Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

willie.harrison(at)tinyon
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Dear All



Wikipedia has a small entry on flutter (see below). This refers to a critical airspeed for a given system. It reminded me that on the only occasion I flew an aircraft which fluttered (ailerons on a badly rigged Jodel D9) there was a critical airspeed above which the flutter started, below which it stopped (it never progressed to anything more than a side to side shaking of the stick and we cured it eventually by reducing the droop of the ailerons). Anyway, the issue about a critical speed begs the following question: if, despite all the measures we are all about to take to prevent flutter on our Europas, it does start to happen again to one of us, would there be time to arrest the flutter by smartly reducing airspeed before catastrophic damage occurs?



In addition to the many other unanswered questions about William's crash is this: Why did it happen WHEN it happened? If there was slop somewhere in the system, it would presumably have built up slowly over time, so why did it go catastrophic when it did? Someone said yesterday, I believe, that the aircraft had just had its Permit Renewal Inspection, which is normally followed by the test flight including Vne dive. So, could it have been a speed-triggered flutter?



By the way, correspondence on this site some time ago about what Vne really means revealed that some people do not regard the 165kts Vne as a velocity never to be exceeded. Could the crash aircraft have been going faster than 165kts? Or maybe it was just going a lot faster than it had been for a year and that was enough.



The link to the story of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in the Wikipedia entry is worth following. Also, worth watching the video link in the same entry of the bridge fluttering towards its collapse - like a slow motion version of a tailplane. The bridge was resonating in torsion but other modes of vibration, including bending can be involved. Can anyone comment on whether tailplane flutter is more likely to involve torsional or bending motion (in the torque tube and/or the fuseage)?



Willie Harrison



Flutter

  Flutter in  aircraft structures, control surfaces and bridge engineering, aeroelastic flutter is a rapid self-excited motion, potentially destructive, usually present above some limiting aircraft speed





Flutter is a self-starting vibration that occurs when a lifting surface bends under aerodynamic load. Once the load reduces, the deflection also reduces, restoring the original shape, which restores the original load and starts the cycle again. In extreme cases the elasticity of the structure means that when the load is reduced the structure springs back so far that it overshoots and causes a new aerodynamic load in the opposite direction to the original. Even changing the mass distribution of an aircraft or the stiffness of one component can induce flutter in an apparently unrelated aerodynamic component.

At its mildest this can appear as a "buzz" in the aircraft structure, but at its most violent it can develop uncontrollably with great speed and cause serious damage to or the destruction of the aircraft.

Flutter can also occur on structures other than aircraft. One famous example of flutter phenomena is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge [quote][b]

Mark Burton

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 74

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:47 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Until we see the results of the AAIB investigation we can only speculate as to what really happened.



However, regarding the flutter theory due to sloppy tailplanes, consider:



1 -- How many Europas are known to have suffered tailplane flutter and fallen to pieces while flying? 



2 -- How many Europas have rather sloppy tailplanes and have been flying like that for some time (possibly years)?



I am not saying that we should not be checking/improving the integrity of the  tailplanes.



Mark

davidjoyce(at)doctors.org
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:57 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

William, At the PFA today I was told that the radar trace of William's plane

showed it was going at 90 knots or so. He would have done his Vne dive

somewhere on the way back from Cornwall - all very perplexing.

           Did my Permit renewal test flying today and didn't like to ask

someone to come along as ballast/observer!

           Regards, David Joyce

---

willie.harrison(at)tinyon
Guest

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

We still can't avoid the question: why did this happen WHEN it did?  

Mark makes a good point about slop, in any case, slop would normally  

built up slowly. David's information about speed seems to rule that  

out as a trigger event. Just a thought, but if one of the stabs  

became disengaged, for any reason (sideways movement, loss of TP14D  

pin - secured by a single small split pin) from the TP12/13 drive  

flange, presumably the other stab would instantly be countering all  

of the mass in the TP19 weights, thereby creating a sudden and huge  

mass imbalance - enough to cause catastrophic flutter?



Willie





On 22 Jun 2007, at 17:55, David Joyce wrote:



[quote] 

 <davidjoyce(at)doctors.org.uk>



 William, At the PFA today I was told that the radar trace of  

 William's plane

 showed it was going at 90 knots or so. He would have done his Vne dive

 somewhere on the way back from Cornwall - all very perplexing.

            Did my Permit renewal test flying today and didn't like  

 to ask

 someone to come along as ballast/observer!

            Regards, David Joyce

 ---

josok-e(at)ukolo.fi
Guest

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 5:15 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Hi William H.



 	  Quote: 	
		   We still can't avoid the question: why did this happen WHEN it did? Mark  

 makes a good point about slop, in any case, slop would normally built up  

 slowly. David's information about speed seems to rule that out as a  

 trigger event. Just a thought, but if one of the stabs became  

 disengaged, for any reason (sideways movement, loss of TP14D pin -  

 secured by a single small split pin) from the TP12/13 drive flange,  

 presumably the other stab would instantly be countering all of the mass  

 in the TP19 weights, thereby creating a sudden and huge mass imbalance -  

 enough to cause catastrophic flutter?


	


Somebody from the UK told me once: We are like mushrooms. We are kept in  

the dark, and once in a while we are allowed to see the light, and  

somebody throws shit at us. In this case i get the same feeling.



Talking to Graham last night, we decided that at 90 knots there is very  

little chance of flutter. But the load on the tailplane is minimal at that  

speed. Now, if TP6 was loose, this was the time for the tail plane to move  

out wards, disengage from the TP 12 pins and turn square to the direction  

of flight, and so destroy itself, shake a wing loose and destroy the  

plane. Not necessarily in that order. But as said,we are kept in the dark  

and so on, so this is just another speculation.



Regards,



Jos Okhuijsen



http://www.europaowners.org/kit600

carl(at)flyers.freeserve.
Guest

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:02 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

It isnt a matter of keeping people in the dark but of arriving at the 

correct conclusion. IMHO it is far better to say nothing than to arrive at a 

flawed judgement.



And as for this being a British phenomenon what sparked off Tony Blairs war 

on Iraq. The assumption that they had WMD with little or no evidence to back 

it up. OK, sorry for getting political.



It is to be commended that the PFA have responded so quickly to this 

situation and I doubt very much if the answer is as clear cut as people may 

wish. At the moment their priority is to prevent a recurrence of this tragic 

accident even if it means barking up a few wrong trees. When they have had 

the opportunity to fully consider the evidence I am sure we will be amongst 

the first to hear.



Purely on the speculation that one of the tailplanes may have moved outboard 

and disengaged the drive pins it is a possibility. However I think it highly 

unlikely that the disengaged tailplane could have "turned square" as has 

been suggested. If you consider the area of tailplane foreward of the torque 

tube as compared with the area behind, air pressure would keep the tailplane 

in line with the aircraft. I suspect that once disengaged from the drive 

pins the unrestrained tailplane would start to oscillate and then flutter.



What effect this disengagement would have on the remaining tailplane is hard 

to predict. True there would now be an imbalance in the tailplane assembly 

but any force exerted by the mass balance arm could be counteracted by force 

applied to the control column. Have you never sat in the plane withouthe 

tailplanes connected and moved the stick back and forth. It is heavy but not 

impossible to move.



As for it being unlikely that flutter would occur at 90kts my understanding 

is that flutter can happen at any speed. What speed does it take to cause 

flags to flutter in the wind 10-20knots (even less).



I believe that if there had been a straightford and simple explanation, we 

would have heard by now.  It is in nobodys interests to keep us in the dark.

---

willie.harrison(at)tinyon
Guest

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:36 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Thanks, Jos, I share your frustration about not knowing the full  

story (yet). Even when the immediate safety checks have been done it  

will still be something of an act of faith that they will completely  

preclude a repetition. I expect we'd all like to know very precisely  

what happened before we could have full confidence that any  

particular fix will prevent it from happening again. I also expect  

that eventually we will reach that level of understanding and can go  

back to trusting our beautiful little aeroplanes.

90kts was presumably the ground speed as taken from a radar trace.  

Airspeed could easily have been +/- 30kts, maybe more, away from that  

figure, given the effect of both wind and a possible steep dive.

Would a stab turn 90 degrees when its centre of pressure would be so  

far aft of the torque tube? I would have expected it to continue to  

point in roughly the right direction until and unless it came right off.

By the way, the Gasco seminar at Farnborough on 8 August is going to  

include a tour of the investigation hangers where they do the  

forensic analysis on recent wrecks. I believe that is where G-HOFC is  

being examined.

Regards

Willie Harrison

On 23 Jun 2007, at 14:13, Jos Okhuijsen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Hi William H.

> We still can't avoid the question: why did this happen WHEN it  

> did? Mark makes a good point about slop, in any case, slop would  

> normally built up slowly. David's information about speed seems to  

> rule that out as a trigger event. Just a thought, but if one of  

> the stabs became disengaged, for any reason (sideways movement,  

> loss of TP14D pin - secured by a single small split pin) from the  

> TP12/13 drive flange, presumably the other stab would instantly be  

> countering all of the mass in the TP19 weights, thereby creating a  

> sudden and huge mass imbalance - enough to cause catastrophic  

> flutter?

 Somebody from the UK told me once: We are like mushrooms. We are  

 kept in the dark, and once in a while we are allowed to see the  

 light, and somebody throws shit at us. In this case i get the same  

 feeling.

 Talking to Graham last night, we decided that at 90 knots there is  

 very little chance of flutter. But the load on the tailplane is  

 minimal at that speed. Now, if TP6 was loose, this was the time for  

 the tail plane to move out wards, disengage from the TP 12 pins and  

 turn square to the direction of flight, and so destroy itself,  

 shake a wing loose and destroy the plane. Not necessarily in that  

 order. But as said,we are kept in the dark and so on, so this is  

 just another speculation.

 Regards,

 Jos Okhuijsen

willie.harrison(at)tinyon
Guest

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:06 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

You make some fair points, Carl. I think police detectives call it  

the ABC approach: Accept nothing, Believe nobody, Check everything.   

I can only agree that it is in our interests that the investigators  

take as much time as is needed to get the right answer, even though  

that leads to short term anxiety and frustration.



I'm not sure I agree with what you say about stick forces since you  

are not just trying to counter the deadweight of the remaining stab  

but the dynamic forces from the self excited oscillation which is  

drawing enormous energy out out the airflow.



I could imagine either or both  of the decoupled stabs fluttering. If  

it is true that the tailplane fractured off the fuselage then it  

suggests that structural oscillation in the fuselage may have been a  

component of the flutter (?like the V-tailed Bonanzas??)



Willie Harrison

On 23 Jun 2007, at 15:01, Carl Pattinson wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <carl(at)flyers.freeserve.co.uk>



 It isnt a matter of keeping people in the dark but of arriving at  

 the correct conclusion. IMHO it is far better to say nothing than  

 to arrive at a flawed judgement.



 And as for this being a British phenomenon what sparked off Tony  

 Blairs war on Iraq. The assumption that they had WMD with little or  

 no evidence to back it up. OK, sorry for getting political.



 It is to be commended that the PFA have responded so quickly to  

 this situation and I doubt very much if the answer is as clear cut  

 as people may wish. At the moment their priority is to prevent a  

 recurrence of this tragic accident even if it means barking up a  

 few wrong trees. When they have had the opportunity to fully  

 consider the evidence I am sure we will be amongst the first to hear.



 Purely on the speculation that one of the tailplanes may have moved  

 outboard and disengaged the drive pins it is a possibility. However  

 I think it highly unlikely that the disengaged tailplane could have  

 "turned square" as has been suggested. If you consider the area of  

 tailplane foreward of the torque tube as compared with the area  

 behind, air pressure would keep the tailplane in line with the  

 aircraft. I suspect that once disengaged from the drive pins the  

 unrestrained tailplane would start to oscillate and then flutter.



 What effect this disengagement would have on the remaining  

 tailplane is hard to predict. True there would now be an imbalance  

 in the tailplane assembly but any force exerted by the mass balance  

 arm could be counteracted by force applied to the control column.  

 Have you never sat in the plane withouthe tailplanes connected and  

 moved the stick back and forth. It is heavy but not impossible to  

 move.



 As for it being unlikely that flutter would occur at 90kts my  

 understanding is that flutter can happen at any speed. What speed  

 does it take to cause flags to flutter in the wind 10-20knots (even  

 less).



 I believe that if there had been a straightford and simple  

 explanation, we would have heard by now.  It is in nobodys  

 interests to keep us in the dark.

josok-e(at)ukolo.fi
Guest

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:57 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Hi Carl,



 	  Quote: 	
		   It isnt a matter of keeping people in the dark but of arriving at the  

 correct conclusion. IMHO it is far better to say nothing than to arrive  

 at a flawed judgement.


	


It's that attitude where i am pointing to, IMHO it's better to use all  

brains available, feed all the facts and see where the discussion leads.  

The change that the right solution is found is certainly not smaller. In a  

way that is happening here. Excluding myself, there are some very  

knowledgeable folks around here. The problem is that the facs are few and  

secondhanded. And we all feel insecure.

 	  Quote: 	
		   It is to be commended that the PFA have responded so quickly to this  

 situation and I doubt very much if the answer is as clear cut as people  

 may wish. At the moment their priority is to prevent a recurrence of  

 this tragic accident even if it means barking up a few wrong trees. When  

 they have had the opportunity to fully consider the evidence I am sure  

 we will be amongst the first to hear.


	


Simply grounding every plane certainly makes the flying a lot safer, no  

doubt about it. But it does not affect all Europas outside the UK. One  

more reason for openess about what happened.



There are a lot of Europas flying around with sloppy tailplanes. Why did  

this happen now and how and what evidence is there is what we would like  

to hear. That will not impede the investigation, and maybe prevent  

accidents outside the jurisdiction of the PFA.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Purely on the speculation that one of the tailplanes may have moved  

 outboard and disengaged the drive pins it is a possibility. However I  

 think it highly unlikely that the disengaged tailplane could have  

 "turned square" as has been suggested. If you consider the area of  

 tailplane foreward of the torque tube as compared with the area behind,  

 air pressure would keep the tailplane in line with the aircraft. I  

 suspect that once disengaged from the drive pins the unrestrained  

 tailplane would start to oscillate and then flutter.


	


Could it be that the moment the drive pins disengage the plane will  

sharply dive or climb, resulting in the loose tailplane turning square?



 	  Quote: 	
		   As for it being unlikely that flutter would occur at 90kts my  

 understanding is that flutter can happen at any speed. What speed does  

 it take to cause flags to flutter in the wind 10-20knots (even less).


	


Sure, but certainly less likely as close to VNE. The flags will flutter  

quit a bit more too.

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 I believe that if there had been a straightford and simple explanation,  

 we would have heard by now.  It is in nobodys interests to keep us in  

 the dark.


	


So,let'shave the facts. Conclusions may come later.



Regards,



Jos Okhuijsen



http://www.europaowners.org/kit600

josok-e(at)ukolo.fi
Guest

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Don't know if it's important, and i can't really oversee the implications,  

if it's important let somebody please bring it to the attention of the  

accident ivestigators. I doubt if they do investigate these archives.



In one of the threads about the tailplane drive the following message has  

been written:

-----------------

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:04 am    Post subject: Re: Mod. 62 -  

Replacement of tailplane torque tube drive	



The other way is to clean the drive sleeve and torque tube surfaces with

acetone and a jet of compressed air, then use a wicking grade Loctite to

bond them together after lining up the tailplane trailing edges. It must be

about 800 to 900 hours since I did that to mine and they are still solid. I

will, of course, have to deal with dismantling if I ever have to, but a  

heat

source inside the torque tube should do the trick. I also had to provide

some lubricating tubes to replace the oil into the torque tube bearings,

because the acetone washes that out too.

Regards,

William

------------------



Regards,



Jos Okhuijsen



http://www.europaowners.org/kit600

grahamsingleton(at)btinte
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:37 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Good point Jos,

  however, all UK Europas are not grounded, they have just given us some 

fairly tight criteria to consider.



one tailplane pin was bent 90 degrees?!



How steep is the dive to reach Vne without power and was the radar speed 

calculated to take into account wind and angle of dive?



Graham



Jos Okhuijsen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Hi Carl,

 It's that attitude where i am pointing to, IMHO it's better to use all  

 brains available, feed all the facts and see where the discussion 

 leads.  The change that the right solution is found is certainly not 

 smaller. In a  way that is happening here. Excluding myself, there are 

 some very  knowledgeable folks around here. The problem is that the facs 

 are few and  secondhanded. And we all feel insecure.

 


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Simply grounding every plane certainly makes the flying a lot safer, no  

 doubt about it. But it does not affect all Europas outside the UK. One  

 more reason for openess about what happened.

 So,let'shave the facts. Conclusions may come later.

 

 Jos Okhuijsen

willie.harrison(at)tinyon
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:21 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

From the sound of it, many contributors to this forum are converging  

on a hypothesis about the failure sequence along the following lines:



- Slop builds up between TP12 and TP4. Perhaps this starts as a  

finite amount of freeplay from an imperfect build and then continues  

to build up through the repeated little impacts of the stabs and mass  

balance bouncing off each other during normal and abnormal use, eg  

taxiing over rough ground, effects of being trailered etc)



- Eventually, the slop builds to the point the pip pins are sharing  

some of the torsional loads via the TP6s. This puts increasing load  

on the bonded joint between the TP6 and the stab until one day that  

joint fails.



- The implication is that the aircraft was not built with the "belt  

and braces" geometry in the pip pin recess (is this correct?), which  

would mean that the failed TP6  bond would permit lateral movement of  

the stab



- the stab would therefore disengage both TP12/13 drive flange and  

also the trim tab T bar. The Trim tab T bar would at this point also  

be free to disengage from the other stab as well



- The system is now hugely different from the design condition:  50%  

mass imbalance between the remaining stab and the TP19, one  

unrestrained stab (perhaps it came off all together ), the other stab  

perhaps detached from its trim tab. Flutter starts



- The implication is that events moved very quickly - no time for any  

kind of distress message. The suggestion is that the flutter built  

quickly and put severe oscillating loads on the rear fuselage,  

perhaps torsional, and/or bending loads, until the rear fuselage  

fractured (is it correct that it detached completely?), at which  

point all control was lost



- At some point in or following the above sequence it has been  

implied (in PFA 247/FSB 007) that there was a failure of the rear  

wing attachment pin. If so, it sounds like this was a consequence of  

the above, not a contributory cause.



Does this reflect the consensus about what probably happened and why,  

or does anyone have an alternative explanation?



Willie Harrison



On 24 Jun 2007, at 01:30, Jos Okhuijsen wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Don't know if it's important, and i can't really oversee the  

 implications, if it's important let somebody please bring it to the  

 attention of the accident ivestigators. I doubt if they do  

 investigate these archives.



 In one of the threads about the tailplane drive the following  

 message has been written:

 -----------------

 Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:04 am    Post subject: Re: Mod. 62 -  

 Replacement of tailplane torque tube drive	



 The other way is to clean the drive sleeve and torque tube surfaces  

 with

 acetone and a jet of compressed air, then use a wicking grade  

 Loctite to

 bond them together after lining up the tailplane trailing edges. It  

 must be

 about 800 to 900 hours since I did that to mine and they are still  

 solid. I

 will, of course, have to deal with dismantling if I ever have to,  

 but a heat

 source inside the torque tube should do the trick. I also had to  

 provide

 some lubricating tubes to replace the oil into the torque tube  

 bearings,

 because the acetone washes that out too.

 Regards,

 William

fklein(at)orcasonline.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:38 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

On Sunday, June 24, 2007, at 02:39  AM, Graham Singleton wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   one tailplane pin was bent 90 degrees?!


	


Wow!...first I'd heard of that...Would that have been a TP14 or a pip 

pin?



Fred

-- 

This message has been scanned for viruses and

dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

believed to be clean.

jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Hallo William,

 	  Quote: 	
		   From the sound of it, many contributors to this forum are converging 

 on a hypothesis about the failure sequence along the following lines:



 - Slop builds up between TP12 and TP4. Perhaps this starts as a finite 

 amount of freeplay from an imperfect build and then continues to build 

 up through the repeated little impacts of the stabs and mass balance 

 bouncing off each other during normal and abnormal use, eg taxiing 

 over rough ground, effects of being trailered etc)



 - Eventually, the slop builds to the point the pip pins are sharing 

 some of the torsional loads via the TP6s. This puts increasing load on 

 the bonded joint between the TP6 and the stab until one day that joint 

 fails.

Maybe TP6 might also come adrift in the absence of slop?
	


Transport? Rigging? Maybe a good shove is needed to engage drive pins in 

sockets?



Regards,

Jan de Jong

grahamsingleton(at)btinte
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Jos

was that William Mills' email? Highly relevant to the investigation.

Graham



Jos Okhuijsen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Don't know if it's important, and i can't really oversee the 

 implications,  if it's important let somebody please bring it to the 

 attention of the  accident ivestigators. I doubt if they do investigate 

 these archives.

 

 In one of the threads about the tailplane drive the following message 

 has  been written:

 -----------------

 Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:04 am    Post subject: Re: Mod. 62 -  

 Replacement of tailplane torque tube drive   

 

 The other way is to clean the drive sleeve and torque tube surfaces with

 acetone and a jet of compressed air, then use a wicking grade Loctite to

 bond them together after lining up the tailplane trailing edges. It must be

 about 800 to 900 hours since I did that to mine and they are still solid. I

 will, of course, have to deal with dismantling if I ever have to, but a  

 heat

 source inside the torque tube should do the trick. I also had to provide

 some lubricating tubes to replace the oil into the torque tube bearings,

 because the acetone washes that out too.

 Regards,

 William

grahamsingleton(at)btinte
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Pip pin I think, can you confirm Jeremy? No one has yet worked out how 

that happened.

Graham



Fred Klein wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 

 On Sunday, June 24, 2007, at 02:39  AM, Graham Singleton wrote:

 

> one tailplane pin was bent 90 degrees?!

 

 

 Wow!...first I'd heard of that...Would that have been a TP14 or a pip pin?

 

 Fred

 

 


	


-- 

Graham Singleton



Tel: +441629820187

Mob: +447739582005

ptag.dev(at)tiscali.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: Wikipedia's entry on flutter

Resent message since the Matronics Forum will not receive mail as a "cc"

recipient.



Bob H 



 



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum