphincter. *Barry* On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Gary L Vogt wrote : > Jim, > > Did you meant his to come to me? Or send it to Barry? > > I generally, as a rule, ignore everything Barry says. > > Gary > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:50 AM, "Jim Shafer" > wrote: > > Hello Barry,**** > > ** ** > > Thank you for the feedback, I do appreciate hearing your opinions on thes e > issues. As is often the case between pilots, any five of us will have at > least seven firmly held opinions on any given topic!**** > > ** ** > > So, here=92s my two cents worth on the points you raised in you most rece nt > post:**** > > ** ** > > a.) IF the Power Flow System were just another working muffler, I wouldn =92t > recommend buying it at all, given the premium price. If you are looking to > add another 10 ' 20 hp worth of performance to your AA5, then our syste m > offers a very economical, well-proven and STC=92d means of doing so. *** * > > ** ** > > b.) As we discussed before, the Power Flow System, installed, will set yo u > back roughly the same amount as the electronic ignition. Either of these > options costs a great deal less than any other means of increasing your > usable horsepower by a similar amount, PLUS they are both STC=92d, which none > of the other options (such as an I/O engine) are. **** > > ** ** > > So, if you just want to replace one power-robbing, gas-guzzling OEM style > muffler with another one of the same design, you can do that for a minima l > up-front outlay. But, if you want to improve both your fuel economy and > the performance of your AA5, you WILL be spending some extra cash to do t he > job. Where you personally choose to spend that extra cash is obviously u p > to you. **** > > ** ** > > b. / #2) Safety, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. If > it=92s zero dark thirty and the engine in my aircraft won=92t start, I > personally would want to have it checked-out before launching into that > darkness ' no matter what modifications have or haven=92t been added to the > aircraft. **** > > ** ** > > Does a shorter take-off roll improve your margin of safety? How about an > extra 100 ' 150 fpm rate of climb? Or a significant improvement in > performance at high density altitudes? Or if an increase in fuel economy > effectively extends your range &/or endurance ' will that help? **** > > ** ** > > Don=92t worry, Barry, answering =93yes=94 to any of the above will not me an you > are not allowed to personally prefer the ElectroAir unit. As I made clea r > in my original post, they are a fine company making a fine product. I al so > agree with you that any company that invests the time, money and effort t o > develop and produce genuine improvements for the legacy GA fleet is worth y > of all the support we can all give them.**** > > ** ** > > As far as our advertising goes: It is very easy for us to say, accurately , > that you will save 1 ' 2 gph in fuel burn, because we DO know what engi ne > is being used: Our systems are only STC=92d for aircraft powered by four very > similar engines: The Lycoming O-320, O-360, I/O-360 and I/O-390. In the > course of getting those STC=92s approved, we have conducted more than 10 > exhaustive (pardon the pun) series of before and after flight tests > measuring fuel flow and aircraft performance on a wide variety of airfram es > (from the experimental Glastar, to the Cardinal 177RG). **** > > ** ** > > Yes, believe it or not, we have actually heard of Brake Specific Fuel > Consumption before. And, yes, the BSFC of the engine does change with th e > addition of the Power Flow. It gets lower. It is literally off the > Lycoming charts, because the BSFC from Lycoming is computed based upon a > neutral stack engine, not the OEM exhaust that the Grumman has and > certainly not computed with a Power Flow. **** > > ** ** > > Look at our dyno numbers (outlined below) from a C172. Yes, I know it is > a C172, but it is the same Lycoming O-320 you will find in a 160 hp > upgraded Traveler or Cheetah:**** > > ** ** > > Stock exhaust: 2563 RPM, computed HP: 133.8, fuel flow of 98.4 #/hr. > (16.4 gph). BSFC (full rich): 0.755 Torque: 274.7**** > > ** ** > > Power Flow exhaust: 2665 RPM, computed HP: 157.1, fuel flow of 100.9 > (16.81 gph). BSFC (full rich): 0.649, Torque: 307.7. **** > > ** ** > > See how the BSFC went DOWN? Despite the large increase in both torque and > RPM? Look in your Lycoming engine book. You can=92t create 23 HP for on ly > 0.4 GPH more. That had to come from improved engine efficiency.**** > > ** ** > > Hot rodders have known for years that a more effective exhaust will > scavenge the cylinder more completely. A tuned exhaust is designed to > empty the cylinder more effectively by shifting the pressure and suction > pulses around to create a suction at the start of the exhaust valve > opening. It=92s not magic and it=92s not rocket science. **** > > ** ** > > With a Power Flow Tuned Exhaust, at your given example of 8 GPH and 2400 > RPM, you would save 0.7 to 1.0 gph when leaning ROP at the same RPM. Tha t > is a savings in fuel burn of approximately 10 to 15%. **** > > ** ** > > And, while you may not find our advertising particularly appealing, it ma y > be helpful to the general discussion to hear what a few folks who have re ad > that advertising and then actually spent some of their hard-earned dollar s > on a Power Flow System have to say on the subject:**** > > ** ** > > *I was happy you don't make false claims, everybody else claims 5 to 10 > kts on every little fairing and piece of plastic they sell, I think > PowerFlow accurately claimed the actual performance gains. I went from 8. 5 > to 8.1 gph fuel flow at 2500 rpm leaned, and my acceleration and climb > performance went up as advertised. My IA and I installed the system in > June, it was 93 degrees on the ramp, and we took off in less than 900 ft > ground roll and were climbing at over 800 fpm, and we both are over 220 l bs > each. - Mr. Thomas Hunter / N8354L / Cessna 172-I with O-320* > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Had the Cherokee out for a $100 hamburger over in Winter Haven today with > the wife. I'm happy to say that all of the stated performance gains with > the Power Flow Exhaust are there, and I'm very pleased with the result. T he > new exhaust is the perfect solution to the issues that had developed on m y > 140, and I feel good knowing that I've got a totally new exhaust system, > instead of a patch on that ancient, old thing. I saw my VSI hit 1000 > FPM today - in climb, not descent!.. That's something new for this plane. > I'm going to put in some new spark plugs and wires and go for total > nirvana! - Mr. Jeff Booker / N1805J / 1968 PA28-140 / O-320**** > > ** ** > > * * > > *One of the best products, Performance/$ ratio I have ever applied on an > aircraft. Nice job guys! 6000' msl take off. Identical aircraft. Mine > had a power flow. 800ft higher coming around the pattern at the take off > roll end of runway than stock exhaust. * > > * * > > *We all hear about the "10% increase in power claims." After modifying > automotive engines for years, most of us think this is baloney because > anyone who makes a piece of plastic to smooth out your air intake claims > it! Well, I bet the PowerFlow exhaust on my aircraft has increased the > power at least 10% . . . Where this really hits home is my increased clim b > capability, living on the front range of the Rocky Mountains. - Mr. Jeff > Bursik / N29379 / 1968 C-177 / O-320* > > * * > > I recently installed a Power Flow exhaust on my Tiger . . . I have > noticed a huge difference in the performance of the airplane, especially > with regard to climb.**** > > ** ** > > It has been extremely hot and humid here in the Virginia Tidewater Region , > with density altitudes of 2000 feet and more, yet my Tiger took off in a > shorter distance (felt like it leaped off the tarmac), and demonstrated a > 150+ foot increased rate of climb.**** > > ** ** > > As you know, our planes are not know for being great climbers, and all > else being equal, this is not only a big performance improvement, but an > major safety factor increase considering taking off with a loaded aircraf t > and increased density altitudes. Not sure you can quantify or put a pric e > on the safety factor. . . .**** > > ** ** > > With respect to increased maintenance, the mechanic and I discussed the > pros and cons before installation, and intend to disassemble and lubricat e > as recommended at annual time. I think will be a small price to play for > the both the increased performance and safety margin. ' *John Wrenn / > AA5B / N74636* > > * * > > * * > > ** ** > > All the Best!**** > > **** > > ** ** > > - Jim Shafer**** > > Power Flow Systems, Inc.**** > > Ph: (877) 693-7356**** > > Fax: (877) 570-9831**** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com [ > mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] > *On Behalf Of *FLYaDIVE > *Sent:* Sunday, July 14, 2013 9:41 AM > *To:* teamgrumman-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow**** > > ** ** > > Jim:**** > > ** ** > > I would purchase a PF System in very short order and I'm planning to, as > long as two things existed:**** > > a> I needed a new muffler - I just can't see* removing a working muffler > to replace it with a working muffler. ***** > > *b> I had/have the excess cash to to the job.***** > > *From these statements you should surely surmise I am not free flowing > with cash and I made my suggestions/statements from the question posted i n > the email. **The question was: "*Which do you think gives the best bang > for the buck, exhaust or ignition?"**** > > This indicates to me the fellow also holds his money in deep regard and i s > not too frivolous - We all are frivolous to a small extent, just because we > have planes - But that does not mean we have to have MMTB (More Money Tha n > Brains). And...**** > > ** ** > > b> What truly will give the most for the investment.**** > > ** ** > > The PF System is an EXTRA it is not a Safety Investment nor is it > something that will stop one from flying.**** > > If it is 22:00 Hrs (DARK) and you are at an airport that has no services > avail what is your major concern - OTHER THAN WEATHER ... WILL THE ENGIN E > START?**** > > A PF System does nothing to ensure that.**** > > A electronic ignition SURE DOES!**** > > > It gives you a hotter spark.**** > > > It gives you cleaner plugs. <-- And that is whether you use the REM40's , > the Better REM37BY's or the Best Fine Wire. An upgrade in plugs is NOT > required, but sure will help. I was misstated by someone that had the id ea > I was making it a mandatory action to upgrade spark plugs because of the > electronic ignition. **** > > > It gives you a TIMED spark especially at altitude where the > Mag efficiency drops off. <-- Electronic Ignition has Vacuum Advance.*** * > > I have flown behind the ElectroAir EXPERIMENTAL system for years and the > system and support of the company has always been phenomenal. I am NOT > pushing ElectroAir is it just the company I have experience with; both as a > company and the product. Let me also add I do not have ANY experience wi th > the STC version of their product. I sure hope it is as good as the > Experimental version and if it is - - - FINALLY - - - A tested and proven > product for us GA Aircraft owners - That I know to work.**** > > ** ** > > Now to address your items:**** > > Your #1 - They give Percentage - PF gives Usage. It is your advertizing > that stinks not the product. How can PF say it gives you 1 to 2 GPH > savings when you don't know the engine being used?**** > > Example; An O-320 which is rated at 150 HP and on mine shows 8 GPH in S&L > in full rich at 2400 RPM at an altitude around 2500 to 3000 Ft... With > your numbers I would be burning 1 to 2 GPH less... That is 6 GPH to 7 GPH > at the same settings. Now here is where we have to get a little scientif ic > and I hope this does not turn people away. **** > > There is a basic term that is used engine industry wide and is Brake > Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC). Here is a link for explaination: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption**** > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption**** > > ** ** > > What you want to look at is the formula: Lbs/Hr/HP**** > > Which is Pounds of fuel burned / Per Hours / Per Horsepower of the engine .. > **** > > There is a range for the number of pounds AND remember it is in pounds so > for most users (US), for it to make sense the Lbs has to converted to GPH .. > **** > > The range is 0.4 to 0.5Lbs/Hr/HP - - - So split the difference and use > 0.45... 0.45x1Hrx150HPx75% Power = 8.4375 GPH pretty damn close to what I > am reading on my FP5L fuel flow gauge. So working backwards my 8 GPH > equates to 0.4375 **** > > ** ** > > the differance between 8 GPH and 8.4375 GPH is 0.4375 GPH or 56 ounces > which is 0.9333 ounces per minute**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > **** > > ** ** > > *Barry***** > > *=93Chop=92d Liver=94***** > > *"The reason Benjamin Franklin was such a great inventor was everything > lay before him. The reason why we don't have great inventors today is, > everyone is trying to reinvent the wheel"***** > > ** ** > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Jim Shafer > wrote:**** > > Hello,**** > > **** > > I think it=92s great that Grumman owners have so many options for upgradi ng > and improving the performance on these fine aircraft.**** > > **** > > Since it is obvious that not every option is right for each individual an d > his aircraft, accurate information is a key requirement enabling each > individual to determine which and how many (if any) of the different > products available make sense for him or her. With that in mind, I=92d l ike > to shed a little additional light on the topics raised by Brock, Dean and > Barry:**** > > **** > > #1.) Yes, you are already paying for fuel ' AND - Both the Electronic > Ignition and the Tuned Exhaust allow you to burn it more efficiently. Th e > fine folks at Electroair state their gains in percent (a 10% - 15% > improvement) while we at Power Flow state our gains in gph (a reduction i n > fuel burn of 1.0 ' 2.0 gph). For most GA aircraft the effective result s > are very close to the same and both companies have had these stated gains > confirmed by hundreds of Customers.**** > > **** > > #2.) Electroair does claim a reduced tendency for plug fowling as a > benefit of their system and I have no reason to doubt their claims. I ca n > also state that there have never been any reports suggesting an increase in > plug fowling as a result of an upgrade to the Power Flow System.**** > > **** > > #3.) Both companies claim increased horsepower as a main benefit and > again, based on each companies track record (3,800+ total Systems install ed > / 300+ AA5 Systems installed since 1999 for Power Flow, 2,500+ total > systems installed since 1992 for Electroair), there is no longer any > credible reason to doubt either company=92s claims. **** > > **** > > The pricing for each system is also remarkably similar: As Barry pointed > out: depending on lead times and applicable discounts the Power Flow Syst em > for a Tiger will run you about $3,500.00 plus five to seven hours of > installation labor. The Electroair costs $3,400.00 plus four to six hour s > of labor to install.**** > > **** > > As to the increase in HP (and if you don=92t see it, Power Flow will give > you your money back) you by no means need to replace or even re-pitch you r > prop to take advantage of it. First and foremost you can immediately use > it where it does the Grumman=92s the most good: in take-off and climb > performance. As I said above, these are fine aircraft. But who among us > hasn=92t been way too up close and personal with the trees at the far end of > a slightly too short runway? What is a shorter take-off roll (by about > 300=92) and a faster rate of climb (by 100 ' 150 fpm) worth to you in t hose > situations?**** > > **** > > Even at cruise altitude you don=92t need to re-pitch or replace the prop to > take advantage of the boost in HP provided by the Power Flow ' just > throttle back and enjoy cruising at your current airspeed while burning 1 .0 > ' 1.5 gph less avfuel. If you=92re a real speed demon and crave that l ast 3 > ' 5 knots in airspeed, go ahead and take it. Unless you=92re already > cruising with your engine at redline rpm, the Power Flow System will give > you an extra 50 ' 100 rpm to play with. Each 100 rpm gets you an extra 5 > knots of airspeed, and you don=92t have to re-pitch the prop to get it.** ** > > **** > > We have had a very small minority (well below 10% and typically those who > frequently participate in air racing) of our Grumman Customers who are so > enamored with the potential for increased speed made possible by the Powe r > Flow System, that they do choose to purchase and install a higher pitched > prop to take full advantage of the extra power. This is by no means a > requirement, but if you happen to enjoy racing, it is another option > available for you.**** > > **** > > #4.) We do offer a ceramic coated tailpipe as a $200.00 option, but it IS > an option (for those owners who take particular pride in the appearance o f > their aircraft) and not a required expense. If the discoloration that > naturally occurs when stainless steel gets hot doesn=92t bother you, ther e is > no need to spend the money. If it does bother you and you don=92t mind u sing > a little elbow grease, the discoloration can be easily wiped away with > common stainless steel polish.**** > > **** > > #5.) Thanks to the dedication and expertise of Power Flow=92s many fine > Dealers nationwide (including several well-respected =93Grumman Guru=92s =94 like > FletchAir, ExcelAir and Gary Vogt) there is no reason on earth why a > Customer would have to live with an =93ugly hole=94 in their cowling. Ye s, our > system requires that a new hole be cut for the relocated exhaust pipe exi t. > Gary, John, or David, or any one of Power Flow=92s several hundred Deale r=92s > nationwide (or even any reasonably competent A&P) can easily make the > existing hole all but disappear.**** > > **** > > The assertion that relocating the tailpipe =93may have ruined your coolin g > airflow=94 is groundless. Thanks to Gary Vogt=92s tireless efforts and > determination, his beautiful =93Jaguar=94 cowling is another excellent up grade > available to Grumman owners in its own right. It is not a requirement fo r > the Power Flow System.**** > > **** > > #6.) So to summarize: The Electroair Electronic Ignition will give you > more horsepower (particularly at higher altitudes) and a 10% -15% > improvement in fuel economy for about $3,400.00 plus 4 ' 6 hours of > installation labor. The Power Flow Tuned Exhaust System will give you mo re > horsepower (about 10 ' 15 more), better take-off and climb performance, and > a 1.0 ' 2.0 gph improvement in fuel economy for about $3,500.00 plus 5 ' 7 > hours of installation labor.**** > > **** > > I don=92t quite see how 7 hours (max) of installation labor can stretch i nto > a month of down time, but maybe that=92s just ole=92 math challenged me.* *** > > **** > > **** > > Which is the right choice for you? Well, like most things in life, the > honest answer seems to be: =93It all depends=94. I hope the facts outlin ed > above will help those who are interested in improving the performance of > their AA5 make that choice based on accurate information. **** > > **** > > And, if you find it impossible to decide, keep in mind that, as has Dean, > several very happy Customers have installed both STC=92d upgrades on thei r > aircraft and gotten the best of both worlds.**** > > **** > > **** > > All the Best!**** > > **** > > - Jim Shafer**** > > Power Flow Systems, Inc.**** > > Ph: (877) 693-7356**** > > Fax: (877) 570-9831**** > > **** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com [mailto: > owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Airport Bum > *Sent:* Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:30 AM**** > > > *To:* teamgrumman-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow**** > > **** > > Call Garner at Fletchair. They have good prices and support the fleet. > Electro air is the brand. Depending on your location, Ken Blackman, Gary > Vogt, Excel Air, Bob Steward, Roscoe Rosche, Barry, or one of the others > can help you with install. > > Kevin**** > > > On Jul 11, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Scott Boyce > wrote:**** > > Which electronic ignition and how much?**** > > **** > > On Jul 11, 2013, at 3:33 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:**** > > ** ** > > Brock:**** > > **** > > Best bang for the buck and without catchings AIDS/HIV or the CRABS...**** > > The Electronic Ignition.**** > > Why?**** > > 1 - You are already paying for the fuel - you might as well burn it more > efficiently.**** > > 2 - Less fouled plugs and NO fouled plugs if you are using REM37BY or a > fine wire plug.**** > > 3 - If you go for the exhaust ($3400 Plus install) and if you get an > improvement in HP - What are you going to do with it? You then need to > repitch your prop IF if can be repitched. If NOT then $3200 for a new pr op > Plus Install.**** > > $6600!!!!**** > > 4 - So next is - Do you care if the exhaust discolors? If you than you d o > the ceramic coat ... What is that Plus $100?**** > > $6700!!!!**** > > 5 - You now just took your standard cowl and cut a ugly hole in it to fit > the new exhaust - Which may have ruined your cooling airflow, SO now you > need or want the better cowl... How much is that I don't recall but lets > say another $3500, Plus Shipping ($250) Plus Install ($3500) Plus Paint > ($500) Plus Extra Parts ($200)... So that equals === $7950**** > > WHAT $7950!!!! !!!!**** > > **** > > Don't forget to add it to the other costs $6700 + $$7950 =$14650...**** > > Big BANG - Big Bucks and NO KISS**** > > **** > > 6 - And now the plane is down for another month of no flying...**** > > **** > > Don't believe my numbers collect your own.**** > > **** > > Oh! How much gas will $14K buy you? Or even $10K? ! ! ! ! > **** > > **** > > *Barry***** > > *=93Chop=92d Liver=94***** > > **** > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Brock wrote:*** * > > I am trying to decide on what my next upgrade should be. Powerflow > exhaust, or electronic ignition. The ignition is a little cheaper, but I > imagine takes more time to install. Is this correct? Which do you think > gives the best bang for the buck, exhaust or ignition? If I get the > exhaust I can start saving for the cowling. > > Sent from my iPad**** > > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Gary L Vogt wrote:* * > ** > > Brock,**** > > **** > > Power Flow for $3400. The ceramic coating is to resist discoloring due t o > heat. Not sure if it's worth it.**** > > **** > > Gary**** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Brock > *To:* "teamgrumman-list@matronics.com" > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 9, 2013 5:08 PM > *Subject:* TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow **** > > > > Hey Gary, > What is your best deal on a powerflow short stack right now? Is the > ceramic tip worth it? What is the point com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/= --> > > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > * ***** > > *========== ** *** > > *courier new,courier"> http://www. matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List***** > > *==========***** > > *cs.com***** > > ==========**** > > matronics.com/contribution**** > > ==========**** > > **** > > * ***** > > * ***** > > *st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Lis t***** > > *tp://forums.matronics.com***** > > *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution***** > > * ***** > > **** > > * ***** > > * ***** > > *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www. matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List***** > > *href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com***** > > *href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/ contribution***** > > * ***** > > **** > > * ***** > > * ***** > > *======================== ===========***** > > *t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List***** > > *======================== ===========***** > > *cs.com***** > > *======================== ===========***** > > *matronics.com/contribution***** > > *======================== ===========***** > > * ***** > > * ***** > > * ***** > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List***** > > *http://forums.matronics.com***** > > *http://www.matronics.com/contribution***** > > * ***** > > * * > > * * > > *st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Lis t* > > * * > > *tp://forums.matronics.com* > > *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution* > > * * > > ** ** > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List* > > ** > > ** > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* > > * * > > * > > ======================== > t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List > ======================== ===========cs.com > ======================== ===========matronics.com/contribution > ======================== > * > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 11:26:14 PM PST US Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow From: Gary L Vogt Well, Barry, as usual, you're right. I am a sphincter . . . . At times. It's just that sometimes you go off on topics that, to me, you don't treat f airly. And, rather than offering logical recommendations, all I read is subj ective condemnation and opinion. The power flow is one example. Fuel inject ion is another. I've had a Power Flow on my plane almost since the day I bought it. I've ins talled many of them. Do I like everything? No I don't. But I love the way t hey fit. I love the they're made. I recommend the PFS because, on my plane, t he EGT spread went from 150 degrees to 50 degrees compared to the stock muff ler. (As a side note, my EGT spread increased back to 150+ degrees with the K &N filter.) What would I change? The support mount for the muffler is a marginal compro mise. I think the instructions to make the pipe stick out the middle of the e xit ramp is wrong. I would make the risers shorter to raise the effective rp m band. ....... The EAA had a really good article on exhaust system design w ith really good charts showing cause and effect for a number of design chang es. I would publish real hp vs rpm comparisons using, for example, an O360-A4K w ith the stock muffler vs the PFS showing what the difference is. That's a di fficult and costly undertaking to duplicate conditions accurately, but, stil l, it needs to be done. Thanks for your candor Barry. Gary Sent from my iPad On Jul 19, 2013, at 1:50 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote: > Sure you do Gary: > > Just like you ignored the advice on how to do a repair... You are welcome or the advice on plating and metal coating... You are welcome. Gee... The A ll Great and Wonderful Oz - - Who doesn't realise ALL that HE thinks admire s him and worships him; Only takes pity on him for he does not know how to s ay THANK YOU or GEE I WAS WRONG. > > Gee... 'Maybe YOU should stick to what you know best...' Oh wait You do . .. Being a First Class Sphincter. > Barry > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Gary L Vogt wrot e: >> Jim, >> >> Did you meant his to come to me? Or send it to Barry? >> >> I generally, as a rule, ignore everything Barry says. >> >> Gary >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:50 AM, "Jim Shafer" wrot e: >> >>> Hello Barry, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for the feedback, I do appreciate hearing your opinions on the se issues. As is often the case between pilots, any five of us will have at least seven firmly held opinions on any given topic! >>> >>> >>> >>> So, here=99s my two cents worth on the points you raised in you mo st recent post: >>> >>> >>> >>> a.) IF the Power Flow System were just another working muffler, I wouldn =99t recommend buying it at all, given the premium price. If you are l ooking to add another 10 =93 20 hp worth of performance to your AA5, t hen our system offers a very economical, well-proven and STC=99d means of doing so. >>> >>> >>> >>> b.) As we discussed before, the Power Flow System, installed, will set y ou back roughly the same amount as the electronic ignition. Either of these options costs a great deal less than any other means of increasing your usa ble horsepower by a similar amount, PLUS they are both STC=99d, which n one of the other options (such as an I/O engine) are. >>> >>> >>> >>> So, if you just want to replace one power-robbing, gas-guzzling OEM styl e muffler with another one of the same design, you can do that for a minimal up-front outlay. But, if you want to improve both your fuel economy and t he performance of your AA5, you WILL be spending some extra cash to do the j ob. Where you personally choose to spend that extra cash is obviously up to you. >>> >>> >>> >>> b. / #2) Safety, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. If i t=99s zero dark thirty and the engine in my aircraft won=99t sta rt, I personally would want to have it checked-out before launching into tha t darkness =93 no matter what modifications have or haven=99t be en added to the aircraft. >>> >>> >>> >>> Does a shorter take-off roll improve your margin of safety? How about a n extra 100 =93 150 fpm rate of climb? Or a significant improvement i n performance at high density altitudes? Or if an increase in fuel economy e ffectively extends your range &/or endurance =93 will that help? >>> >>> >>> >>> Don=99t worry, Barry, answering =9Cyes=9D to any of th e above will not mean you are not allowed to personally prefer the ElectroAi r unit. As I made clear in my original post, they are a fine company making a fine product. I also agree with you that any company that invests the ti me, money and effort to develop and produce genuine improvements for the leg acy GA fleet is worthy of all the support we can all give them. >>> >>> >>> >>> As far as our advertising goes: It is very easy for us to say, accuratel y, that you will save 1 =93 2 gph in fuel burn, because we DO know wha t engine is being used: Our systems are only STC=99d for aircraft powe red by four very similar engines: The Lycoming O-320, O-360, I/O-360 and I/O -390. In the course of getting those STC=99s approved, we have conduc ted more than 10 exhaustive (pardon the pun) series of before and after flig ht tests measuring fuel flow and aircraft performance on a wide variety of a irframes (from the experimental Glastar, to the Cardinal 177RG). >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, believe it or not, we have actually heard of Brake Specific Fuel Co nsumption before. And, yes, the BSFC of the engine does change with the add ition of the Power Flow. It gets lower. It is literally off the Lycoming ch arts, because the BSFC from Lycoming is computed based upon a neutral stack e ngine, not the OEM exhaust that the Grumman has and certainly not computed w ith a Power Flow. >>> >>> >>> >>> Look at our dyno numbers (outlined below) from a C172. Yes, I know it i s a C172, but it is the same Lycoming O-320 you will find in a 160 hp upgrad ed Traveler or Cheetah: >>> >>> >>> >>> Stock exhaust: 2563 RPM, computed HP: 133.8, fuel flow of 98.4 #/hr. ( 16.4 gph). BSFC (full rich): 0.755 Torque: 274.7 >>> >>> >>> >>> Power Flow exhaust: 2665 RPM, computed HP: 157.1, fuel flow of 100.9 ( 16.81 gph). BSFC (full rich): 0.649, Torque: 307.7. >>> >>> >>> >>> See how the BSFC went DOWN? Despite the large increase in both torque an d RPM? Look in your Lycoming engine book. You can=99t create 23 HP f or only 0.4 GPH more. That had to come from improved engine efficiency. >>> >>> >>> >>> Hot rodders have known for years that a more effective exhaust will scav enge the cylinder more completely. A tuned exhaust is designed to empty the cylinder more effectively by shifting the pressure and suction pulses aroun d to create a suction at the start of the exhaust valve opening. It=99 s not magic and it=99s not rocket science. >>> >>> >>> >>> With a Power Flow Tuned Exhaust, at your given example of 8 GPH and 2400 RPM, you would save 0.7 to 1.0 gph when leaning ROP at the same RPM. That i s a savings in fuel burn of approximately 10 to 15%. >>> >>> >>> >>> And, while you may not find our advertising particularly appealing, it m ay be helpful to the general discussion to hear what a few folks who have re ad that advertising and then actually spent some of their hard-earned dollar s on a Power Flow System have to say on the subject: >>> >>> >>> >>> I was happy you don't make false claims, everybody else claims 5 to 10 k ts on every little fairing and piece of plastic they sell, I think PowerFlow accurately claimed the actual performance gains. I went from 8.5 to 8.1 gph fuel flow at 2500 rpm leaned, and my acceleration and climb performance wen t up as advertised. My IA and I installed the system in June, it was 93 degr ees on the ramp, and we took off in less than 900 ft ground roll and were cl imbing at over 800 fpm, and we both are over 220 lbs each. - Mr. Thomas Hunt er / N8354L / Cessna 172-I with O-320 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Had the Cherokee out for a $100 hamburger over in Winter Haven today wit h the wife. I'm happy to say that all of the stated performance gains with t he Power Flow Exhaust are there, and I'm very pleased with the result. The n ew exhaust is the perfect solution to the issues that had developed on my 14 0, and I feel good knowing that I've got a totally new exhaust system, inste ad of a patch on that ancient, old thing. I saw my VSI hit 1000 FPM today - in climb, not descent!.. That's something new for this plane. I'm going to p ut in some new spark plugs and wires and go for total nirvana! - Mr. Jeff Bo oker / N1805J / 1968 PA28-140 / O-320 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> One of the best products, Performance/$ ratio I have ever applied on an a ircraft. Nice job guys! 6000' msl take off. Identical aircraft. Mine had a power flow. 800ft higher coming around the pattern at the take off roll e nd of runway than stock exhaust. >>> >>> >>> >>> We all hear about the "10% increase in power claims." After modifying a utomotive engines for years, most of us think this is baloney because anyone who makes a piece of plastic to smooth out your air intake claims it! Wel l, I bet the PowerFlow exhaust on my aircraft has increased the power at lea st 10% . . . Where this really hits home is my increased climb capability, l iving on the front range of the Rocky Mountains. - Mr. Jeff Bursik / N29379 / 1968 C-177 / O-320 >>> >>> >>> >>> I recently installed a Power Flow exhaust on my Tiger . . . I have noti ced a huge difference in the performance of the airplane, especially with re gard to climb. >>> >>> >>> >>> It has been extremely hot and humid here in the Virginia Tidewater Regio n, with density altitudes of 2000 feet and more, yet my Tiger took off in a s horter distance (felt like it leaped off the tarmac), and demonstrated a 150 + foot increased rate of climb. >>> >>> >>> >>> As you know, our planes are not know for being great climbers, and all e lse being equal, this is not only a big performance improvement, but an majo r safety factor increase considering taking off with a loaded aircraft and i ncreased density altitudes. Not sure you can quantify or put a price on the safety factor. . . . >>> >>> >>> >>> With respect to increased maintenance, the mechanic and I discussed the p ros and cons before installation, and intend to disassemble and lubricate as recommended at annual time. I think will be a small price to play for the b oth the increased performance and safety margin. =93 John Wrenn / AA5 B / N74636 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> All the Best! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - Jim Shafer >>> >>> Power Flow Systems, Inc. >>> >>> Ph: (877) 693-7356 >>> >>> Fax: (877) 570-9831 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrum man-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE >>> Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 9:41 AM >>> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com >>> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow >>> >>> >>> >>> Jim: >>> >>> >>> >>> I would purchase a PF System in very short order and I'm planning to, as long as two things existed: >>> >>> a> I needed a new muffler - I just can't see removing a working muffler t o replace it with a working muffler. >>> >>> b> I had/have the excess cash to to the job. >>> >>> =46rom these statements you should surely surmise I am not free flowing w ith cash and I made my suggestions/statements from the question posted in th e email. The question was: "Which do you think gives the best bang for the b uck, exhaust or ignition?" >>> >>> This indicates to me the fellow also holds his money in deep regard and i s not too frivolous - We all are frivolous to a small extent, just because w e have planes - But that does not mean we have to have MMTB (More Money Than Brains). And... >>> >>> >>> >>> b> What truly will give the most for the investment. >>> >>> >>> >>> The PF System is an EXTRA it is not a Safety Investment nor is it someth ing that will stop one from flying. >>> >>> If it is 22:00 Hrs (DARK) and you are at an airport that has no services avail what is your major concern - OTHER THAN WEATHER ... WILL THE ENGINE S TART? >>> >>> A PF System does nothing to ensure that. >>> >>> A electronic ignition SURE DOES! >>> >>> > It gives you a hotter spark. >>> >>> > It gives you cleaner plugs. <-- And that is whether you use the REM40' s, the Better REM37BY's or the Best Fine Wire. An upgrade in plugs is NOT r equired, but sure will help. I was misstated by someone that had the idea I was making it a mandatory action to upgrade spark plugs because of the elec tronic ignition. >>> >>> > It gives you a TIMED spark especially at altitude where the Mag effici ency drops off. <-- Electronic Ignition has Vacuum Advance. >>> >>> I have flown behind the ElectroAir EXPERIMENTAL system for years and the system and support of the company has always been phenomenal. I am NOT pus hing ElectroAir is it just the company I have experience with; both as a com pany and the product. Let me also add I do not have ANY experience with the STC version of their product. I sure hope it is as good as the Experimenta l version and if it is - - - FINALLY - - - A tested and proven product for u s GA Aircraft owners - That I know to work. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now to address your items: >>> >>> Your #1 - They give Percentage - PF gives Usage. It is your advertizing that stinks not the product. How can PF say it gives you 1 to 2 GPH saving s when you don't know the engine being used? >>> >>> Example; An O-320 which is rated at 150 HP and on mine shows 8 GPH in S& L in full rich at 2400 RPM at an altitude around 2500 to 3000 Ft... With yo ur numbers I would be burning 1 to 2 GPH less... That is 6 GPH to 7 GPH at t he same settings. Now here is where we have to get a little scientific and I hope this does not turn people away. >>> >>> There is a basic term that is used engine industry wide and is Brake Spe cific Fuel Consumption (BSFC). Here is a link for explaination: http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption >>> >>> >>> >>> What you want to look at is the formula: Lbs/Hr/HP >>> >>> Which is Pounds of fuel burned / Per Hours / Per Horsepower of the engin e. >>> >>> There is a range for the number of pounds AND remember it is in pounds s o for most users (US), for it to make sense the Lbs has to converted to GPH. >>> >>> The range is 0.4 to 0.5Lbs/Hr/HP - - - So split the difference and use 0 .45... 0.45x1Hrx150HPx75% Power = 8.4375 GPH pretty damn close to what I a m reading on my FP5L fuel flow gauge. So working backwards my 8 GPH equates to 0.4375 >>> >>> >>> >>> the differance between 8 GPH and 8.4375 GPH is 0.4375 GPH or 56 ounces w hich is 0.9333 ounces per minute >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Barry >>> >>> =9CChop=99d Liver=9D >>> >>> "The reason Benjamin Franklin was such a great inventor was everything l ay before him. The reason why we don't have great inventors today is, every one is trying to reinvent the wheel" >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Jim Shafer w rote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> >>> I think it=99s great that Grumman owners have so many options for u pgrading and improving the performance on these fine aircraft. >>> >>> >>> >>> Since it is obvious that not every option is right for each individual a nd his aircraft, accurate information is a key requirement enabling each ind ividual to determine which and how many (if any) of the different products a vailable make sense for him or her. With that in mind, I=99d like to s hed a little additional light on the topics raised by Brock, Dean and Barry: >>> >>> >>> >>> #1.) Yes, you are already paying for fuel =93 AND - Both the Elect ronic Ignition and the Tuned Exhaust allow you to burn it more efficiently. The fine folks at Electroair state their gains in percent (a 10% - 15% impr ovement) while we at Power Flow state our gains in gph (a reduction in fuel b urn of 1.0 =93 2.0 gph). For most GA aircraft the effective results a re very close to the same and both companies have had these stated gains con firmed by hundreds of Customers. >>> >>> >>> >>> #2.) Electroair does claim a reduced tendency for plug fowling as a bene fit of their system and I have no reason to doubt their claims. I can also s tate that there have never been any reports suggesting an increase in plug f owling as a result of an upgrade to the Power Flow System. >>> >>> >>> >>> #3.) Both companies claim increased horsepower as a main benefit and aga in, based on each companies track record (3,800+ total Systems installed / 3 00+ AA5 Systems installed since 1999 for Power Flow, 2,500+ total systems in stalled since 1992 for Electroair), there is no longer any credible reason t o doubt either company=99s claims. >>> >>> >>> >>> The pricing for each system is also remarkably similar: As Barry pointe d out: depending on lead times and applicable discounts the Power Flow Syste m for a Tiger will run you about $3,500.00 plus five to seven hours of insta llation labor. The Electroair costs $3,400.00 plus four to six hours of lab or to install. >>> >>> >>> >>> As to the increase in HP (and if you don=99t see it, Power Flow wi ll give you your money back) you by no means need to replace or even re-pitc h your prop to take advantage of it. First and foremost you can immediately use it where it does the Grumman=99s the most good: in take-off and c limb performance. As I said above, these are fine aircraft. But who among u s hasn=99t been way too up close and personal with the trees at the fa r end of a slightly too short runway? What is a shorter take-off roll (by a bout 300=99) and a faster rate of climb (by 100 =93 150 fpm) wor th to you in those situations? >>> >>> >>> >>> Even at cruise altitude you don=99t need to re-pitch or replace th e prop to take advantage of the boost in HP provided by the Power Flow =93 just throttle back and enjoy cruising at your current airspeed while bur ning 1.0 =93 1.5 gph less avfuel. If you=99re a real speed demo n and crave that last 3 =93 5 knots in airspeed, go ahead and take it. Unless you=99re already cruising with your engine at redline rpm, th e Power Flow System will give you an extra 50 =93 100 rpm to play with . Each 100 rpm gets you an extra 5 knots of airspeed, and you don=99t have to re-pitch the prop to get it. >>> >>> >>> >>> We have had a very small minority (well below 10% and typically those wh o frequently participate in air racing) of our Grumman Customers who are so e namored with the potential for increased speed made possible by the Power Fl ow System, that they do choose to purchase and install a higher pitched prop to take full advantage of the extra power. This is by no means a requireme nt, but if you happen to enjoy racing, it is another option available for yo u. >>> >>> >>> >>> #4.) We do offer a ceramic coated tailpipe as a $200.00 option, but it I S an option (for those owners who take particular pride in the appearance of their aircraft) and not a required expense. If the discoloration that natu rally occurs when stainless steel gets hot doesn=99t bother you, there is no need to spend the money. If it does bother you and you don=99t mind using a little elbow grease, the discoloration can be easily wiped awa y with common stainless steel polish. >>> >>> >>> >>> #5.) Thanks to the dedication and expertise of Power Flow=99s many fine Dealers nationwide (including several well-respected =9CGrumman G uru=99s=9D like FletchAir, ExcelAir and Gary Vogt) there is no r eason on earth why a Customer would have to live with an =9Cugly hole =9D in their cowling. Yes, our system requires that a new hole be cut fo r the relocated exhaust pipe exit. Gary, John, or David, or any one of Powe r Flow=99s several hundred Dealer=99s nationwide (or even any re asonably competent A&P) can easily make the existing hole all but disappear. >>> >>> >>> >>> The assertion that relocating the tailpipe =9Cmay have ruined your cooling airflow=9D is groundless. Thanks to Gary Vogt=99s tire less efforts and determination, his beautiful =9CJaguar=9D cowli ng is another excellent upgrade available to Grumman owners in its own right . It is not a requirement for the Power Flow System. >>> >>> >>> >>> #6.) So to summarize: The Electroair Electronic Ignition will give you m ore horsepower (particularly at higher altitudes) and a 10% -15% improvement in fuel economy for about $3,400.00 plus 4 =93 6 hours of installatio n labor. The Power Flow Tuned Exhaust System will give you more horsepower ( about 10 =93 15 more), better take-off and climb performance, and a 1. 0 =93 2.0 gph improvement in fuel economy for about $3,500.00 plus 5 =93 7 hours of installation labor. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don=99t quite see how 7 hours (max) of installation labor can st retch into a month of down time, but maybe that=99s just ole=99 m ath challenged me. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Which is the right choice for you? Well, like most things in life, the h onest answer seems to be: =9CIt all depends=9D. I hope the fact s outlined above will help those who are interested in improving the perform ance of their AA5 make that choice based on accurate information. >>> >>> >>> >>> And, if you find it impossible to decide, keep in mind that, as has Dean , several very happy Customers have installed both STC=99d upgrades on their aircraft and gotten the best of both worlds. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> All the Best! >>> >>> >>> >>> - Jim Shafer >>> >>> Power Flow Systems, Inc. >>> >>> Ph: (877) 693-7356 >>> >>> Fax: (877) 570-9831 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrum man-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Airport Bum >>> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:30 AM >>> >>> >>> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com >>> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow >>> >>> >>> >>> Call Garner at Fletchair. They have good prices and support the fleet. Electro air is the brand. Depending on your location, Ken Blackman, Gary Vo gt, Excel Air, Bob Steward, Roscoe Rosche, Barry, or one of the others can h elp you with install. >>> >>> Kevin >>> >>> >>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Scott Boyce wro te: >>> >>>> Which electronic ignition and how much? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 3:33 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Brock: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best bang for the buck and without catchings AIDS/HIV or the CRABS... >>>> >>>> The Electronic Ignition. >>>> >>>> Why? >>>> >>>> 1 - You are already paying for the fuel - you might as well burn it mor e efficiently. >>>> >>>> 2 - Less fouled plugs and NO fouled plugs if you are using REM37BY or a fine wire plug. >>>> >>>> 3 - If you go for the exhaust ($3400 Plus install) and if you get an im provement in HP - What are you going to do with it? You then need to repitc h your prop IF if can be repitched. If NOT then $3200 for a new prop Plus I nstall. >>>> >>>> $6600!!!! >>>> >>>> 4 - So next is - Do you care if the exhaust discolors? If you than you do the ceramic coat ... What is that Plus $100? >>>> >>>> $6700!!!! >>>> >>>> 5 - You now just took your standard cowl and cut a ugly hole in it to f it the new exhaust - Which may have ruined your cooling airflow, SO now you n eed or want the better cowl... How much is that I don't recall but lets say another $3500, Plus Shipping ($250) Plus Install ($3500) Plus Paint ($500) P lus Extra Parts ($200)... So that equals === $7950 >>>> >>>> WHAT $7950!!!! !!!! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Don't forget to add it to the other costs $6700 + $$7950 =$14650... >>>> >>>> Big BANG - Big Bucks and NO KISS >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 6 - And now the plane is down for another month of no flying... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Don't believe my numbers collect your own. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Oh! How much gas will $14K buy you? Or even $10K? ! ! ! ! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Barry >>>> >>>> =9CChop=99d Liver=9D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Brock wrote: >>>> >>>> I am trying to decide on what my next upgrade should be. Powerflow exha ust, or electronic ignition. The ignition is a little cheaper, but I imagine takes more time to install. Is this correct? Which do you think gives the b est bang for the buck, exhaust or ignition? If I get the exhaust I can star t saving for the cowling. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 10, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Gary L Vogt wrote : >>>> >>>>> Brock, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Power Flow for $3400. The ceramic coating is to resist discoloring du e to heat. Not sure if it's worth it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Brock >>>>> To: "teamgrumman-list@matronics.com" >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 5:08 PM >>>>> Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hey Gary, >>>>> What is your best deal on a powerflow short stack right now? Is the ceramic tip worth it? What is the point com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List" tar get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/= --> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ========= >>>>> courier new,courier">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Li st >>>>> ========= >>>>> cs.com >>>>> ========= >>>>> matronics.com/contribution >>>>> ========= >>>> >>>> >>>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Li st >>>> tp://forums.matronics.com >>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www .matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List >>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com >>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com /contribution >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ======================== >>>> t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List >>>> ======================== >>>> cs.com >>>> ======================== >>>> matronics.com/contribution >>>> ======================== >>> >>> >>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List >>> http://forums.matronics.com >>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution >>> >>> >>> >>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Lis t >>> >>> tp://forums.matronics.com >>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List >>> http://forums.matronics.com >>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution >>> >>> >>> >>> ========= >>> t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List >>> ========= >>> cs.com >>> ========= >>> matronics.com/contribution >>> ========= >>> >> >> >> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message teamgrumman-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/TeamGrumman-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/teamgrumman-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/teamgrumman-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.