Bud,
Thanks very much for your explanations below, a great read and very
illuminating. I didn't realize you had done work with Jason Parker.
Agree with everything you have said. The 914's running upward of 60" MP,
effectively doubling their mas flow, I can't see how they would not
ping, blow head gaskets and hole pistons, scary stuff.
On your first line, you mention 2.27, i'm assuming a simple typo and
meant 2.43. As the weight of the 914 is pretty much the same as the
912Is, and based on your numerous advice, a 914 is the go if I can put
up with those silly carby things. I spent many years playing with
Holleys, I thought I was over ever having to rebuild of fault find these
things : )
Cheers
Brian Phillips
On 14/11/2022 5:17 am, Bud Yerly wrote:
>
> Let me try to shed some light here from experience.The cost to
> performance issue has been around since airplanes became accepted as a
> necessary part of higher speed transportation.
>
> First:Propellers fly on torque.The reason the 2.27 gearbox was better
> for the Columbians was the wide chord Warp Blade requires too much
> torque in comparison to the 914, hence the 912 (80HP) even with lower
> normalized boost hasnt sufficient torque to pull a wide chord Warp at
> full power.Had narrower chord blade been selected, fixed or constant
> speed prop, these issues change a lot.Too many for this level of
> discussion.At sea level manifold pressure with no losses the 80HP
> Rotax cannot turn a fixed 64 inch Wide Chord WD prop set for a 5000
> RMP WOT much beyond about 5200 RPM.Takeoff suffers.Therefore, WD and
> others have smaller diameter or narrow chord blades to match to the
> 80HP Rotax.So, if I turbo normalize the 80 HP engine to 30 or even 35
> inches, the engine/prop combination becomes a compromise of
> changes.Either the pitch has to be changed to decrease torque, the
> boost and therefore mixtures, jetting, fuel grade, and gearbox ratio
> has to be tweaked to make the engine runnable within the narrower
> torque range of engine with a now smaller or narrower prop.
>
> Second:Looking at the cruise speed difference doesnt tell the whole
> story but in fact it does.In high altitude operations, a turbo or
> supercharging is essential to regain sea level performance or perhaps
> a bit more. The back yard mechanics tweaked and tinkered to get a
> truck turbo and custom hand built components and jetting to get around
> the higher cost of the stock 914 due to rather onerous taxation in
> Columbia or as I did, just tinkering.Turbo normalization, prop and
> gearbox selection (but not optimization) led to a workable boost to
> allow reasonable performance for takeoff, climb and some additional
> cruise at altitude.However, without optimized waste gate control, you
> loose efficiency and power in cruise to gain takeoff.So, a turbo
> normalized 912 vs a 914 may only be 10 knots, but it is more than
> that.If you desire to optimize takeoff, climb, and cruise, then a more
> refined means of turbo waste gate control is necessary. That means a
> computer, or at least a circuit card with a application.Will did a
> great job of describing his build situation compromises in his last
> email.For him, it was his choice of compromises.He knew what had
> worked in Columbia to meet his basic requirements/compromises.
>
> Third:The Columbian conversion and the Italian chap (Vz Power) with
> the bolt on turbo or even the Big Bore conversions are all
> interesting experiments in getting around the Austrian overpriced
> 914.After all, the TCU control of a wastegate is not rocket science
> and a stock Garret turbo is only $500.But you have to look at the cost
> to long term maintenance and parts availability issues also.In my
> working with Jason Parker on a degraded Predator Drone engine, we put
> a stock Garett Turbo, a waste gate dashpot and an SDS fuel injection
> on a 2015 9XX Rotax stronger block (now stock on all Rotax
> engines).Jason removed the cylinders/heads, installed forged pistons,
> worked fuel mapping and boost control to get a very workable engine
> for about $15000 less than a 914 and a lot less than a 915.However,
> who got paid back for investing in all this work.Not I, as I didnt
> ask for any, but Jason lost 3 years of his life (but was hired to a
> lucrative position in defense) for all his work.About 25 engines were
> modified and very quickly sold.Half of them however were tinkered with
> by knowledgeable amateurs/experimenter and eventually blew up
> cylinders and pistons when tweaked to 60 inches of MP for superb
> takeoff and climb.When you modify an existing engine for more power,
> you always trade off something.
>
> My hat is off to those attempting to improve the internal combustion
> piston engine.Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, and others developed
> wonderfully complex hydromechanical control systems to increase engine
> power and in some cases longevity and many other manufacturers
> capitalized on that from the 1930s to the 50s until the demise of
> the high powered piston aircraft engine.The internal combustion piston
> engine was left as a necessary evil mired in inefficiency and
> relegated to mass produced autos.But then, about 20 years ago
> computer/digital systems became cheap and available.Toyotas TRD
> division, Fords Racing, Mercedes and BMW as well as other motor
> divisions have developed wonderfully powerful and more efficient
> engines.Today modern electronic controls finally bring these dinosaur
> piston engines into greater efficiency.Supercharging and
> Turbo-super-charging can be electronically controlled with the fuel
> injection to prevent untrained operators from blowing them up and
> produced an automobile engine that is high powered and yet a reliable
> daily use vehicle.However, more power means the more your inspection
> and installation requirements go up, improved cooling, higher octane
> fuel types and improved electronic sensoring to keep it all running
> flawlessly.Luckily, we dont push our autos to the extreme we push our
> aircraft engines.(Although I did leave a Porsche 4 seater in the dirt
> with my 495 HP pickup truck from the stoplight a few months ago which
> was great fun for a couple of old guys, but he will never forget to be
> in sport mode again if he sees me..)
>
> In the many compromises we make in building an aircraft, never forget
> that the engine and prop are the powerplant.The engine supplies torque
> to the torque converter (propeller) and if you are smart, a variable
> pitch propeller.This prop choice allows one to take every bit of power
> the engine can produce for takeoff, and climb, then power down to 75%
> and run a few thousand hours with the prop pulling full power out of
> the available HP and Torque for cruise also.HP is the rate of work,
> torque is the twisting force and the twisting force/RPM is what is
> important for cruise.The 914 has reasonably optimized all these and
> with a constant speed (or variable pitch (with higher pilot work
> load)) prop is not only more efficient, but is mechanically more
> reliable than a fixed or mechanically controlled wastegate.Is it
> perfect, no, is it overpriced, yes, and am I frustrated with their
> turbo rebuild fiasco of a repair program, absolutely (a turbo only
> costs about $400 to rebuild and Rotax wants you to replace it for
> $8000, that is just plain greedy).Do I like turbo normalization (30
> inches), yes, do I like more boost absolutely, but at what cost and
> reliability?
>
> For me, Ill stick with my 914 because I can get parts, it is easy to
> troubleshoot from the TCU to the carbs and frankly just plugs onto the
> front of my Europa.Is it as nice an engine as the high tech 915, no
> way, but the extra stuff on the 915 doesnt really suit my aircraft or
> pocketbook.Performance wise, if I want to suck on oxygen and fly at
> 17,500 MSL to get 160 Kts. Vs 143 at 10,000 feet ish, it is worth it
> for me to stick to the 914 rather than upgrade and change everything
> on the FWF to match a different engine, then rebalance the aircraft.My
> drag curve goes much more vertical above 140 Knots and frankly, the
> only advantage of the 915 is rate of climb (thats HP or rate of work)
> but my top cruise increase is going to be less spectacular for all
> that work, extra weight and fuel burn.Ah compromises!
>
> Choose wisely to meet your requirements.Everyone has a different
> flying mission for their aircraft.The stock 912S (100HP) is a nice
> option for the Europa for a lower altitude performer.The UL engine is
> gaining popularity (Im still not completely sure why, as the
> performance increases with most planes isnt showing up in cruise
> performance, and prop performance to match at this time is being
> worked out).It is a well engineered product though and impressive.But
> is it as maintainable over time.Time will tell.Although Airmaster has
> attacked that faster spinning UL issue in an attempt to match the
> engine power/torque to a propeller, as of today, results are
> encouraging.The faster spinning UL has only about the same torque as
> the Rotax 9 series.The higher power meant more cooling issues, higher
> octane fuel (100LL is best) and it appears that the engine cant be
> lugged down to lower RPMs most likely due to detonation, hence the
> faster spinning engine (pump) must be electronically leaned for
> efficiency and hence cooling rears its ugly head.The UL 350 series
> engine develops max torque (330nm or 230Ft/lbs.) at about 23-2400 RPM
> which is 100 HP at sea level but at about 25L/Hr. or 6.6 GPH.Note the
> fall off of torque as RPM increases.The gearbox makes a difference in
> how hard you pull the RPM down vs using the fuel to prevent detonation
> by running a bit richer.That is not a great leap over the 912iS or
> even the 912S in cruise speed, at and the UL is at a higher fuel
> burn.At altitude though the HP drops significantly an any normally
> aspirated engine and on the 350iS and 912iS as the fuel burn goes down
> to about 17L/Hr. or 4.5 GPH.Not bad and comparable to the Rotax 912iS
> and 912S _with a HacMan leaning kit_. Since 2018, UL is continuing to
> solve all these issues as they attempt to overcome the inefficiencies
> of the dinosaur horizontally opposed air cooled engine issues in
> aircraft through fuel mapping, compression ratio, and timing
> controls.Good on them. Rotax was forced to catch up.And did they do it
> well.Well, that remains to be seen.
>
> The 914 like the 912/912S fits the cowl FWF package without major
> issue (you got to do the cooling work though). Extra power means extra
> heat to dissipate.The UL teething issues are mostly from poor cowl
> design or execution in my opinion which will take time and money to
> iron out (why cowl flaps are not used by manufacturers I cannot
> explain).Too bad as they really need an efficient cowl design for
> cruise to get rid of the heat in cruise and cowl flaps in climb to
> cool properly at low speed and high power.In my opinion, the airframe
> manufacturers seem to be indifferent to higher power engines cooling
> needs and settle for all but the most basic lower power engines
> requirements (i.e. it costs them money and time and besides, the
> actual money is in the stock airplane from a sales point of view).
>
> Research is 90% of your time in selecting an airframe and powerplant.I
> prefer to go fly in a similarly equipped aircraft I am considering to
> build, as I can copy or just assemble IAW the manual and achieve an
> acceptable aircraft that will meet or exceed my expectations without
> worry of reliability, longevity, or parts supply.As Ira Rampil told me
> Better is the enemy of Good.One has to raise the issues of cost,
> time, talent and services needed to go from good to better.
>
> Just my opinion and observations!
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bud Yerly
>
> *From:*owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
> <owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com> *On Behalf Of *William Daniell
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 13, 2022 8:42 AM
> *To:* europa-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Europa-List: Re: What did you do with your Europa this
> week - 08/11/22
>
> Yup - the original 2.27:1 wouldnt make the revs with the airmaster
> even in Guaymaral at 8500. My previous plane a ICP Savannah with an
> Ivo had no problem with the 2.27 gearbox. I had the ivo with the
> narrow blades. The 914 gearbox is 2.43:1.
>
> Theres a lot of experience with this conversion in Colombia - they
> even claim they turbo-ed the 912 before rotax. It could be true -
> you never know with Colombia. But in any case I wasnt the pioneer.
> Its a well understood process. The chap who did it for me turned
> up all the required components with nicely welded stainless exhausts
> etc installed them and fired up the motor. Worked ever since no
> faffing about.
>
> In any case a 914 would have probably been the way to go but Im a
> cheapskate.Or rather it would have cost me the price plus another
> 15% import tax raising the price to almost USD40k. What with labor
> and parts my current engine cost USD25k.
>
> You dont have to mess with the TCU and it retains the mechanical fuel
> pump (you need an electric pump as well). The mech pump will just
> about keep you flying at 22 MAP.
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 00:58 Brian Phillips <barp99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that Will. Clearly you know what you are doing as you
> have been running it since 2006. Can I ask, why do you need to
> change the gearbox ratio?
> Once you installed the turbo system, did you have to adjust or
> replace it to get it to absorb the power available at higher
> altitudes?
>
> Cheers,
> Brian Phillips.
>
> On 13/11/2022 12:33 am, William Daniell wrote:
>
> I use up to 36 although lots of people in Colombia go up to
> 40. So yes pretty much the same boost as a 914.
>
> If you use a stock 912 you have to add the turbo system and
> airbox exhaust etc as you would expect. And also the oil
> system to feed the turbo none of which is unexpected. A
> bigger main jet is normal. However the gochta is that you
> need to change the gearbox ratio and I put in a slipper
> clutch. All of this can actually be done in a day (the
> exhaust and airbox are made beforehand.)
>
> I have a manual waste gate in this engine but in the previous
> one I had a simple wastegate controller like a car
>
> I flown with this engine since 2006 never had an issue.
>
> The turbo is from a Renault diesel van - made by mitisubishi
>
> Nitrile gaskets on the carbs are necessary otherwise they suck
> air at altitude.
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 23:16 Brian Phillips
> <barp99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that Pete, good to know. As you say, too few
> accumulated hours to build reliable predictability. At
> least the big bore kit does not need any changes to crank,
> which is essentially the same as the 914 with the same
> output. The lighter than standard pistons may even reduce
> crank stresses.
>
> I did look at the Viking options, I could be wrong but I
> seem to remember belt drive issues, recessed valves &
> delivery issues. I believe the crank fillets are smaller
> on auto engines compared to A/C engines, and with the 100%
> duty factor can cause cracks, not sure if this applies to
> the suby though. I do have an EJ25 in my road car, 200K
> miles, no problems, great engine.
>
> William, your Columbian turbo does interest me, I remember
> you used a Mitsubishi turbo. Do you use it to normalize or
> do you actually add a bit more boost in?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian Phillips.
>
> On 11/11/2022 10:30 pm, Pete wrote:
>
> My experience conversing with Edges principal over
> the years, fwiw, is that he is chock full of
> confidence, many good ideas but peppered with some
> critical bad ones -which he will not acknowledge, and
> lets his customers prove him wrong. And some have
> (ex: cracked/failed welded crank). Too few accumulated
> hours to tease out all that pepper.
>
> Same syndrome as Jan at viking (although Jan even
> lacks the engineering basics).
>
> Difficult to watch.
>
> Cheers,
>
> PeteZ
>
>
> On Nov 11, 2022, at 6:13 AM, Brian Phillips
> <barp99@gmail.com> <mailto:barp99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bud, thanks very much for your well laid out
> advice below, much appreciated, your background
> knowledge never ceases to amaze me.
>
> You have talked me out of the 915, the thought of
> doing all the retrofit work, along with the weight
> issues, its just not worth it, and I would never
> finish it. I am still interested in the 912Is, &
> was thinking about the Edge 1484cc big bore kit.
> Your comments below about some of the US based big
> bore kits has got me thinking again. 10.5:1 CR
> does seem a little high, combined with no
> detonation detection feedback loop, does sound a
> bit risky. Edge performance don't play with the
> Rotax FI software, they supply a fuel pressure reg
> that increases the rail pressure, so the pump/s
> are working harder, again an added risk. Add to
> that limited operational history, makes the 914
> look an even better outcome. As you say, 20,000
> compromises flying in close formation.
>
> Cheers,
> Brian Phillips.
>
> On 11/11/2022 4:34 am, Bud Yerly wrote:
>
> Pete, as you are most aware and Brian you are
> learning fast:
>
> Weight is the enemy of an airplane. Especially
> the Europa, as it is a very compact aircraft.
> If I add 15 horsepower, but it moves the CG
> forward, requires a prop extension and a
> constant speed prop, the CG is going to be
> somewhere around the spinner. Now we move the
> battery back, run longer heavier cables and as
> much more to the rear as possible such as
> autopilots, ELTs, etc. to counterbalance the
> nose. The weight just keeps going up. The
> Europa XS is 100 pounds heavier than the
> equivalent Europa Classic even with the XS
> fuselage module and firewall forward. The 912
> 80 HP is not a spectacular performer but will
> give 30 ANMPG at low altitude or with a
> leaning device at altitudes up to about 10,000
> feet. Cruise is in the 120-130 knot range.
> The 912S raised the cruise about 5 knots more.
> The 914 doubles the climb rate, ups cruise to
> at least 140-145 knot range at the same 25
> ANMPG as the 912S on a tricycle gear aircraft
> of course. The mono is faster and lighter of
> course.
>
> As I learned on modifying the 914 to fuel
> injection. Customers moved the boost up to
> get more power but complained it burned more
> fuel. The only advantage was more power with
> less reliability. Fuel burn was basically the
> same at 31 inches and 5000 RPM. So, what did
> I gain? Slightly more power for climb but
> more heat to dissipate, a bigger radiator and
> shallow climb was necessary to cool. BTU
> requirements are the same *for the same amount
> of power* at the same fuel air ratio and
> varies little with displacement. Aircraft
> engines run at constant RPMs like a marine
> engines, so a carb is just as good as fuel
> injection except for altitude performance of a
> normally aspirated engine with no leaning.
> The Bing stops leaning after about 3500 feet
> in the normally aspirated engine. So, an
> after market leaning system is necessary for
> the high altitude flyers to improve fuel
> efficiency of the 912/912S. The Rotax 914 is
> ideal for higher altitude operations and
> frankly ideal for the Europa but at a higher
> cost. I believe the 914 totally transformed
> the Europa into a great airplane. Reliability
> of the 914 is now as good as the 912S but as
> we all know, there are techniques and
> inspections required to keep it running like new.
>
> Normally a 912 through the 914 will go 1000
> hours with only carb maintenance/oil changes.
> Overspeed of the engine is an issue many
> ignore. The valves can and do contact the
> piston if oversped. Prop strikes are ignored
> also by many STOL operators and taildragger/mono.
>
> I do a top overhaul at about 500-600 hours
> (gearbox, clean up the valves, inspect the
> rings/cylinders) and press on. Repeat at 1000
> hours and the engine is good to 1500 hours.
> The cleanup of the valves restores compression
> to like new or better than new and is really a
> surprise when a 914 burps after only about 5
> blades of rotation.
>
> I have no experience with the latest Edge
> Performance engines, but I do with the so
> called "Big Bore" engines done here in the
> States some years ago. They do put out more
> power. But for how long? Over the years the
> stock Rotax 100 HP 912S (especially the new
> blocks) last and last. Most of the Big Bores
> were back in after as short as 200 hours. But
> we have many cowboys here in the States that
> just want more power but won't pay for it to
> get power _and reliability_. I was around for
> the first of these Big Bore mods. As Edge
> Performance has found out, the crank shaft,
> and many other formally robust Rotax parts are
> now under more stress and required "upgrade".
> This costs money. My hats off to them, as
> they have at least backed their engines. In
> their defense, some of our cowboys here in
> the States are running regular car fuel. This
> causes detonation for sure. I cant fix stupid!
>
> If you need more power keep in mind in general
> you will need more gas, gain weight, reduce
> reliability, increase inspection requirements,
> require greater cooling mass, and of course
> add cost. An airplane is 20,000 compromises
> flying in close formation. If you change one
> thing, you affect 20 others. Choose wisely.
>
> Example: Charts are scare still for the 915.
>
> 5000 RPM wide open throttle 87 KW or about 115
> HP (10-20 more than the 914 depending on MP
> and TCU.) Fuel flow 27 L/hr or 7.1GPH.
>
> A 20 HP increase on N12AY (Trigear) yields a
> cruise speed increase of nearly 10-13 Kts
> above 10,000 feet which is better than most.
>
> However, the range in Air Nautical Mile per
> Gallon does not increase it decreases from
> about 25 ANMPG to 20 ANMPG.
>
> The Europa drag goes up beyond 140 Knots by a
> cube root for the trigear. The mono is much
> better at still basically a square root
> curve. More horsepower doesnt give me
> impressive efficiency or speed.
>
> The 914 fits easily in the Europa XS, will
> cool, accepts a constant speed prop without
> issue or added extensions, has a reasonable
> fuel burn and will get you to 10,000 feet in
> about 11-13 minutes in a cruise climb. I can
> put out 70 to 95 horsepower continuous for
> cruise (typically 140-145 for a trigear) or
> max speed. Both the 912S/iS and Big Bore
> require the same octane fuel as the 914 so no
> advantage. The 914 turbo takes care of most of
> the issues with density altitude, it allows
> the Bing to work ideally from cruise to max
> continuous from the surface to service ceiling
> (which is well above 25,000 which is our human
> physiological limit without cabin
> pressurization). We know how to maintain it,
> the TCU has been modified and I can setup,
> troubleshoot or simply run a data dump from my
> laptop running Windows 7 through 10 without a
> special dongle. I dont have Windows 11 yet,
> but it should work also. Carbs are easy to
> balance, and the installation manual is easy
> to follow. Always follow the engine
> installation manual in conjunction with the
> airframe firewall forward manual .
>
> The 915 was never designed to fit a standard
> Rotax engine mount and does not fit most
> experimental aircraft firewall forwards.
> Extensive work is necessary to retrofit the
> 915 to a 912/914 airframe. The 915 is
> unmaintainable but for plugs and oil change
> without a buds system for the average owner
> to tell you what its doing but the
> troubleshooting manual is a bit sparce. Much
> study and patience is needed as the 915 goes
> through its teething issues. It runs lean on
> the ground like the 912iS and will overheat
> easily during an extended taxi out. Automatic
> systems means you the pilot lose control.
> Many 912iS owners hate the power drop off and
> find economy only comes through lower power.
> They have found fuel burn is the same for the
> same speed after an engine change from the S
> to the iS. The 915 has a similar issue with
> the power requirements. It is not like
> hopping into your BMW tubo and everything
> works. It is still like the 1980s first gen
> fuel injection and turbo mods. Today it all
> works flawlessly in our autos, but with larger
> cooling requirements and components taking up
> more space under the hood. The 915 is not
> quite a plug and play engine electrically
> either. Look at Sling and their learning
> curve. The 4 place needs 140-150 HP. The two
> place not so much. Guys are looking hard at
> the difference.
>
> In summary, the Europa was designed for about
> 100HP engines of light weight. It is fast and
> efficient for a 100HP 500 pound payload
> airplane. More weight makes the induced drag
> go up. The mono airframe was not designed to
> go faster than about 170 KTAS at 20,000 feet
> at an empty weight of 900 pounds. If you go
> above 900 pounds empty weight, the plane gets
> sluggish, speed drops and range is decreased.
> In the States, a 1000 mile per day range
> airplane is essential for getting around west
> of the Mississippi river. For my snow birds
> coming from Canada to Florida for the winter,
> they need that range also. Frankly, a bigger
> engine makes for shorter hops, less payload,
> and a longer day. More horsepower is not as
> important as more torque. Torque turns the
> prop, HP just makes it spin up faster.
>
> Keep it light, keep it simple, and it will be
> a trouble-free steed with stock components.
> Work on drag reduction and keeping the weight
> down. Not by slapping more horsepower,
> weight, complexity, and cost on a very small
> airframe.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bud Yerly
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
> <owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com>
> <mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com>
> On Behalf Of Pete
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:59 AM
> To: europa-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Europa-List: Re: What did you do
> with your Europa this week - 08/11/22
>
> <peterz@zutrasoft.com
> <mailto:peterz@zutrasoft.com>>
>
> .except for the concerns of Edge welded
> cranks (cracking), and single point of failure
> (FI).
>
> Cheers,
>
> PeteZ
>
> > On Nov 10, 2022, at 1:58 AM, Area-51
> <goldsteinindustrial@gmail.com
> <mailto:goldsteinindustrial@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >
>
> <goldsteinindustrial@gmail.com
> <mailto:goldsteinindustrial@gmail.com>>
>
> >
>
> > Brian the Edge Performance engines are worth
> looking at if forward mass is a concern... the
> Gen4 6cyl Jabiru is said to finally be showing
> reliability but i would still choose Edge over
> Jabiru
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Read this topic online here:
>
> >
>
> >
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fp%3D508643%23508643&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DmjfwqvqQBLFoORotf%2FyaLw%2FmFIOZbrmrQPIcMlLUf4%3D&reserved=0
<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fp%3D508643%23508643&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1c66837585c94c66deb708dac57d77d8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638039439947308794%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=S63Iw%2FyNFWgDsWtPKnRxzwdXvOpu3Br48y58NMCnpok%3D&reserved=0>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> - The Europa-List Email Forum -
>
> -->
>
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matronics.com%2FNavigator%3FEuropa-List&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wm%2FStj0pmmpyz3Mig2LnRkBfFdsMx6SLnhjzkK37%2Bc0%3D&reserved=0
>
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matronics.com%2FNavigator%3FEuropa-List&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1c66837585c94c66deb708dac57d77d8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638039439947308794%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K%2Falv%2FkcTBjljLCyZizZylnFxQ5jQytrZQsEIOoSpkM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>
> -->
>
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ycdDH2pLsucuLwZ1D%2BRcZsnydcBK5AXdQ6ZEjp%2FjBDQ%3D&reserved=0
>
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1c66837585c94c66deb708dac57d77d8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638039439947308794%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5r4N%2BfXlSOt3aoS7AWmn1cEOBxrVvkicOn3qYhAsLNg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
>
> -->
>
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H82eUxCpMT3FC%2B47WY13DthUPxRlKcO8Slvw4b4BIv4%3D&reserved=0
>
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.matronics.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1c66837585c94c66deb708dac57d77d8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638039439947465008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Kn1kXJstBhQnc1KT8%2FeuK2%2Bzw7%2BhkGudzwHEq%2BPUbG0%3D&reserved=0>
>
> - List Contribution Web Site -
>
> Thank you for your generous support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
> -->
>
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmatronics.com%2Fcontribution&data=05%7C01%7C%7C95fbe6d1f864429d6f9408dac3137511%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036785611267994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BJyIGhvIq4pT7mzs62M9oV5AvbuxUVmXHUlH%2FDEvC%2Bg%3D&reserved=0
>
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmatronics.com%2Fcontribution&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1c66837585c94c66deb708dac57d77d8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638039439947465008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dgnBvyG0yoVqKBYi3Q%2B%2FK%2B3F4OvYsRZWOeBDVoLNObg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> --
>
> William Daniell
>
> LONGPORT
>
> +1 786 878 0246
>
> --
>
> William Daniell
>
> LONGPORT
>
> +1 786 878 0246
>
|