 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
haveblue1(at)mac.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:03 pm Post subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve |
 |
|
Gary.
Would you 'splain why an angle valve engine is preferable to a parallel valve engine.
Thanks
Bruce Smith
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:48 pm Post subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve |
|
|
From a horsepower point-of-view, the angle valve head flows better. The valves are angles more toward the ports. But, the difference really isn't that much. The 200 hp angle valve uses 8.7:1 compression ratio. If the parallel valve O360 had 8.7:1 compression ratio, it would make 200 hp also.
The biggest difference is the angle valve head had better cooling fins. Therefore, if it makes more heat (horsepower) it can shed the heat better.
If you consider weight, the parallel valve is better hp/lb.
From: Bruce Smith <haveblue1(at)mac.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 6:55:16 PM
Subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamey
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:07 pm Post subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve |
|
|
Would it really make more heat though? You’ve more efficiently converting fuel and oxygen to mechanical energy with the higher compression ratio. This said you’re also incurring higher internal pressures which tends to transfer more heat to the cylinder and head. I wonder what the actual behavior is? Probably a bit more heat as you say since more energy is being extracted even if greater efficiency is at play.
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Vogt
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 7:24 PM
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve
From a horsepower point-of-view, the angle valve head flows better. The valves are angles more toward the ports. But, the difference really isn't that much. The 200 hp angle valve uses 8.7:1 compression ratio. If the parallel valve O360 had 8.7:1 compression ratio, it would make 200 hp also.
The biggest difference is the angle valve head had better cooling fins. Therefore, if it makes more heat (horsepower) it can shed the heat better.
If you consider weight, the parallel valve is better hp/lb.
From: Bruce Smith <haveblue1(at)mac.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 6:55:16 PM
Subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve
| Quote: | | http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
0123456789
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
23:37:00
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
haveblue1(at)mac.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:01 am Post subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve |
|
|
So, it's a quasi-hemispherical combustion chamber?
On Jun 28, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Gary Vogt wrote:
| Quote: | From a horsepower point-of-view, the angle valve head flows better. The valves are angles more toward the ports. But, the difference really isn't that much. The 200 hp angle valve uses 8.7:1 compression ratio. If the parallel valve O360 had 8.7:1 compression ratio, it would make 200 hp also.
The biggest difference is the angle valve head had better cooling fins. Therefore, if it makes more heat (horsepower) it can shed the heat better.
If you consider weight, the parallel valve is better hp/lb.
From: Bruce Smith <haveblue1(at)mac.com (haveblue1(at)mac.com)>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 6:55:16 PM
Subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve
| Quote: |
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
|
|
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Discover
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 429
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:19 am Post subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve |
|
|
The angle valve heads have a more pure semi-hemispherical shape. That's why the valves are at an angle, in order to acomodate the hemi shape. The parallel valve heads are much less a hemi shape, mainly in the valve seat area because the geometry of the valves do not follow a spherical shape. A hemi shaped head is known for it's efficency of combustion thus producing more horsepower. It also can accomodate higher compression because it does not have the hot spots like the parallel valve heads have so it can accomodate higher temps before detonation occurs. Remember the Chrysler hemi's that put out 1 hp per cubic inch?
Ned
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 29, 2010, at 5:59 AM, Bruce Smith <haveblue1(at)mac.com (haveblue1(at)mac.com)> wrote:
[quote]So, it's a quasi-hemispherical combustion chamber?
On Jun 28, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Gary Vogt wrote:
| Quote: | From a horsepower point-of-view, the angle valve head flows better. The valves are angles more toward the ports. But, the difference really isn't that much. The 200 hp angle valve uses 8.7:1 compression ratio. If the parallel valve O360 had 8.7:1 compression ratio, it would make 200 hp also.
The biggest difference is the angle valve head had better cooling fins. Therefore, if it makes more heat (horsepower) it can shed the heat better.
If you consider weight, the parallel valve is better hp/lb.
From: Bruce Smith <[url=mailto:haveblue1(at)mac.com]haveblue1(at)mac.com (haveblue1(at)mac.com)[/url]>
To: [url=mailto:teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com]teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com)[/url]
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 6:55:16 PM
Subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:48 pm Post subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve |
|
|
both cylinder heads are hemi-heads. The valves are parallel in one and angled on the other. The valves in the angle valve head are angled more toward the inlet/exhaust ports. In that context, they are more similar to the traditional Chrysler hemi. But, even those are not true hemis, especially the newer versions.
Don't get hung up on that. The objective is to keep the flame front as short as possible. A small block Chevy makes the same or more power than the same size hemi. There is a lot more to it than just the shape of the combustion chamber.
Jamey, the angle valve head can shed more heat than the parallel valve head. Therefore, it can make more power without getting into a region where the heat from the head can't be rejected through the fins.
From: Bruce Smith <haveblue1(at)mac.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 3:59:27 AM
Subject: Re: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve
So, it's a quasi-hemispherical combustion chamber?
On Jun 28, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Gary Vogt wrote:
| Quote: | From a horsepower point-of-view, the angle valve head flows better. The valves are angles more toward the ports. But, the difference really isn't that much. The 200 hp angle valve uses 8.7:1 compression ratio. If the parallel valve O360 had 8.7:1 compression ratio, it would make 200 hp also.
The biggest difference is the angle valve head had better cooling fins. Therefore, if it makes more heat (horsepower) it can shed the heat better.
If you consider weight, the parallel valve is better hp/lb.
From: Bruce Smith <haveblue1(at)mac.com (haveblue1(at)mac.com)>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 6:55:16 PM
Subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:00 pm Post subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve |
|
|
Not entirely true, Ned. There are no squish areas in the parallel valve head to have any effect on detonation margins. With two plugs, the flame front on both engines is the same. The angle valve doesn't rely on incoming air on the intake side to help cooling like the parallel valve head does. Both heads will go to 14:1 compression ratio and stay together. The angle valve head tolerates more horsepower only because it has better cooling fins.
A small block chevy made 1 hp/cubic inch in 1957; a long time before any hemi did.
A comparison between a Chevy wedge and a Chrysler Hemi. Not one hemi made more horsepower than the equivalent Chevy.
GM
2001: The LS1 was rated at 350 hp (260 kW) and 365 lb·ft (495 N·m),
The LS6 is a higher-output version of GM's LS1 engine and retains the same capacity.
The initial 2001 LS6 produced 385 bhp (287 kW) and 385 lb·ft (522 N·m), but the engine was modified for 2002 through 2004 to produce 405 bhp (302 kW) and 400 lb·ft (542 N·m) of torque.
2005: The LS2s in the Chevrolet Trailblazer SS and the Saab 9-7X Aero are rated at 395 bhp (295 kW) (2006-2007) or 390 bhp (290 kW) (2008-2009) and 400 lb·ft (542 N·m) of torque due to a different (sometimes referred to as a "truck") intake manifold that produces more torque at lower RPMs.
2006: The LS7 is a 7,011 cc (7.011 L; 427.8 cu in) engine, based on the Gen IV architecture. Peak output is 505 hp (377 kW) at 6300 rpm and 470 lb·ft (640 N·m) at 4800 rpm
2008: The LS3 was introduced as the Corvette's new base engine for the 2008 model year. It produces 424 bhp (316 kW)(at)5900rpm and 418 lb·ft (567 N·m)(at)4600rpm without the optional Corvette exhaust and is SAE certified. Power is boosted to 436 hp (325 kW) and 428 lbf·ft (580 N·m) with this option.
2009: The Gen IV LS9 is a supercharged 6,162 cc (6.162 L; 376.0 cu in) engine, based on the LS3. It is equipped with an Eaton four-lobe Roots type supercharger. Power output is rated 638 bhp (476 kW)(at)6500rpm and 604 lb·ft (819 N·m)(at)3800rpm.
Chrysler
2003: The 5.7 L (345 cu in) Hemi in the Ram delivered 345 hp (257.3 kW) and 375 lb·ft (508 N·m)
2009: The 5.7 L (345 cu in) Hemi 376 brake horsepower (280 kW) (SAE) and 404 lb·ft (548 N·m) torque
The Hemi is also available in a 6,059 cc (6.059 L; 369.7 cu in) version. The engine's bore is 4.1 in (104 mm), and many other changes were made to allow it to produce 425 horsepower (317 kW) at 6200 rpm and 420 lb·ft (569 N·m) at 4800 rpm.
From: 923te <923te(at)att.net>
To: "teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com" <teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 7:17:03 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve
The angle valve heads have a more pure semi-hemispherical shape. That's why the valves are at an angle, in order to acomodate the hemi shape. The parallel valve heads are much less a hemi shape, mainly in the valve seat area because the geometry of the valves do not follow a spherical shape. A hemi shaped head is known for it's efficency of combustion thus producing more horsepower. It also can accomodate higher compression because it does not have the hot spots like the parallel valve heads have so it can accomodate higher temps before detonation occurs. Remember the Chrysler hemi's that put out 1 hp per cubic inch?
Ned
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 29, 2010, at 5:59 AM, Bruce Smith <haveblue1(at)mac.com (haveblue1(at)mac.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | So, it's a quasi-hemispherical combustion chamber?
On Jun 28, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Gary Vogt wrote:
| Quote: | From a horsepower point-of-view, the angle valve head flows better. The valves are angles more toward the ports. But, the difference really isn't that much. The 200 hp angle valve uses 8.7:1 compression ratio. If the parallel valve O360 had 8.7:1 compression ratio, it would make 200 hp also.
The biggest difference is the angle valve head had better cooling fins. Therefore, if it makes more heat (horsepower) it can shed the heat better.
If you consider weight, the parallel valve is better hp/lb.
From: Bruce Smith < (haveblue1(at)mac.com)haveblue1(at)mac.com (haveblue1(at)mac.com)>
To: (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com)teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 6:55:16 PM
Subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve
|
http://www.matronics.com/=================
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Discover
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 429
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:45 am Post subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve |
|
|
Its the sharp corners that play the greatest role in detonation and preignition problems. Sharp corners or edges get hotter and the parallel valve heads have the sharp corners on the valve deck whereas the angle valve heads do not.
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flyv35b(at)minetfiber.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:09 am Post subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve |
|
|
Also, I don't think a 0.2 increase in CR would result in 20 more HP. As I recall ECI which offers a 9.0 CR parallel valve engine (experimental) rates the HP less that 200. Seems to me the angle valve IO-360 develops more power due to 3 things: a better induction system and combustion chamber (it flows more air), higher CR and possibly fuel injection.
Cliff
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:05 pm Post subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve |
|
|
Ken (Lycon) told me the 9:1 pistons would make 200 pretty easily. The better flowing heads on the angle valve definitely helps.
I did a cranking pressure test on a Tiger with new LyCon ported and polished cylinders. The cranking pressure was 135-137 on 1, 3, 4. On #2, it was 149. Go figure.
From: flyv35b <flyv35b(at)minetfiber.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 7:09:48 AM
Subject: Re: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve
Also, I don't think a 0.2 increase in CR would result in 20 more HP. As I recall ECI which offers a 9.0 CR parallel valve engine (experimental) rates the HP less that 200. Seems to me the angle valve IO-360 develops more power due to 3 things: a better induction system and combustion chamber (it flows more air), higher CR and possibly fuel injection.
Cliff
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flyv35b(at)minetfiber.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 3:47 pm Post subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve |
|
|
Maybe (or probably) on Lycon's dyno. But we both know that their dyno is not truly representative of the real world power output as installed in a Grumman with it's stock exhaust system, alternator and vacuum pump, which Lycon does not install on their test dyno installation. Their measured power figures are higher than you will see in the airframe. Of course the PF exhaust system does improve the power output over a stock system.
My point was that even with 9.0 CR the rated power from ECI, which makes a complete experimental engine, is less than 200 hp. In fact it's rated at 189 hp with a carb and 191 hp with fuel injection. So the angle valve engine gets it's extra 20 hp from other things besides just a 8.7 CR. And I have never seen any data on camshaft timing events published, which can influence torque and power, but not like it does in an automotive engines which operate at various maximum speeds rather than the typical 2700 rpm aircraft engine.
Cliff
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:19 am Post subject: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve |
|
|
Just got off the phone with Ken.
A couple of things.
(1) All of the engines at LyCon are tested with the same stack setup as used by Lycoming. So, apples to apples.
(2) I don't know how the ECi engines are tested, so I can't say. But, odds are, they use the same setup Lycoming uses also.
(3) LyCon prefers the Lycoming head over the ECi head because it's a better design.
Yes, there are small differences in the heads as delivered and the Lycoming makes more power out-of-the-box.
Ported and polished, it makes even more.
(4) 189 HP is the 5% rule. ECi doesn't have to recertify anything to put the engine in something calling for 180 HP.
However, the 9:1 compression ratio is worth about another 5 to 7 hp on the average.
(5) I'm not aware of anyone using a dyno that duplicates 'real world power output' to test an an engine for sale to the consumer.
(6) Interesting that the ECi engine makes 191 HP with FI. I wasn't aware that FI changed the physics of combustion.
2 HP is in the noise level.
That is done for marketing.
(7) Have you ever watched a dyno run?
Tweeking the mixture can affect the peak power output by as much as 10 HP. Ken had a IO540 make 30 HP more when leaned.
The same engine run on the same dyno, run after run, will make plus or minus 2 HP all day. The temperature of the engine block affects peak HP.
( http://www.aeroinstock.com/pdf/ECI-EXPENGINE%20KIT.pdf
Link says the experimental ECi IOX 360 engines make 188 HP and the carbureted one makes 182 HP
They all come with flow matches cylinders.
(9) http://www.eci.aero/exp/eng_comparisons_chart.pdf
Link has the 9:1 combination.
Look closely at the numbers, the fuel flow on the FI engine is less. It's running leaner than the carb engine.
Lean the Carb engine and it will make the same HP.
(10) Lycon prepped an O360-A4K for one of my customers.
It was a Lycoming overhauled engine with the roller tappets.
The case was opened and "O" ringed to prevent leaks.
While opened, all components were balanced.
Cylinders were ported and polished. Flow Matched. Stock compression ratio.
Rich, on the dyno, it made 208 HP (at) 2700 rpm.
Leaned, on the dyno, it made 219 HP (at) 2725 rpm.
(11) The majority of racers, Red Bull etc, and aerobatic guys, use parallel valve engines because the make ALMOST the same power with a lot less weight.
(12) The angle valve flows a lot better out-of-the-box than the parallel valve.
For that reason, porting and polishing has a much greater affect on the p.v. engine than the a.v. engine.
An a.v. engine picks up about 10 HP after porting and polishing.
A p.v. engine picks up 15-20 HP after porting and polishing.
(13) a maxed out angle valve IO540 with 10:1 pistons makes 710 pounds-foot of torque and 415 HP
(14) a maxed out parallel valve IO540 with 10:1 pistons makes 705 pounds-foot of torque and 400 HP
HOWEVER, the parallel valve engine weighs 60 lbs less.
One Red Bull racer knocked 5 seconds off his time running a p.v. engine in place of the a.v. engine he started with.
(15) Because of the design of the pistons to clear the valves in the angle valve engine, there are two squish areas that cause detonation.
The a.v. engine is more prone to detonation than the p.v. engine. For this reason, the 10:1 a.v. engine is limited to 20 degrees advance.
(16) The p.v. engine does not have that problem. The cylinder head is flat and the flame front over the surface of the piston is a continuous surface.
The p.v. engine can be run so lean it will burn a hole in the cylinder long before it ever detonates.
LyCon recommends coating the top of the piston with ceramic to prevent a burn through.
(17) There is a stroker kit to make the O360 an O375. The rod ratio needs to be fine tuned to make it work. Right now there is more power to be made in the O360.
From: flyv35b <flyv35b(at)minetfiber.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 4:46:12 PM
Subject: Re: Angle Valve vs. Parallel Valve
 DIV { MARGIN:0px;} Maybe (or probably) on Lycon's dyno. But we both know that their dyno is not truly representative of the real world power output as installed in a Grumman with it's stock exhaust system, alternator and vacuum pump, which Lycon does not install on their test dyno installation. Their measured power figures are higher than you will see in the airframe. Of course the PF exhaust system does improve the power output over a stock system.
My point was that even with 9.0 CR the rated power from ECI, which makes a complete experimental engine, is less than 200 hp. In fact it's rated at 189 hp with a carb and 191 hp with fuel injection. So the angle valve engine gets it's extra 20 hp from other things besides just a 8.7 CR. And I have never seen any data on camshaft timing events published, which can influence torque and power, but not like it does in an automotive engines which operate at various maximum speeds rather than the typical 2700 rpm aircraft engine.
Cliff
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
