Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

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

Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1927
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:26 pm Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS

I think that he is wrong.  Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.  I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity, no matter its relative motion.

This is not electrically related.  But there are some pretty smart people who lurk on the AeroElectric List.  It will be interesting to read their opinions.

Joe

_________________
Joe Gores

rlborger(at)mac.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:56 pm Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

Gents,



I like Mac most of the time, but here I believe he’s all wet.



First, he bases his premise on a false assumption; that ground speed affects air speed.  Wrong.  Ground speed has zero effect on airspeed.  It’s just the opposite.  Airspeed is the operative mechanism and ground speed just follows.



 	  Quote: 	
		  From then on he wades into the age old down wind turn and I don’t even want to go there.  


	


Blue skies & tailwinds,

Bob Borger

Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (50 hrs).

Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP

3705 Lynchburg Dr.

Corinth, TX  76208-5331

Cel: 817-992-1117

rlborger(at)mac.com

On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:26 PM, user9253 <fransew(at)gmail.com> wrote:






Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS

I think that he is wrong.  Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.  I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity, no matter its relative motion.

This is not electrically related.  But there are some pretty smart people who lurk on the AeroElectric List.  It will be interesting to read their opinions.

Joe



--------

Joe Gores

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:13 pm Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

Oh No!  The dreaded downwind turn! Here we go....



On 2/7/2014 5:26 PM, user9253 wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS

 I think that he is wrong.  Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.  I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity, no matter its relative motion.

 This is not electrically related.  But there are some pretty smart people who lurk on the AeroElectric List.  It will be interesting to read their opinions.

 Joe



 --------

 Joe Gores





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301





 -----

 No virus found in this message.

 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

enginerdy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

Not that I know much about aerodynamics, but it sounds like he's talking about real stuff but using the wrong terminology. For example, you can change your momentum but not your inertia (unless you're dumping luggage overboard!)

If you substitute 'momentum' for inertia and 'inertial frame' for ground speed, I think what he says makes a lot more sense.



--Daniel



On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Gents,

ceengland7(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:39 pm Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

On 2/7/2014 4:26 PM, user9253 wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS

 I think that he is wrong.  Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.  I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity, no matter its relative motion.

 This is not electrically related.  But there are some pretty smart people who lurk on the AeroElectric List.  It will be interesting to read their opinions.

 Joe



 --------

 Joe Gores



I've seen lots of comments about that article that say basically the 
	


same thing you're saying, but I think that (because of his poor 

phrasing), his point is being missed. I don't think that he really meant 

that the ground is affecting airspeed. I think that he meant that in a 

turn, the relative wind is shifting, which affects lift. In a normal 

turn at normal speed, we never notice it because the change is so 

gradual. But in a turn at very low airspeed (as in, turn to final), the 

turn rate can be tighter due to low airspeed & there's more chance of 

real airspeed being affected by the change in relative wind. Now, tying 

inertia to gravity was just dumb, & makes the whole article vulnerable 

to critical analysis.



What's not explicitly said is that if we're maneuvering close to the 

ground, we're much more likely to use the ground as a reference for our 

speed, which can cause us to land too fast or too slow, depending on 

wind direction.



FWIW,



Charlie

(Not a fan of his writing appearing in an EAA mag)

peter(at)sportingaero.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:44 pm Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

I think he's tried to simplify something that is actually quite complex, 

and got all mixed up in the process.

I find it difficult to completely disagree with him, but its not how I 

would have gone about describing what happens.



Peter



On 07/02/2014 22:26, user9253 wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS

 I think that he is wrong.  Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.  I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity, no matter its relative motion.

 This is not electrically related.  But there are some pretty smart people who lurk on the AeroElectric List.  It will be interesting to read their opinions.

 Joe



 --------

 Joe Gores





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301





 .

raymondj(at)frontiernet.n
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:44 pm Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

Reminds me of an         article that was in the Oct. 2013 (page 12) Sport Aviation.        Doesn't anyone review these articles?

       

       

        	  Quote: 	
		  Raymond Julian

Kettle River, MN.



"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,

and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine 	
       On 02/07/2014 04:26 PM, user9253 wrote:

     

      	  Quote: 	
		          	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> (fransew(at)gmail.com)



Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS

I think that he is wrong.  Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.  I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity, no matter its relative motion.

This is not electrically related.  But there are some pretty smart people who lurk on the AeroElectric List.  It will be interesting to read their opinions.

Joe



--------

Joe Gores





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301

turn.pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

turn.pdf

Filesize:

384.76 KB

Downloaded:

454 Time(s)

henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:32 pm Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

I agree Bob.  As several others have pointed out, there are some big misunderstandings in his article.  I am very surprised Sport Aviation "printed" this article.



I'd like to point out that Mac doesn't understand what "wind velocity" is.  He says:



     "In the classic wind shear encounter a strong wind changes velocity

       or direction, or both, suddenly robbing the airplane of lift."



People who know what they're talking about know that velocity is a vector and includes magnitude (speed) and direction; therefore, his terminology is incorrect.  When I detect these kind of errors, I have a tendency to think the author doesn't know what he's talking about.  I see this scenario happening at work meetings frequently.



Henador Titzoff



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

On Fri, 2/7/14, Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> wrote:



 Subject: Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

 To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com

 Date: Friday, February 7, 2014, 2:55 PM

 

 --> AeroElectric-List message

 posted by: Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com>

 

 Gents,

 

 I like Mac most of the time, but here I believe heâ€™s all

 wet.

 

 First, he bases his premise on a false assumption; that

 ground speed affects air speed.Â  Wrong.Â  Ground

 speed has zero effect on airspeed.Â  Itâ€™s just the

 opposite.Â  Airspeed is the operative mechanism and

 ground speed just follows.

 

 >From then on he wades into the age old down wind turn

 and I donâ€™t even want to go there.Â  

 

 Blue skies & tailwinds,

 Bob Borger

 Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (50 hrs).

 Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320

 EXP

 3705 Lynchburg Dr.

 Corinth, TXÂ  76208-5331

 Cel: 817-992-1117

 rlborger(at)mac.com

 

 

 On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:26 PM, user9253 <fransew(at)gmail.com>

 wrote:

 

 

 <fransew(at)gmail.com>

 

 Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS

 I think that he is wrong.Â  Of course an airplane will

 lose airspeed in a level turn unless power is added, because

 part of the lift that was used to maintain altitude must be

 used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming

 inertia.Â  I think that the only force the earth exerts

 on an airplane is gravity, no matter its relative motion.

 This is not electrically related.Â  But there are some

 pretty smart people who lurk on the AeroElectric List.Â 

 It will be interesting to read their opinions.

 Joe

 

 --------

 Joe Gores

 

 

 AeroElectric-List Email Forum -

 Â Â Â - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

 List Contribution Web Site -

 Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  -Matt

 Dralle, List Admin.

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:22 am Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

At 05:44 PM 2/7/2014, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Reminds me of an article that was in the Oct. 2013 (page 12) Sport Aviation.  Doesn't anyone review these articles?



 



  	  Quote: 	
		  Raymond Julian

Kettle River, MN.

	
	


   Yup, we discussed that article here on the List 



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

 To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics



 At 04:55 PM 2/7/2014, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com>



 Gents,



 I like Mac most of the time, but here I believe he’s all wet. 	


   Agreed. The physics of the 'dreaded downwind turn' are firmly

   rooted in the anecdotal but sad observation that so many

   accidents have occurred while trying to accomplish this

   maneuver.



   But if one studies the motion of a winged body during

   a maneuver intended to reverse direction quickly and

   return to the airport, acceleration of the airplane's

   mass in a new direction is a smooth, continuous activity

   promoted by the horizontal component of lift that MUST

   be present in the coordinated turn.



   We explored this line of reasoning last October during

   which I posted this response . . .



 

   Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:15 pm    Post subject: The dreaded downwind turn . . .    

  At 10:48 AM 10/7/2013, I wrote: 

 Quote:

 When he started talking about the the wind accelerating to aircraft during the turn, he lost me.



 As soon as he says "a lighter aircraft will 

 accelerate faster than a heavier aircraft" 

 and bases the statement on an analysis of 

 "square feet of sail" . . . he blew it. 



 I sat next to a guy for several years who wrote 

 heavy duty software for autopilots that flew UAV's of all 

 stripe from 80Kts to 500 Kts. He tapped simple-ideas 

 to from my high school physics to describe how 

 the airplane flies. 



 I've been meaning to do an article on the 

 physics of this maneuver and have some drawings 

 done . . . somewhere on the hard drive. I'll 

 see if I can dig them up and perhaps finish 

 the article. 



 But while you read the words of folks wrestling with 

 the 'dreaded downwind turn' go to the POH data for 

 your airplane and get one number. Target IAS for 

 best glide angle. This is the speed at which your 

 distance over the ground versus altitude lost is 

 at a maximum. 



 When folks are talking about the physics of flight, 

 they're talking about airplanes that are being 

 'flown' . . . in other being controlled to conditions 

 that maximize performance. This generally calls for 

 a speed well above best rate of climb combined with 

 a 270 degree turn at 45 degrees of bank into the crosswind to 

 get pointed back toward the runway. 



 When the engine quits with a runway close behind 

 you, its easy for those performance numbers get obscured 

 by other things running around in your head. It takes 

 a Bob Hoover like attitude to first get the nose down 

 to achieve best glide angle whether you are turning 

 or not; stack in a 45-degree banked turn on top of 

 really adds pucker factor. 



 At speeds below best glide, lift/drag ratios can go 

 into the toilet in a hurry. On of my most cherished 

 flight instructors was checking me out in a Beech 

 Flying Club A36 one day. After three or four 

 by-the-book touch and goes he said "let me show you 

 something." 



 "Stay at pattern altitude until you're on final." 



 "Uh, okay . . ." 



 As I turned final I reached for the throttle . . . 



 "Nope, not yet . . ." 



 The runway disappeared under the nose and I reached 

 for the throttle . . . 



 "Nope, not yet . . . " 



 A few seconds later he said, "Okay. Close the throttle 

 and give me 75 MPH." 



 I set it up and was amazed. Sink rate went to something 

 around 1200 ft/min. A few seconds later I acquired a better 

 short-final view of the runway and he said, "Power up to 

 arrest your descent, push the nose down and give me 90 

 MPH over the numbers." 



 After that, the landing proceeded normally. 



 The point being that maneuvering around at speeds 

 below best glide is where the airplane sinks fast 

 even if you're not turning . . . faster still if 

 you turn. Best glide is well above those speeds 

 at which perturbations in IAS due to gusting can 

 begin to eat into your energy margins for maneuvering. 



 Best rate and particularly best angle of climb 

 speeds have the nose really high with a commensurate 

 boat-load of drag. Whether the airplane remains 

 controllable just before contact with the ground isn't 

 a matter of winds, it's a matter of altitude and 

 the pilot's willingness/ability to EXCHANGE energy 

 stored on that altitude for controllable airspeeds. 



 Airspeeds that will bring you to the ground with energy 

 to flare and keep the wheels attached to the airplane. 

 The alternative is a 1000+ feet per minute descent rate, 

 no energy to flare and a probability of having to eat 

 your wheels. 



 There are two magic numbers that drive your decision 

 to turn around best glide speed and ground clearance 

 KNOWN to be sufficient to the airplane's demands as 

 determined by experiment and practice. 



 Barry Schiff tells us how in this article. 



  http://tinyurl.com/mo8wux4 



 Note that Barry mentions nothing about controllability 

 hazards for having made a downwind turn. That's because 

 the target approach speed for greatest probability of 

 success is well above that where perturbations in wind 

 velocity make any difference at all. See: 



  http://tinyurl.com/kzr95lk 



  http://tinyurl.com/m29yg5y 



  http://tinyurl.com/k9y3z4y 



  http://tinyurl.com/mmgmojr 



 It's all about lift/drag ratios and energy budgets. 

 If your choice of pitch angle is poor (IAS) or your 

 stored energy (altitude) is lacking then it's a bit 

 specious to drag 'hazards of downwind turns' into the 

 discussion . . . things were probably not going to 

 go well anyhow. You become a passenger in your airplane 

 doing experiments with the controls. 



 Bottom line is that EAA, of ALL organizations, should 

 have folks with talents on a par with the honorable 

 Mr. Schiff to vet their articles. 



  http://tinyurl.com/mtn32qf



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



   The stall-spin outcome for attempting this

   maneuver comes from the natural unwillingness to

   push the nose down immediately upon loss of power.

   If you don't do that, the airplane slows, the

   controls go sloppy, sinkrate jumps up and the

   pilot succumbs to a powerful desire to raise

   the nose some more. A marginal energy budget (altitude

   and present velocity) is quickly squandered

   and has nothing to do with wind.



   As Barry mentions in the first article cited

   above, "The difference between success and failure is not

   only having sufficient altitude, but knowing how and when

   the turnaround maneuver can be performed with relative safety."



   I would add to that thought with the notion that

   few people will read Barry's article and become

   magically prepared to deal with the situation

   in real life. Practice, practice and a bit

   more practice goes a long way toward proficiency.



   In my early days of flying I spent hours in a

   Beech Skipper doing landings at the various

   and many grass strips around ICT during periods

   of adverse winds and turbulence. This was based

   on a comment by my instructor who said, "Someday

   you're going to find yourself over the airport

   down to less than ideal reserves for fuel and

   the task will be to deal with the winds you're

   given. Through those hours of getting to know

   my limits and those of my airplane, I lost my

   irrational fear of less than graceful landings

   and became more attentive to the physics of the

   task. The "dreaded downwind turn" is no different

   than "15 knots across the runway gusting to 25 with

   the thermals pounding the wings." If you don't

   set out to learn it then you'll be poorly equipped

   when you need it. 



   Bob . . .



 



 

   Bob . . .    [quote][b]

sprocket(at)vx-aviation.c
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 7:31 am Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

This article purports to be a discussion of the physics, but ends up being  a hand-waving exercise full of hokum.

  

 It suffers from a problem with changing frames of reference... the air,  then the ground and tries to rationalize the effects.  The best way to  analyze the aircraft dynamics is with a single point of reference, the  ground.  When this is done, one can see *three* types of total energy at  play.

  

 Two of the three energy types are obvious:  kinetic energy due to the  speed of the aircraft (over ground), potential energy due to the height of the  aircraft in the gravitational field of the earth.  Whatâ€™s the third one,  you ask.....?  Well, the moving mass of air (wind) appears in the  calculations sort of like a horizontal gravitational field.  Flying into  the wind increases â€˜wind potentialâ€™ energy with respect to the ground, flying  downwind then converts this â€˜wind potentialâ€™ into kinetic energy, just like  descending converts gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy.

  

  Vern



  

   From: rayj (raymondj(at)frontiernet.net) 

 Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 3:44 PM

 To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com)  

 Subject: Re: Mac's theory defies the laws a  physics

  



  Reminds me of an article that was in  the Oct. 2013 (page 12) Sport Aviation.  Doesn't anyone review these  articles?

 	  Quote: 	
		  Raymond Julian

Kettle River, MN.



"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,

and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine 	
On 02/07/2014  04:26 PM, user9253 wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		   	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253" mailto:fransew(at)gmail.com (fransew(at)gmail.com)



Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS

I think that he is wrong.  Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.  I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity, no matter its relative motion.

This is not electrically related.  But there are some pretty smart people who lurk on the AeroElectric List.  It will be interesting to read their opinions.

Joe



--------

Joe Gores





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301



	
	


 

   

No virus found in this  message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2013.0.3462 / Virus  Database: 3697/7071 - Release Date: 02/07/14

   [quote][b]

email(at)jaredyates.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 7:55 am Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

Maybe the chief editor could review the articles. Oh, wait...

[quote]  Reminds me of an article that was in  the Oct. 2013 (page 12) Sport Aviation.  Doesn't anyone review these  articles?



[b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:28 pm Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

At 09:55 AM 2/8/2014, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Maybe the chief editor could review the articles. Oh, wait...



  	  Quote: 	
		  Reminds me of an article that was in the Oct. 2013 (page 12) Sport Aviation.  Doesn't anyone review these articles?

 	
	




   It seems that Mr. McCellan has skipped across

   the wave-tops on an incident we discussed here

   on the List as I recall . . .



  http://tinyurl.com/o3j2bxh



   I've maintained that the incident and several

   others like it 



  http://tinyurl.com/ky7szec



   were absolutely not electrical system failures

   but instead failures on the part of owner/operator

   to assemble and maintain the system components

   within the limits of their performance. 



   A car that goes over the edge of a cliff after

   blowout of a bald tire did not suffer that

   end due to 'tire failure' . . . yes the

   tire demonstrated it's inability to meet

   design goals after being neglected/abused

   by its owner . . . but it was simply the

   inevitable icing on a cake that was baked

   hours, days even perhaps months earlier.



 

 

   Bob . . .    [quote][b]

rickofudall

Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 1392
Location: Udall, KS, USA

Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 8:35 pm Post subject: Mac's theory defies the laws a physics

I honestly had to read Mac's blog a couple of times to overcome my disbelief inertia. With this blog and that idiotic "sail area" article, I have to seriously think about my relationship to EAA. That they claim to be an organization concerned about aviation safety and then allow such drivel to be published is just unbelievable. As I said in my comment to Mac's blog, it's embarrassing, simply embarrassing. 



Rick Girard

do not archive



On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:26 PM, user9253 <fransew(at)gmail.com (fransew(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com (fransew(at)gmail.com)>

  

 Mac McClellan's theory seems to defy the laws a physics: http://goo.gl/VaZ4MS

 I think that he is wrong.  Of course an airplane will lose airspeed in a level turn unless power is added, because part of the lift that was used to maintain altitude must be used to "lift" the airplane around a turn, overcoming inertia.  I think that the only force the earth exerts on an airplane is gravity, no matter its relative motion.

  This is not electrically related.  But there are some pretty smart people who lurk on the AeroElectric List.  It will be interesting to read their opinions.

 Joe

 

 --------

 Joe Gores

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418301#418301

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 	




-- 

Zulu Delta

Mk IIIC

Thanks, Homer GBYM

It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.

   - Groucho Marx

 

  [quote][b]

_________________
The smallest miracle right in front of you is enough to make you happy....

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-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