 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
genie(at)swissmail.org
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 10:45 pm Post subject: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
 |
|
In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that
the MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I
reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such
an aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
Thanks.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the Netherlands
| | - The Matronics RV6-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?RV6-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BARRY CHECK 6
Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 738
|
| Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 4:31 am Post subject: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
|
|
George:
That is a difficult question to answer. If you were here is the USA and flying under FAA R&G's the answer would go like this:
The RV6 is an EXPERIMENTAL class aircraft.
Under experimental you make that determination while doing your flight tests.
Of course Max weight is a factor of HP and thrust developed.
OK, enough of the R&G stuff. Here is what I would do:
Empty weight of the plane +
Two occupants (each 200 Lbs) +
Full fuel +
Baggage (say 60 Lbs) = MAx Weight
And that would be for BOTH takeoff and landing.
I would also consider a MINIMUM VSI of 500 FPM to an altitude of say 10,000 Feet on a Standard Temp Day.
OR! Put in an O-360 with a Whirlwind Prop and electronic ignition and do 180 Kts with the ability to carry all you can stuff into the plane - Short of Lead Bricks!
Barry
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:42 AM, George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org (genie(at)swissmail.org)> wrote:
[quote] --> RV6-List message posted by: George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org (genie(at)swissmail.org)>
In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that the MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such an aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
Thanks.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the Netherlands
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV6-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?RV6-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n146wb(at)cfu.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 5:28 am Post subject: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
|
|
I know that many RV-6's have been licensed for greater than 1650 lbs. I checked with Van's when I was ready to get my airworthiness certificate and their position at the time was 1650 max, so that's what I used.
Warren
On May 11, 2013, at 1:42 AM, George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that the MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such an aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
Thanks.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the Netherlands
|
| | - The Matronics RV6-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?RV6-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MnwPeeps(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 10:19 am Post subject: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
|
|
Hi - A six owner for eight years.
My thought is, barring your qual as an aeronautical engineer, what makes you "feel" the good old number of 1650 is on the low side?
What you could do: take it to a very long runway (Air Force base. etc.), deliberately overload it by a couple hundred pounds (on a standard temp day) and see if the sucker is off by Vr and attains a safe climb.
I had one experience...a slightly overweight guy as my pax (about 405 lbs combined), mostly full tanks, plenty of runway, above-average warm summer day (maybe 75 to 80. We took-off fine, but then we were unable to attain even close to a normal and safe rate of climb (with large pines at the departure end ahead of us. I almost went in my pants. Pushed over just a tad for a few more knots, which gave us enough of an improvement in climb to just barely clear the pines. My memory is that we did not exceed MTOW by very much.
I learned my lesson big-time that day, and have been sensitive to T/O weight, including other factors, ever since. If you went to a runway such as Bangor, you could do all that, not climb much and still have plenty of room to safely land and stop - about 14,000 feet. You'll know right away if the climb rate is not up to snuff.
Edwards would be even better, but, well...you know.
Question for you - and any other readers with a six. I've spent a long time getting mixed messages about
acceptable aerobatics in this plane. Some say safe, others say not so safe. I'm thinking, specifically, of
snap-rolls and hammerheads. Vans put out a bulletin years ago saying not to deliberately spin. Then guys tell me they spin without a second thought. So - would love to get the straight poop and also control movements - esp. for the hammerhead, which varies plane to plane. In my Yak-52, you kicked full right rudder - going straight-up at max power - about ten knots below stall, simultaniously you went full left aileron and then full forward rudder. The Yak would smoothly roll around its right wing tip (wing-over-style)and, as the nose began to fall though, the a/c did a very comfortabe half-roll to the left, and then transitioned to straight down. A sweet maneuver that always impressed the young lovely in your passenger seat.
But what about the RV-6?
Thx for any tips on this - Mike
In a message dated 5/11/2013 3:14:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, genie(at)swissmail.org writes:
| Quote: | --> RV6-List message posted by: George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org>
In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that
the MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I
reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such
an aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
Thanks.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the ies ay - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - List Contribution Web Site p;
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV6-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?RV6-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doug Gray
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 112
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 12:03 pm Post subject: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
|
|
RV-6 data and specs are still available on the Vans Website but not linked to the home page. Here is a link to these specs.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv6specs.htm
Note the RV-6 is 1600lbs not 1650. I use 1600 as my nominated gross weight since this is what the designer has specified. I believe this is limited in the RV-6 case by the undercarriage design and firewall/longeron structure.
As Mike has demonstrated even at the nominated gross weight for a 6A (if it were my aeroplane he would have been at 1655lbs) high density altitudes can be testing. I am assuming the mixture was properly leaned..
Doug Gray
RV-6 O-320
Sent from my iPad
On 12/05/2013, at 4:17 AM, MnwPeeps(at)aol.com (MnwPeeps(at)aol.com) wrote:
[quote] Hi - A six owner for eight years.
My thought is, barring your qual as an aeronautical engineer, what makes you "feel" the good old number of 1650 is on the low side?
What you could do: take it to a very long runway (Air Force base. etc.), deliberately overload it by a couple hundred pounds (on a standard temp day) and see if the sucker is off by Vr and attains a safe climb.
I had one experience...a slightly overweight guy as my pax (about 405 lbs combined), mostly full tanks, plenty of runway, above-average warm summer day (maybe 75 to 80. We took-off fine, but then we were unable to attain even close to a normal and safe rate of climb (with large pines at the departure end ahead of us. I almost went in my pants. Pushed over just a tad for a few more knots, which gave us enough of an improvement in climb to just barely clear the pines. My memory is that we did not exceed MTOW by very much.
I learned my lesson big-time that day, and have been sensitive to T/O weight, including other factors, ever since. If you went to a runway such as Bangor, you could do all that, not climb much and still have plenty of room to safely land and stop - about 14,000 feet. You'll know right away if the climb rate is not up to snuff.
Edwards would be even better, but, well...you know.
Question for you - and any other readers with a six. I've spent a long time getting mixed messages about
acceptable aerobatics in this plane. Some say safe, others say not so safe. I'm thinking, specifically, of
snap-rolls and hammerheads. Vans put out a bulletin years ago saying not to deliberately spin. Then guys tell me they spin without a second thought. So - would love to get the straight poop and also control movements - esp. for the hammerhead, which varies plane to plane. In my Yak-52, you kicked full right rudder - going straight-up at max power - about ten knots below stall, simultaniously you went full left aileron and then full forward rudder. The Yak would smoothly roll around its right wing tip (wing-over-style)and, as the nose began to fall though, the a/c did a very comfortabe half-roll to the left, and then transitioned to straight down. A sweet maneuver that always impressed the young lovely in your passenger seat.
But what about the RV-6?
Thx for any tips on this - Mike
In a message dated 5/11/2013 3:14:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, genie(at)swissmail.org (genie(at)swissmail.org) writes:
| Quote: | --> RV6-List message posted by: George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org (genie(at)swissmail.org)>
In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that
the MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I
reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such
an aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
Thanks.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the ies ay - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - List Contribution Web Site p;
|
| Quote: |
===================================
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV6-List
===================================
cs.com
===================================
matronics.com/contribution
===================================
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV6-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?RV6-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rv10builder(at)ericksonjc
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 1:36 pm Post subject: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
|
|
One of the issues that most are not discussing is that this is mainly a LANDING issue, not a takeoff issue. Our RVs have so much excess performance that we can fly well above Max Gross and still have adequate takeoff and climb performance. Furthermore, the takeoff and climb performance is easily documented with simple test profiles that do not require significant training to accomplish.
Where there is a LOT of unknown is during landing. Here you add a LOT of stress to the airframe with the additional weight. How much is to much? Does the distribution of this weight influence the stresses on the airframe? How? (ie heavy guy up front, light guy in back, side by side heavy people with no baggage, lighter side by side with heavy baggage (CG is easy to compute, but there is more here than just that), etc.) Â What happens if you do a less than perfect touchdown? Rough field?
Can you fly over Vans numbers? Sure, and there is a lot of data out there from folks that have. Can your specific airplane? Are these folks inducing surprise stressors to the airframe that may cause failure down the road? I think you need to do a structural engineering study of the airframe to truly answer that.
BL: These are experimental aircraft. There is a difference between legal, smart, and common sense. What training do you have and how much REAL effort (off the Internet) have you done to justify YOUR max gross weight numbers?
Just some random thoughts,
John
From: owner-rv6-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv6-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Gray
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 1:01 PM
To: rv6-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Maximum Take-Off Weight
RV-6 data and specs are still available on the Vans Website but not linked to the home page. Here is a link to these specs.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv6specs.htm
Note the RV-6 is 1600lbs not 1650. I use 1600 as my nominated gross weight since this is what the designer has specified. I believe this is limited in the RV-6 case by the undercarriage design and firewall/longeron structure.
As Mike has demonstrated even at the nominated gross weight for a 6A (if it were my aeroplane he would have been at 1655lbs) high density altitudes can be testing. I am assuming the mixture was properly leaned..
Doug Gray
RV-6 O-320
Sent from my iPad
On 12/05/2013, at 4:17 AM, MnwPeeps(at)aol.com (MnwPeeps(at)aol.com) wrote:
| Quote: |
Hi - A six owner for eight years.
My thought is, barring your qual as an aeronautical engineer, what makes you "feel" the good old number of 1650 is on the low side?
What you could do: take it to a very long runway (Air Force base. etc.), deliberately overload it by a couple hundred pounds (on a standard temp day) and see if the sucker is off by Vr and attains a safe climb.
I had one experience...a slightly overweight guy as my pax (about 405 lbs combined), mostly full tanks, plenty of runway, above-average warm summer day (maybe 75 to 80. We took-off fine, but then we were unable to attain even close to a normal and safe rate of climb (with large pines at the departure end ahead of us. I almost went in my pants. Pushed over just a tad for a few more knots, which gave us enough of an improvement in climb to just barely clear the pines. My memory is that we did not exceed MTOW by very much.
I learned my lesson big-time that day, and have been sensitive to T/O weight, including other factors, ever since. If you went to a runway such as Bangor, you could do all that, not climb much and still have plenty of room to safely land and stop - about 14,000 feet. You'll know right away if the climb rate is not up to snuff.
Edwards would be even better, but, well...you know.
Question for you - and any other readers with a six. I've spent a long time getting mixed messages about
acceptable aerobatics in this plane. Some say safe, others say not so safe. I'm thinking, specifically, of
snap-rolls and hammerheads. Vans put out a bulletin years ago saying not to deliberately spin. Then guys tell me they spin without a second thought. So - would love to get the straight poop and also control movements - esp. for the hammerhead, which varies plane to plane. In my Yak-52, you kicked full right rudder - going straight-up at max power - about ten knots below stall, simultaniously you went full left aileron and then full forward rudder. The Yak would smoothly roll around its right wing tip (wing-over-style)and, as the nose began to fall though, the a/c did a very comfortabe half-roll to the left, and then transitioned to straight down. A sweet maneuver that always impressed the young lovely in your passenger seat.
But what about the RV-6?
Thx for any tips on this - Mike
In a message dated 5/11/2013 3:14:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, genie(at)swissmail.org (genie(at)swissmail.org) writes:
| Quote: |
--> RV6-List message posted by: George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org (genie(at)swissmail.org)>
In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that
the MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I
reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such
an aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
Thanks.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the ies ay - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - List Contribution Web Site p;
===================================//www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV6-List===================================cs.com===================================matronics.com/contribution=================================== |
|
0123456789 | Quote: | | =================================== |
0 | Quote: | | =================================== |
1 | Quote: | | =================================== |
2 | Quote: | | =================================== |
3 | Quote: | | =================================== |
4 | Quote: | | =================================== |
5 | Quote: | | =================================== |
6 | Quote: | | =================================== |
7
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV6-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?RV6-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n146wb(at)cfu.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 4:56 pm Post subject: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
|
|
In my previous note, I mentioned I used 1650 lbs (RV-6) based on Van's recommendation. During my final inspection, the DAR and I called Van's on the issue. It turns out that they tested the wing structure to 1650 during development of the 6-A and they approved of use the higher weight on my 6. Based on this, the DAR approved my 1650 lb gross.
Warren
On May 11, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au (dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au)> wrote:
[quote]RV-6 data and specs are still available on the Vans Website but not linked to the home page. Here is a link to these specs.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv6specs.htm
Note the RV-6 is 1600lbs not 1650. I use 1600 as my nominated gross weight since this is what the designer has specified. I believe this is limited in the RV-6 case by the undercarriage design and firewall/longeron structure.
As Mike has demonstrated even at the nominated gross weight for a 6A (if it were my aeroplane he would have been at 1655lbs) high density altitudes can be testing. I am assuming the mixture was properly leaned..
Doug Gray
RV-6 O-320
Sent from my iPad
On 12/05/2013, at 4:17 AM, MnwPeeps(at)aol.com (MnwPeeps(at)aol.com) wrote:
| Quote: | Hi - A six owner for eight years.
My thought is, barring your qual as an aeronautical engineer, what makes you "feel" the good old number of 1650 is on the low side?
What you could do: take it to a very long runway (Air Force base. etc.), deliberately overload it by a couple hundred pounds (on a standard temp day) and see if the sucker is off by Vr and attains a safe climb.
I had one experience...a slightly overweight guy as my pax (about 405 lbs combined), mostly full tanks, plenty of runway, above-average warm summer day (maybe 75 to 80. We took-off fine, but then we were unable to attain even close to a normal and safe rate of climb (with large pines at the departure end ahead of us. I almost went in my pants. Pushed over just a tad for a few more knots, which gave us enough of an improvement in climb to just barely clear the pines. My memory is that we did not exceed MTOW by very much.
I learned my lesson big-time that day, and have been sensitive to T/O weight, including other factors, ever since. If you went to a runway such as Bangor, you could do all that, not climb much and still have plenty of room to safely land and stop - about 14,000 feet. You'll know right away if the climb rate is not up to snuff.
Edwards would be even better, but, well...you know.
Question for you - and any other readers with a six. I've spent a long time getting mixed messages about
acceptable aerobatics in this plane. Some say safe, others say not so safe. I'm thinking, specifically, of
snap-rolls and hammerheads. Vans put out a bulletin years ago saying not to deliberately spin. Then guys tell me they spin without a second thought. So - would love to get the straight poop and also control movements - esp. for the hammerhead, which varies plane to plane. In my Yak-52, you kicked full right rudder - going straight-up at max power - about ten knots below stall, simultaniously you went full left aileron and then full forward rudder. The Yak would smoothly roll around its right wing tip (wing-over-style)and, as the nose began to fall though, the a/c did a very comfortabe half-roll to the left, and then transitioned to straight down. A sweet maneuver that always impressed the young lovely in your passenger seat.
But what about the RV-6?
Thx for any tips on this - Mike
In a message dated 5/11/2013 3:14:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, genie(at)swissmail.org (genie(at)swissmail.org) writes:
| Quote: | --> RV6-List message posted by: George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org (genie(at)swissmail.org)>
In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that
the MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I
reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such
an aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
Thanks.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the ies ay - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - List Contribution Web Site p;
|
===================================
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV6-List
===================================
cs.com
===================================
matronics.com/contribution
===================================
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV6-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?RV6-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
genie(at)swissmail.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 12, 2013 5:12 am Post subject: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
|
|
Thanks to all of you for your interesting replies.
It is my feeling that a maximum take-off weight of 1650 lbs is on the
"low side" for my RV-6 because even when taking off and flying at this
weight it performs like a hot rod, so to say. Therefore I am under the
impression that one can take off heavier.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the Netherlands
| Quote: | Time: 11:19:21 AM PST US
From: MnwPeeps(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Maximum Take-Off Weight
Hi - A six owner for eight years.
My thought is, barring your qual as an aeronautical engineer, what makes
you "feel" the good old number of 1650 is on the low side?
What you could do: take it to a very long runway (Air Force base. etc.),
deliberately overload it by a couple hundred pounds (on a standard temp day)
and see if the sucker is off by Vr and attains a safe climb.
I had one experience...a slightly overweight guy as my pax (about 405 lbs
combined), mostly full tanks, plenty of runway, above-average warm summer
day (maybe 75 to 80. We took-off fine, but then we were unable to attain even
close to a normal and safe rate of climb (with large pines at the
departure end ahead of us. I almost went in my pants. Pushed over just a tad for
a
few more knots, which gave us enough of an improvement in climb to just
barely clear the pines. My memory is that we did not exceed MTOW by very much.
I learned my lesson big-time that day, and have been sensitive to T/O
weight, including other factors, ever since. If you went to a runway such as
Bangor, you could do all that, not climb much and still have plenty of room to
safely land and stop - about 14,000 feet. You'll know right away if the
climb rate is not up to snuff.
Edwards would be even better, but, well...you know.
Question for you - and any other readers with a six. I've spent a long time
getting mixed messages about
acceptable aerobatics in this plane. Some say safe, others say not so safe.
I'm thinking, specifically, of
snap-rolls and hammerheads. Vans put out a bulletin years ago saying not
to deliberately spin. Then guys tell me they spin without a second thought.
So - would love to get the straight poop and also control movements - esp.
for the hammerhead, which varies plane to plane. In my Yak-52, you kicked
full right rudder - going straight-up at max power - about ten knots below
stall, simultaniously you went full left aileron and then full forward
rudder. The Yak would smoothly roll around its right wing tip
(wing-over-style)and, as the nose began to fall though, the a/c did a very comfortabe
half-roll to the left, and then transitioned to straight down. A sweet maneuver
that always impressed the young lovely in your passenger seat.
But what about the RV-6?
Thx for any tips on
this - Mike
In a message dated 5/11/2013 3:14:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
genie(at)swissmail.org writes:
In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that
the MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I
reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such
an aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
Thanks.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the Netherlands
|
| | - The Matronics RV6-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?RV6-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
