Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:46 AM - Keith Imel Pics!! (Fred Weaver)
2. 01:57 AM - Re: Weav's fuel Numbers again (Fred Weaver)
3. 02:21 AM - Re: Trip MPG (Fred Weaver)
4. 01:24 PM - Re: Re: Weav's fuel Numbers again (Mcculleyja@aol.com)
5. 07:05 PM - Broken (Bob Conner)
6. 07:08 PM - engine mount (Bob Conner)
7. 08:01 PM - Weav's fuel (Jim and Donna Clement)
8. 08:31 PM - Re: engine mount (dmagaw@att.net)
9. 08:31 PM - Re: Broken (Richard Lamb)
10. 08:51 PM - Re: engine mount (Jim and Donna Clement)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Keith Imel Pics!! |
Keith.... I think we can all appreciate what you are trying to accomplish with
your pics as they relate to your project. BUT.... Dude.. You have got to learn
how to reduce your file sizes. Several people are still on a dial up connection.
AND you posted your pics to Both the list and the forum. Some of those guys
are on both lists so they had to download both of your GIANT pics TWICE!!
Fortunately for me, I still am only on one list but it still took about a half
hour for your two pictures to load. Please don't post anymore pictures of that
project until you can figure out how to take a picture with different camera
settings OR figure out how to resize within your computer.
The pictures you sent could be sent and look the same with a file size of 60K easily.
Thanks in advance for figuring out how to do it....
Weav and Others I'm sure......
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Imel
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 1:27 PM
Subject: Tailwind-List: Fw: W10 wing
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Imel
To: Tailwind
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 12:18 PM
Subject: W10 wing
Hey Guys;
Thanks so much for the response on the first photo. The plywood that I am removing
was not varnished on the inside or outside. That was my main reason for
taking it off. Actually I was just playing around with an edge and it started
to come off so easy that I just kept going.
The ribs are plywood with a slotted cap strip attached. They look plenty airworthy
except where so much is cut away for the wing tanks. I am estimating the
wing tanks at 15 or 18 gallons apiece! They extend all the way to the wing
tips. With the 25 gallons plus in the main tank I would be able to carry maybe
60 gallons!
I believe that a later builder skinned the tops of the wings. The bottom skin
looks to be scarfed together and just glued much better.
I have already built my rib jig and am starting on a set of ribs. Ultimately
I want to build a Tailwind all myself. This project is just not what I am looking
for in a Tailwind. I want to build what Rick or Jim is building. I have
dreamed about this for 15 years. Now it is time to get in gear and go. Maybe I
bought this project in error. I don`t know. But if it is salvageable I would
like to finish it.
I will send photos of the Cougar fuselage later. Maybe this project will be
a practice for what I really want. Sorry for the long post, and again thanks
to all for your great advice!
Keith Imel
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weav's fuel Numbers again |
Apparently Jim M you might indeed need some help. With interpretations more
than anything. I tried to give you guys some real time numbers with real
time results. Without trying to figure out how I could ballyhoo them into
some nonsense that even I can't figure out. (referring to your text below)
I made it simple. AND YES, I was questioning your earlier claims,
especially without wheelpants, which you clearly stated you were flying
without.
The problem is..... You didn't get my original message right.. In so many
words, I said you are flying a plane that I found somewhat impossible for
you to attain numbers that you quoted. I was just trying to voice my
opinion that your combination (of weight and size/frontal area & no
wheelpants) would be just about impossible to get the kind of Miles Per
Gallon you said you were getting. It sounded to me and maybe? the rest of
the group, that you were currently flying real fast (205 TAS?) and getting
"Verified Results" of 27 - 30 Miles Per Gallon. I didn't believe it and so
stated. Then I produced data from a much more efficient platform to explain
why. Not a bunch of mumbo jumbo, just the numbers.... And I do average a
cruise right at 208 mph TAS when covering long distances.
Poor ole Dennis just got caught in the middle... He is trying hard to get
some mileage also but the size and weight of Race #53 is just keeping him
from getting there. He flies all over the place though and I totally believe
the fuel consumption and speeds he is providing are very accurate. I would
be very interested in seeing how well he does if he would fly the long
distances up high where he can get some better economy. And of course, put
the wheelpants back on. The only problem with that (flying higher) is the
smaller wing with the higher loading. No matter how high he gets, the wing
has to have a certain amount of attack to maintain level flight. While
allowing the engine to run more efficiently, the thinner air will almost
certainly have a penalty in carrying the weight. He might not get to see the
kind of results that others might see.
I have no idea what kind of aspect ratio you have with your plane but it
sounded like you have a plane proportioned the same as Dennis's. In fact,
after re reading your post, I am convinced you are flying a plane that is
identical to Dennis's. Those were your words. That airplane is a W8. A
fatter/wider W8. Not a 10. It has a variety of shortcomings(length, weight,
Frontal area, stab area) along with wings that are short on aspect ratio
(Missing those W10 Tips especially to optimize your Mileage needs). I'm
amazed that you were able to get the weight under a 1000 pounds. Especially
with the Hartzell Constant Speed prop. I'm sure you could write a book
about that challenge and I'd love to read it.
Still, let's face the truth..... What is your real Wing Area? Wing Loading?
And how much Stab area do you have? And what is the Angle between the wings
and stabs? It all comes down to Too Much Drag, especially without the
wheelpants to support the claims. It's that simple.....
So.... For the record, what I posted are the facts. I simply let you know
how long it took to get somewhere, how high I generally fly and how much gas
I had to buy to do it. Didn't take a killer calculator to do the math....
And I explained as clearly as possible the way I climb and descend, both
factors contributing to the overall consumption game.
Every other batch of data we received on this thread indicated results from
flying at much lower altitudes. I think flying higher really works for
mileage. I'd love to see Malcolm and Magaw get up to at least 10,500 ft and
give us the difference in their current flows and mileage. You guys can
really lean aggressively up there as you aren't producing enough power to
hurt anything. Wind it up and let er rip!
FWIW, When I was flying side by side with the Fourunner, I talked to Lee and
got him to try some different power/RPM settings.When all was said and done,
He dropped almost 2 gallons per hour just by leaning to peak with wide open
throttle and keeping rpm at 2300. Any other combo just slowed us both down.
I'm willing to bet his revised consumption rate would look good on Bill's
chart/Graph too. And that's a four place airplane...
To everyone else on this list.... I'm sorry for the long drawn out post.
Initially, I tried to keep it simple. Let's keep sending numbers to Bill for
his graph. If nothing else, it let's new builders find out what to
expect.... And to others....what they might not get to see when they
increase the drag or let the weight get too high.
Gas it and GO!
Weav
PS.. And Jim, my Lycoming has a redline rpm of 2700. Running it at 2400 is
hardly "higher than Lycoming rated rpm".. Anything under 2700 works for
me. Maybe it's that light, fixed pitch wooden stick that makes the
difference.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Mcculleyja@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Re: Weav's Fuel numbers
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: Mcculleyja@aol.com
>
> Fred,
>
> I really need help! You were questioning my earlier MPG claims at MUCH
lower
> average speeds than you are reporting, but now your data makes me want to
> trade airplanes with you! Deal ? <gr>
>
> Yours is obviously much better even than Jim's (N6168X) that CAFE tested
> while producing at least 180 HP (like yours and mine) but at higher than
> Lycoming-rated RPM.
>
> I believe you explained in another message that your normal procedure is
to
> record time from start of takeoff to shutdown at the destination fuel
pump. On
> the trip to Corona and return, I assume the 3+35 time included the taxi
time
> from landing to the fuel pump at each airport. Can I estimate about a
minimum
> of 4 minutes at each and thus conclude the ENROUTE time for the round trip
> was 3+27? If this is reasonable, then the average enroute flight speed
was
> 179.7 K (206.7 MPH).
>
> Now, if we assume the two climbs to 11,500 and 12,500 and the respective
> descents also averaged the same 206.7 MPH (nice thought?), we can simplify
the
> thinking by just pretending that the entire trip was begun and ended over
the
> respective airports without the need to use fuel getting up there twice.
In this
> case the maximum fuel burn rate equates to 22.14 NM /gal ( 25.46 MPG).
That
> appears to be really outstanding results while also cruising at a speed
that
> is 95% of the CAFE finding of 216.9 MPH max cruise.
>
> However, reality is that there had to be fuel used in climbing, descending
> and taxiing twice. If it is fair to guess that 4 gallons of the 28 were
> consumed in the two climbs, descents and taxi then that leaves 24 gal for
cruise, and
> that results in 29.7 MPG for the cruise phase. So it looks like you are
> routinely doing what you thought was impossible magic. <gr>
>
> Congratulations!
>
> Jim
>
> In a message dated 9/5/04 9:52:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Mytyweav@earthlink.net writes:
>
> > On a recent trip down to
> > Corona in Southern California from my home airport, Westover O70, I
made
> the
> > trip down and back in 3 hours and 35 minutes. That includes climbing to
> > 12,500 ft. in one direction, 11,500 on the other.. The distance was
620+NM
> > for the round trip. Total fuel burned (including taxiing) was 28.0
gallons.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Yo Bill.... Thanks for the graph... I hope others will submit data to keep illustrating
the differences between planes and techniques. Can you fill in the
numbers for Malcolm and Dave Magaw too? And maybe we can see the results also
of the effects of slowing down some to increase our mileage.. Cool stuff...Perhaps
adding a few more cells with Altitude and maybe other details that people
would want to see. Like engine size and airplane config, weight, etc
Thanks,
Weav
PS... I added the info to your graph below that was previously listed in a couple
of emails.
----- Original Message -----
From: William Bernard
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Trip MPG
I've been following this thread with some interest. I was amazed at the fuel
economy being reported. I just took a trip to Manistee, MI. 333 NM one way (666
total) and used 43 gallons of fuel. Time up was 2:35 and 2:45 on the way back
the same day. The trip up was at 5500 ft and back at 4500. I've shown the comparison
in a table. (Weav didn't give a time for his trip, so all we can figure
is the MPG)
Distance
Fuel
MPG
Time
Speed
GPH
Me
666
43
15.49
5.33
124.88
8.06
Dennis
450
29.7
15.15
3.17
142.11
9.38
Weav
620
28
22.14
3.58
173.18
7.82
On my 'Grand Expedition' tour in July the fuel consumption varied from 5.66 to
8.49 and the mpg from 20.82 to 13.63 (not on the same legs either.) Most of
the trip was flown at 9500 to 10500 due to terrain. There was a lot of variation
from one day to the next, due to winds, desire to hurry, etc. Overall, for
the trip 4543 nautical miles, I used 266 gallons in 38 hours. The average speed
was 118 knots, average fuel burn was 7 gph and average mpg was 17 nMPG.
Without precisely calibrated instrumentation and side by side tests, its really
difficult to come up with meaningful comparisons. So many minor factors can
have a big effect on the end result. Maybe a round-robin tour at Baraboo next
year?
Bill
Workin' on wheel pants for the mains.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weav's fuel Numbers again |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: Mcculleyja@aol.com
Aaaah,Fred,
Sorry my poor-man's attempt at Weav-style light hearted humor fell flat and
apparently was offensive to you. Maybe you missed seeing the one and only
major fact of physics and aerodynamics that my original answer to Dennis (9/2/04)
and to you (9/3/04) contained and it applies to any airplane and any
owner/operator of said airplane.
The fact that is involved is that maximum long range capability is directly
related to flying at the maximum miles per gallon (MPG) and that the only way
to achieve that is to operate at the indicated airspeed (IAS) for any given
airplane and altitude that attains the maximum lift-to-drag (L/D max). ( However,
there is a somewhat higher speed (Carson's) that is not so unbearably slow,
yet only slightly reduces the MPG.)
Although I stated the MAXIMUM calibrated true airpeed I have seen for my
Tailwind is 205 mph, I pointed out that my MPG info was only for flight conditions
at MUCH LOWER AIRSPEEDS and POWER SETTINGS (never above 50-55% power) As
the laws of physics and aerodynamics cannot be tricked, there is simply no way
to make any airplane SIMULTANEOUSLY fly at a high percentage of its maximum
speed capability while also being at its maximum miles-per-gallon (MPG)
capability. Yes, I was needling you somewhat by wondering outloud how you could
seem
to be operating at such a high percentage of the probable maximum speed of your
bird while also getting MPG numbers far above others (in Bill's Listing). In
particular, your MPG numbers are at the same level of those I earlier
reported which you initially challenged as unbelievable. I think you simply failed
to see in my 9/2 & 9/3 messages that my speed and power levels for those MPG
results were identified as well below my reported maximum speed.
In any event I don't think this thread should be about competing over numbers
per se. There are just too many difficult-to-assess outside factors such as
pilot techniques, aircraft system differences, wind and weather, airport
differences for departure/arrival, how time is measured,etc,etc. The only valid
comparisons might come from identically measured results when two ships are flown
over the same route within a few dozen feet of each other. That might show
differences between the two under the same general outside conditions, but would
still leave room for different results that could have been, if the two
pilots had chosen a different set of flight parameters. This thread is not about
a
race where everybody is wide open to simply measure who is the fastest
regardless of the effects upon other measured parameters.
I submit the purpose of this thread should be only to exchange opinions and
facts about how each of us can optimize our personal choices between speed or
economy and range while flying our individual birds. There are such vast
differences between individual Tailwinds, available instrumentation, flight
conditions, and owner techniques that it is near impossible to expect correlation
within the honestly observed and reported individual results from a group. It's
just too difficult!
That's my story and I'm sticking to it! My congratulations to you were
sincere in that I do recognize your Tailwind is definitely one of the best
performers, if not the current best. Hopefully, this thread may cause all of us
to
seriously consider how it may be possible to do better if certain options are
exercised when looking for tradeoffs in speed, fuel consumption, or non-stop
distance results. Your data shows you can significantly further improve some of
your parameters if you choose to fly at much lower speeds, but that is always
a personal choice and no one can criticize another person's informed decisions.
BTW, I probably don't write too clearly, but I was not referring to your
plane regarding RPM. My point was that the CAFE tested O-320 (160HP) was found
to
be producing 180 HP due to the 2828 RPM they found it could turn while
burning 16.2 GPH, inferring 180 HP output. You and I both have standard O-360
(180
HP) engines with 2700 RPM redline and I assumed you did not exceed that, but
the point was that the CAFE report was seemingly a good guideline on what might
be the expected top speed from a Clement bird equipped with a 180 HP engine,
like yours. I don't expect (and do not get) that top speed, but again this
thread is not about top speeds, but rather about long range (high MPG)
capabilities---I thought!
Your comments about the details of mine in dimensions, etc are generally
correct, but the percentage of performance degradation for the subject of long
range cruising purposes isn't necessarily as catastrophic as for top speed.
Although mine is (we think) very similar to Dennis', I hope the things I did to
mine such as the cooling drag project and weight reduction have offset the
inherently higher drag of its greater dimensions that you pointed out. But again,
my congratulations to you were that I bow to your Tailwind being sufficiently
superior to not only equal (probably exceed) my MPG capability if you choose to
use the long-known principles of operation for that purpose. Incidentally,
the same MPG results can be achieved at any altitude below about the low teens.
It's only that the TAS and required HP will automatically be greater as
altitude increases. And don't ask me to run wide open alongside you---I will concede
to you being the winner before wasting the fuel. However, I have flown in
close formation with a friend in his RV-4 that I pulled ahead of when we went to
full throttle! :<)
Let's fly in peace,
Jim
In a message dated 9/6/04 4:58:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Mytyweav@earthlink.net writes:
> Apparently Jim M you might indeed need some help. With interpretations more
> than anything. I tried to give you guys some real time numbers with real
> time results. Without trying to figure out how I could ballyhoo them into
> some nonsense that even I can't figure out. (referring to your text below)
> I made it simple. AND YES, I was questioning your earlier claims,
> especially without wheelpants, which you clearly stated you were flying
> without.
>
> The problem is..... You didn't get my original message right.. In so many
> words, I said you are flying a plane that I found somewhat impossible for
> you to attain numbers that you quoted. I was just trying to voice my
> opinion that your combination (of weight and size/frontal area & no
> wheelpants) would be just about impossible to get the kind of Miles Per
> Gallon you said you were getting. It sounded to me and maybe? the rest
of
> the group, that you were currently flying real fast (205 TAS?) and getting
> "Verified Results" of 27 - 30 Miles Per Gallon. I didn't believe it and so
> stated. Then I produced data from a much more efficient platform to
explain
> why. Not a bunch of mumbo jumbo, just the numbers.... And I do average a
> cruise right at 208 mph TAS when covering long distances.
<SNIP>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Whilest trying to hang the new engine today I discovered the top right engine mount
would move in and out found out this tube was broken. Would it be ok to make
a patch put around the whole thing and weld it on. Or is there a better way.
Looks like I'm going to be down for awhile longer, but glad I found it on the
ground and not while in the air and the engine fall off. Any advice would be
appreciated...................Bob 149
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
This is what my engine mount looks like. Now while I have this all off should I
put the tubes on the bottom like Dave said he did on his? The way I remember
him saying was to add a couple of tubes to the bottom mounts over to the side.
Am I remembering right??????????? Bob 149
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Jim and Donna Clement" <168x@merr.com>
Here are a few other numbers for TW fuel burn.
First, 6168X the CAFE TW, and 6168Y now owned by Gary Volkman are basically
twins. both have 160hp, 23 foot wingspans and top speeds were within 1 mph
of each other. I have flown at least 100 hours of formation cross country
flying along side Gary with him flying 6168Y. On a trip to Sun and Fun and
back, with me flying 168X the 180hp TW Fred now owns, our fuel burn was
exactly the same. The difference was the 180 was turning 2200rpm and Gary
was turning 2450-2500 rpm. Both TWs had props that would turn 2750 full
throttle. Altitude varied from 400- 8,500 feet. average fuel burn was 7.5
gph. Manifold pressure never over 23". We usually stop at Tullahoma TN and
take on fuel, usually about 23- 24 gallons. That is a little over half way,
total is about 1200 statute so I imagine if you doubled the 23 gal it would
be about right for a total fuel burn.
With the 160 hp trigears I have made it from Salome AZ, that is 60 miles
East of Blyth CA, to Baraboo WI two times with one fuel stop at Garden City
KS with a total fuel burn of 56 gallons. To do this you have to fly high,
over 10 and closer to 12,000 feet at a reduced power setting showing 17"
manifold pressure. Total miles on that trip is about 1450-1475 statute. On
another trip to Salome from Baraboo I flew along side a friend in his 182
Cessna, he was at full power all the way and I was turning less than 2000
rpm using 5.8 gph and that wasn't up very high. anything over 8000 feet the
182 was a dog compared to the TW. I guess what I am trying to say is Fred is
real close with his numbers, He flys high and keeps his stops to a minimum,
they take time and lots more fuel.
Jim C
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine mount |
Bob:
What I did to mine--and you are on your own as far as the engineering aspects--is
shown in the attached picture with the red lines. I welded in two tubes from
the bottom engine mount bushings (or whatever you call them) on the engine
mount to the closest large cross tube. Hope this helps.
Dave
-------------- Original message from "Bob Conner" : --------------
This is what my engine mount looks like. Now while I have this all off should I
put the tubes on the bottom like Dave said he did on his? The way I remember
him saying was to add a couple of tubes to the bottom mounts over to the side.
Am I remembering right??????????? Bob 149
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<style type='text/css'>
p {
margin: 0px;
}
</style>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
Bob:
What I did to mine--and you are on your own as far as the engineering aspects--is
shown in the attached picture with the red lines. I welded in two tubes from
the bottom engine mount bushings (or whatever you call them) on the engine mount
to the closest large cross tube. Hope this helps.
Dave
-------------- Original message from "Bob Conner" <BDCONNER@HOTMAIL.COM>: --------------
This is what my engine mount looks like. Now while I have this all off should I
put the tubes on the bottom like Dave said he did on his? The way I remember
him saying was to add a couple of tubes to the bottom mounts over to the side.
Am I remembering right??????????? Bob 149
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net>
See AC 43-13 for repairs.
We had a close call early this summer when two airplanes landed
in opposite directions.
The prop on the plane rolling out on the ground got the wheel pant
of the biplane still in the air.
The biplane guy went around.
His main gear was dammaged, but functional and he landed safely.
Investigating the damage to the biplane we (months!) later found the
lower longeron / firewall tubes broken on both sides of the plane.
Scary....
Richard
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine mount |
Bob, I did the same as Dave shows on one of my TWs but if I remember right the
tubes come real close to the oil pan. Might be best to hang the engine on to fit
the tubes.
On the cracked tube, weld it up and put a gusset down the side extending about
1" past the crack. Jim C
----- Original Message -----
From: dmagaw@att.net
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: engine mount
Bob:
What I did to mine--and you are on your own as far as the engineering aspects--is
shown in the attached picture with the red lines. I welded in two tubes
from the bottom engine mount bushings (or whatever you call them) on the engine
mount to the closest large cross tube. Hope this helps.
Dave
-------------- Original message from "Bob Conner" : --------------
This is what my engine mount looks like. Now while I have this all off should
I put the tubes on the bottom like Dave said he did on his? The way I remember
him saying was to add a couple of tubes to the bottom mounts over to the side.
Am I remembering right??????????? Bob 149
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|