Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:11 AM - Re: Duxford Mid-Air (Harv)
2. 01:02 AM - Re: voltage regulator (Nanchang CJ6)
3. 07:53 AM - Re: Re: Duxford Mid-Air (Roger Baker)
4. 08:06 AM - Re: Re: Duxford Mid-Air (Yak Pilot)
5. 08:14 AM - Re: Duxford Mid-Air (Etienne Verhellen)
6. 08:51 AM - Re: Correction (Brian Lloyd)
7. 09:04 AM - Re: Re: Duxford Mid-Air (Mark Davis)
8. 09:19 AM - Re: Re: Duxford Mid-Air (Brian Lloyd)
9. 09:31 AM - Re: Re: Duxford Mid-Air (Brian Lloyd)
10. 09:37 AM - Re: Correction (Drew Blahnick)
11. 09:49 AM - Re: Re: Correction (Brian Lloyd)
12. 11:26 AM - Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe. (Etienne Verhellen)
13. 12:21 PM - Yak-52 Generator. (Etienne Verhellen)
14. 12:35 PM - Re: Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe. (Didier Blouzard)
15. 02:42 PM - Re: Re: Duxford Mid-Air (Curtis White)
16. 08:00 PM - Re: Re: Duxford Mid-Air (Roger Kemp)
17. 09:12 PM - Re: Re: Duxford Mid-Air (Bill Geipel)
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: | Re: Duxford Mid-Air |
Chaps
This is about the clearest video to come up thus far.
http://www.flyingfilm.co.uk/
Glad they all got out, thats the main thing.
Rgs
Harv
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346025#346025
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: voltage regulator |
Dear BJ, Are you still looking for this unit?
If you are interested in it, please contact me we can help you.
Sarah
--------
Sarah's E-mail:lcdzkj@live.cn
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346027#346027
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/power_relay_box_156.jpg
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Duxford Mid-Air |
"Egads! It appears that I have erred"....as they say at the Ivy League
schools. "Damn, I've really screwed up" as we used to say at Eastern
New Mexico U.
In the email I sent yesterday about the mid-air collision between the 51
and the AD at Duxford....most of what I said was more or less accurate.
BUT, my history on the subject 51 was pretty much totally torqued up.
What got my coffee addled brain heading down the wrong path was, I
think, the fact that both airplanes were well known and both were nicely
painted in WWII colors as "Big Beautiful Doll".
Somehow, in my mind I ended up combining parts of the history of two
Mustangs...to yield a whole that was messed up. The airplane that I
mentioned as one I'd been involved with back in the 60's (N6165U) is
part of a very convoluted history....but the airplane it became (now
known as N351BD s/n 44-63634) is still in the USA and still painted as
"Big Beautiful Doll". It has had a tough life and there is some doubt
as to its true s/n....plus, it has been repaired after some serious
damage using components from donor airplanes (including, as I remember,
some stuff from a CAC built airplane). It is now a very nice airplane
which I've enjoyed seeing here and there for several years.
The 51 that was involved in Saturdays collision was indeed a CAC
airplane CA-18 MK 22, A68-192, with a relatively "clean" history. It
was involved in an accident in the Phillipines back in the 1970s and
repaired using components from a NAA built airplane. But, otherwise,
pretty much a verifiable history. It lived in Hong Kong for a couple of
years in the 80's and went to the UK in 1985, where it remained until
this year and its move to German ownership.
Sorry to have passed along my scrambled history. I wrote the email
yesterday just as I remembered it...without checking my facts. Now that
I've done that.....well, this is pretty much the accurate story.
Roger__________________________________________________
On Jul 11, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Roger Baker wrote:
> Hello Yak Listers,
>
> Below is an email I sent to some other friends earlier today with
the facts that I know about the accident....beyond what one can see on
the videos and photos.
>
> It's good that Davies survived with only minor injuries. It's
too bad that this 51 was lost. However, the loss of the airframe is not
that big of a deal. Brand new Mustangs can be (are being) made these
days from scratch......except for the real tragedy of the day...which is
the destruction of the Merlin engine. There is only a very limited
supply of them....and there aren't likely to be any more manufactured.
The art of making large, exact, complicated castings has essentially
disappeared. It was an art, not a science or technology developed for
industrial production. It came out of the mostly jewish metal working
artisans of the middle ages who developed techniques for large castings
initially for casting large religious statues. The descendents of those
early artisans developed the techniques that led to industrial
uses....but they are all likely dead. Any survivors from the Merlin era
(either R-R or Packard) casting lines would be at least 85 years old and
mostly older....or have shuffled off this mortal coil.
>
> Besides, who would front 10 or 20 or 50 million dollars to
recreate the technology??? The resultant engines themselves would be
multi-million dollar contraptions.
>
> Sorry, I've done it again....gotten all wordy rambling about
things that damn few are interested in. Oops. I hope the photos come
through. I've never been very sure how photos work on the list.
>
>
Roger_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________
>
>
> Hi Andrew and all,
>
> The AD was a French registered airplane F-AZDP. The Mustang was
German registered D-FBBD which I think had only recently come off the
British registry (off the US registry around 2005 or 6). It was being
flown by a guy named Ron Davies. The #3 airplane in that formation was
another Mustang being flown by Dan Freidkin (Tommy Freidkin's son) and
Ed Shipley was in another three ship right behind the ill fated vic.
>
> Here's an interesting picture that shows that D-FBBD's lower
longerons appear to be broken, possibly along with the elevator
controls, etc. Really quick thinking (and action) on the part of Davies
(just shows the validity of having made up ones mind in advance about
leaving an airplane in distress...this is all happening about 800'
agl...the canopy left the airplane 7 seconds after the collision:
>
> <post-8022-1310368013.jpg>
>
> Here's another picture that is of 2 of the 3 airplanes in the vic just
before the break:
>
> <ba9fb01f3f3d5557a1dde6bb0cd30641.jpg>
>
> Back in the late 1960's, I was involved with this 51 when it was
registered as N6565U. It has lead a hard life since then; wrecked a
couple of times and rebuilt using large parts of other airplanes. In
fact, I think that at the time of the collision, it was composed mostly
of major components of CAC built Mustang A68-192 (for some reason that
serial number comes to mind as the source airplane) but still on a NAA
data plate. Below is a photo from the MustangsMustangs.com web site
from the days that I knew the airplane.
>
> <44-63634_00810_rb2.jpg>
>
> And here's one showing just how close it was for Ron Davies.
Parachutes are very good things.
>
> <2duxfordcrash.jpg>
> Best regards,
>
> Roger Baker_________________________________________________________
>
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: Duxford Mid-Air |
Sorry Drew,- Have to weigh in on this one.--
-
What the official interpretation is:--"If one person is wearing a parac
hute, in an aircraft, then everyone must wear a parachute in that aircraft.
"--Hence why I am required to wear a chute when dropping sky-divers.-
If you are not carrying-passengers, you are not required to wear a chute
.- -
-
"c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute,
no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember)
may execute any intentional maneuver-- etc., etc. "
-
Please note the statement "OTHER THAN A CREWMEMBER".-
-
I am not going to debate what defines a "crewmember", but if you are flying
as the lone occupant of an aircraft, you are not required to wear a chute
while performing aerobatics.-
-
No, I am not going to-debate the wisdom (or lack there-of) of not wearing
a chute, I am saying that if you are the Pilot and-no one else is in the
aircraft, a chute is not required to perform aerbatics, much like a Flight
Suit is not required to fly formation.--
-
This topic has been debated in the past on the YAK List for weeks on end (s
ee the archives).- Some folks just seem determined to bring it up over an
d over again to try to make a point about what they think is right versus w
hat is legal and what is not.- Nothing wrong with personal opinions until
someone trys to infer that their personal opinion is the law and everyone
must comply with it.- See Achives on Tailslides.-
-
My suggestion is that if you really want to know what is legal and what is
not the reader should contact their local authorities and not base decision
s on what is read on the YAK LIST.- In the U.S.-contact, the EAA, the A
OPA, your Aviation Lawyer, and the FAA.-
-
-
-
-
--- On Tue, 7/12/11, Drew Blahnick <dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Drew Blahnick <dblahnick@gmail.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Duxford Mid-Air
You nailed it Pod, and under the rules, the occupant/passenger falls under
the FAAs historical mandate to protect the public from...what else, pilots
;)-
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved-parachute
, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember
) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds-
(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
Drew
______________________________________
Strive for-one knee down in life, but never two.
(1000 Year Old Road Racing Proverb That I Just Made Up)
On Jul 11, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Michael Foster <michaelfoster@bellsouth.net> w
rote:
Drew,
As far as parachutes and FAR-- look at 91.307. It says you need-an appr
oved parachute--repacked-within 180 days- by a certified rigger (is one
at HEG $40/ chute that I use) Need chute for intentional-maneuvers excee
ding 60 deg AOB, nose up/ down 30deg from horizon. This is more specific th
an general aerobatic flt definition.
-
91.303 talks about aerobatic flight- in certian airspace- not within 4 mile
s of an airway--above 1500ft- need 3-mi vis. Also defines it as "an int
entional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an
abnormal attitude or abnormal acceleration not necessary for normal flight.
No mention of- specific pitch and bank limits.
-
Pod
-
-
From: Drew Blahnick <dblahnick@gmail.com>
Cc: "hkgibby@yahoo.com" <hkgibby@yahoo.com>; "yak-list@matronics.com" <yak-
list@matronics.com>; "aragheb@aol.com" <aragheb@aol.com>; "billandkim@wedel
iverwellness.com" <billandkim@wedeliverwellness.com>; "michaelfoster@bellso
uth.net" <michaelfoster@bellsouth.net>; "johnford915@ymail.com" <johnford91
5@ymail.com>; "boswell.bruce@gmail.com" <boswell.bruce@gmail.com>; "rlanger
2@comcast.net" <rlanger2@comcast.net>; "rhino11@me.com" <rhino11@me.com>; "
capav8r@gmail.com" <capav8r@gmail.com>; "yakski@earthlink.net" <yakski@eart
hlink.net>
Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 5:04:01 PM
Subject: Re: Duxford Mid-Air
Whats the rules Pappy (faa)? -Is it still reg just to provide passengers
with an inspected chute if were doing aerobatics? as long as im legal with
the suits from the fsdo...
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 11, 2011, at 4:10 PM, cjpilot710@aol.com wrote:
Suzy Bass up at Deland or Kay Larken is the one I go to.
-
I think Hoots right, dash 2 went to tight and looked like he pulled a lot h
arder than Lead.- He obviously didn't have him in sight.- I personally
stay away from nonstandard pitch outs.- Boring I know, but unless you pra
ctice with the guys its really foolish to try with strangers.- All those
guys are high timers, but airplanes fly differently and the performance inc
ludes turning-diameters as well as speed.- A 2 G pull in one airplane w
ill not be the same as a 2 G pull in another.-
-
Does anyone want to debate the parachute rules?
-
Pappy
-
In a message dated 7/11/2011 3:13:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dblahnick@
gmail.com writes:
Excellent video lesson for folks to see (RPA should post this for their mem
bership), also a good example of having a parachute you can trust!
Thanks Hank. -My CJ is heading to New S. Beach for a new compressor insta
ll...anyone know where I can get a chute repacked up there in Daytona area?
Drew
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Hank Gibson <hkgibby@yahoo.com> wrote:
Red Stars-
Tough loss of a P-51 in Duxford at the annual Flying Legends airshow.- Lo
oks to me like dash 2 (the Skyraider) lost sight of his lead.- Contributi
ng factors;- minimal break interval, no pause before the roll and the lea
d not pulling hard enough; maybe looking for interval, but definitely fault
of the Skyraider from what I see.- As we always say, the key is to brief
it up!!- Lucky nobody hurt!- Check it out:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-14101641
Hoot
-
Hank Gibson
904-738-3240 Mobile
904-213-1760 Home
hkgibby@yahoo.com
hkgibson@fnf.com
-
--
Strive for one knee down in life, but never two!
(ancient racing proverb I probably just made up)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Duxford Mid-Air |
A very very important reminder of the single MOST IMPORTANT rule of formation flying
:
NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF THE LEAD AIRCRAFT.
http://www.flyingfilm.co.uk/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013219/Pilot-Rob-Davies-escapes-WW2-fighter-mid-air-collision-airshow.html
--------
http://www.flyforfun.be/?q=yaks
http://www.planecheck.com/eu/index.asp?ent=dv&id=6711
http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/san07/page1.html
http://www.irishairpics.com/photo/1029467/L/Yakovlev-Yak-52/G-CBSS/Etienne-Verhellen/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346068#346068
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/2010_05_15_adam_marx_19_352.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/815649x_133.jpg
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 |
|
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Drew Blahnick <dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't know me and hanks email on this was cced to yak list, but FYI in
> the following post response from you on this mid air, it attributes
> someone's post about 2 Gs to me, this is incorrect, someone else is the
> author of this.
>
Yes, Jim Goolsby. I was trying to cut out the extraneous postings that had
been left in.
>
> If this is true, please correct, thanks!
>
Sure. No problem.
>
> Drew
>
>
> Time: 03:40:07 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Duxford Mid-Air
> From: Brian Lloyd < <brian@lloyd.com>brian@lloyd.com>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Drew Blahnick < <dblahnick@gmail.com>
> dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> A 2 G pull in one airplane will not be the same as a 2 G pull in another.
>
>
> A 2G pull is the *SAME* for two airplanes going the same speed and will
> result in the same-size turn. The only difference is if one bleeds energy
> significantly faster in the pull than the other one does, but then your
> airspeeds are not the same anymore.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> <brian@lloyd.com>brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
> Drew
> ______________________________________
> Strive for one knee down in life, but never two.
> (1000 Year Old Road Racing Proverb That I Just Made Up)
>
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Duxford Mid-Air |
This accident illustrates the reason all U.S. military formations (with the
exception of demonstration teams) routinely break out of an echelon. In
this case, it appears the Mustang pulled straight up for an extended period
and disappeared at the AD's 6:00 high (unless he can twist his head 360
degrees like Linda Blair in the Exorcist). I know it's the wingman's
responsibility to maintain sight of the lead, but if they lead maneuvers to
a position that the wingman can't see him and then has to reaquire a visual,
it's putting an unneccessary burden on the wingman to pick out his lead with
another Mustang downwind out of the previous formation. Maybe it's a
standard recovery technique in the UK, but not across the pond. This
accident was probably wouldn't have happened if they had broken out of an
echelon. It's great that no one was hurt, but they were both LUCKY.
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Etienne Verhellen" <janie@yak52.fr>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:12 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Duxford Mid-Air
>
> A very very important reminder of the single MOST IMPORTANT rule of
> formation flying :
>
> NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF THE LEAD AIRCRAFT.
>
> http://www.flyingfilm.co.uk/
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013219/Pilot-Rob-Davies-escapes-WW2-fighter-mid-air-collision-airshow.html
>
> --------
> http://www.flyforfun.be/?q=yaks
> http://www.planecheck.com/eu/index.asp?ent=dv&id=6711
> http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/san07/page1.html
> http://www.irishairpics.com/photo/1029467/L/Yakovlev-Yak-52/G-CBSS/Etienne-Verhellen/
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346068#346068
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/2010_05_15_adam_marx_19_352.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/815649x_133.jpg
>
>
>
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: Duxford Mid-Air |
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Harv <martin.harvey@kbr.com> wrote:
>
> Chaps
>
> This is about the clearest video to come up thus far.
>
> http://www.flyingfilm.co.uk/
>
> Glad they all got out, thats the main thing.
>
Huh. I'm sure we could analyze this to death but it reinforces the value of
standard procedures and consistency.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Duxford Mid-Air |
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Etienne Verhellen <janie@yak52.fr> wrote:
>
> A very very important reminder of the single MOST IMPORTANT rule of
> formation flying :
>
> NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF THE LEAD AIRCRAFT.
>
Well, not completely true. During a break it is normal for lead to fly
out-of-sight. Lead has reversed course prior to the other aircraft in the
flight. Each subsequent aircraft at the front of the echelon is supposed to
concentrate on maintaining heading, altitude, and airspeed until time to
roll and pull, not looking at lead. Therefore it is normal and accepted that
the aircraft in the flight will, for some short period of time, lose sight
of each other. We expect that. What saves us in that case is the geometry of
the maneuver. If everyone executes the maneuver the same way, at the same
speed, with the same G-load, then it is impossible for the aircraft to have
impinging vectors.
So, I would like to introduce a new platitude that supersedes most, if not
all, of the platitudes that we bat around here:
"DO IT RIGHT."
For those of us who prefer more colorful platitudes I submit the following
variation:
"DON'T FUCK UP."
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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 |
|
Thanks Brian
Drew
______________________________________
Strive for one knee down in life, but never two.
(1000 Year Old Road Racing Proverb That I Just Made Up)
On Jul 12, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Drew Blahnick <dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote
:
> I didn't know me and hanks email on this was cced to yak list, but FYI in t
he following post response from you on this mid air, it attributes someone's
post about 2 Gs to me, this is incorrect, someone else is the author of thi
s.
>
> Yes, Jim Goolsby. I was trying to cut out the extraneous postings that had
been left in.
>
>
> If this is true, please correct, thanks!
>
> Sure. No problem.
>
>
> Drew
>
>
> Time: 03:40:07 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Duxford Mid-Air
> From: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Drew Blahnick <dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote
:
>
>>
>> A 2 G pull in one airplane will not be the same as a 2 G pull in another.
>>
>>
> A 2G pull is the *SAME* for two airplanes going the same speed and will
> result in the same-size turn. The only difference is if one bleeds energy
> significantly faster in the pull than the other one does, but then your
> airspeeds are not the same anymore.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
> Drew
> ______________________________________
> Strive for one knee down in life, but never two.
> (1000 Year Old Road Racing Proverb That I Just Made Up)
>
>
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
Message 11
| 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 |
|
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Drew Blahnick <dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Brian
>
No worries. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Drew
> ______________________________________
> Strive for one knee down in life, but never two.
> (1000 Year Old Road Racing Proverb That I Just Made Up)
>
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Drew Blahnick < <dblahnick@gmail.com>
> dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't know me and hanks email on this was cced to yak list, but FYI in
>> the following post response from you on this mid air, it attributes
>> someone's post about 2 Gs to me, this is incorrect, someone else is the
>> author of this.
>>
>
> Yes, Jim Goolsby. I was trying to cut out the extraneous postings that had
> been left in.
>
>
>>
>> If this is true, please correct, thanks!
>>
>
> Sure. No problem.
>
>
>>
>> Drew
>>
>>
>> Time: 03:40:07 PM PST US
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Duxford Mid-Air
>> From: Brian Lloyd < <brian@lloyd.com> <brian@lloyd.com>brian@lloyd.com>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Drew Blahnick < <dblahnick@gmail.com><dblahnick@gmail.com>
>> dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> A 2 G pull in one airplane will not be the same as a 2 G pull in another.
>>
>>
>>
>> A 2G pull is the *SAME* for two airplanes going the same speed and will
>> result in the same-size turn. The only difference is if one bleeds energy
>> significantly faster in the pull than the other one does, but then your
>> airspeeds are not the same anymore.
>>
>> --
>> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
>> 3191 Western Dr.
>> Cameron Park, CA 95682
>> <brian@lloyd.com> <brian@lloyd.com>brian@lloyd.com
>> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
>> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>>
>> Drew
>> ______________________________________
>> Strive for one knee down in life, but never two.
>> (1000 Year Old Road Racing Proverb That I Just Made Up)
>>
>
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> <brian@lloyd.com>brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
Message 12
| 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: | Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe. |
Hi all !
Under a topic called "Yak-52 Fuel Tanks" (!!), on Jun 24, 2011,
Didier BLOUZARD from France wrote this :
"Etienne, Last week I was in a meeting with Belgium CAA and they told us about
your mails to them. you have succeeded in grouding all the russian registered
YAK in Belgium and France and Netherland will probably follow the move. We all
thank you for your huge effort in telling everywhere that a RAK YAK is more dangerous
than the other registrations. The result is in temporarily grouding.
BRAVO. Now you can be known as the man who grouded the YAK
We will remember that. Thanks again
Didier BLOUZARD"
A few remarks :
1. Didier, please read the title of the topic before posting.
The title was "Yak-52 Fuel Tanks" but unfortunately your post has
nothing to do with it.
Please start a new topic if you have problems you would like to discuss
on the Yak-list.
2. You had a meeting with the Belgian CAA. Good for you !
3. I was NOT there. I do NOT know what the Belgian CAA told you.
And I do NOT know what YOU told the Belgian CAA.
But I can assure you I have never ashed them to ground Yaks in
Belgium :) [Exclamation]
As you probably know, I fly a Yak in Belgium myself :D
4. Nevertheless, you write that Russian registered Yaks (RAxxxxK) have
been grounded in Belgium ... You write :
"Grounded in Belgium AND France AND Netherland will probably
follow". A little bit of a confusing statement to say the least :
* Grounded in Belgium AND France WITH Netherland to follow the move
OR
* Grounded in Belgium WITH France AND the Netherland to follow the move ?????
5. YOU then imply that I am responsable for this temporary grounding !!?!!
-------------------------------
Come on Didier, let's be serious for a moment !
I want to make it clear to everyone reading the Yak-list that :
1. as far as I am aware, Russian "registered" Yaks (RAxxxxK) have not
been grounded in Belgium. I have not seen any document/letter issued
by the Belgian CAA stating what you write Didier. So please, before
posting in the future, make sure what you write is correct instead
of spreading harmlful rumours.
2. Finally, unlike yourself I do not meet with the Belgian CAA and
(unfortunately ! [Wink] ) I have certainly no influence on their
decisions [Exclamation]
There are indeed issues with RA registrations in Continental Europe,
especially following a few fatal accidents in France :
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=121933
http://paris-ile-de-france.france3.fr/info/crash-d-un-avion-deux-morts-68527285.html?onglet=videos&id-video=vanv_CRASH_AVION_TOU_1407653_00YJMIIP_250420111808_F3
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
http://www.lecharpeblanche.fr/2011/04/25/deux-morts-dans-le-crash-dun-yak-52/
For info, the UK CAA has established a framework to legally operate and maintain
Yaks.
I have attached the 2 letters from the UK CAA explaining why RA (and LY)registrations
were grounded in the UK. In a nutshell, Yakovlev aircraft DO NOT meet the
requirements applicable to civil aircraft certification that would allow a
Standard Certificate of Airworthiness to be issued according to the provisions
of Article 33 of the ICAO Convention (Annex 6) with respect to the mutual acceptability
of such certificates within any ICAO Contracting State. That's why
Yaks are EXPERIMENTAL in the States.
They are lucky in the US of A.
We have to put up with non uniformed "rules" and incompetent CAAs in Europe !
As you know Didier, Yaks have been grounded in France before, as you can read on
page 11 of this report :
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
Yakovlev aircraft were grounded in France in February 2002 because they were not
"civilian certified" ... etc.
"En France, les avions de construction russes (Yak 12, 50, 52, 54, 55 et Sukho
26, 29 et 31) ont t interdits de vol en fvrier 2002 par la Direction Gnrale delAviation
Civile (DGAC) car ils n'taient pas immatriculs sur un registre civil
et parce que leur rgime de certification ne pouvait tre dtermin clairement".
YOU did not write BRAVO to the Yak-list to congratulate me then ! [Rolling Eyes]
Also read the conclusion ( in French !) on page 19 of this report :
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
The French CAA and EASA should take appropriate measures !
"La DGAC et lEASA devraient clarifier la situation et prendre, en consquence, les
dispositions ncessaires".
That's exactly what I wrote in this article :
http://www.emagazine.flightinternational.com/1Z4dd63f96463e4012.cde/page/47
Isn't it time national aviation authorities (EASA ?) agreed on common standards
to maintain and operate Yaks in Europe ?
SO, if you have genuine concerns about RA registrations in France or in Continental
Europe, Didier, I would be more than happy to help.
But acting as you do, contacting the Belgian CAA and spreading false informations
on the Yak-list is CERTAINLY not going to help !
A constructive approach would be a better tactic.
Cheers,
Etienne.
Yak 52 "janie".
UK registered G-CBSS.
Maintained and operated under the supervision of the UK CAA.
http://fanairplane.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=9763
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6867609
http://fanairplane.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=7325
http://www.airliners.net/photo/955944/L/
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=861131
http://www.abpic.co.uk/popup.php?q=1011615
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/129003L.html
http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=01058969
http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=6195
http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=2901
Etc ... etc ... ! 8)
* Get instruction from an experienced Yak flight instructor to avoid this :
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2010/g-ak100612/pdf/g-ak100612.pdf
* Make sure your aircraft is properly maintained.
Obvious I know but some people think they will save a few bucks by doing it on
the cheap (flight instruction and maintenance) ...
not a very good idea long term ...
___________________________________________________________
--------
http://www.flyforfun.be/?q=yaks
http://www.planecheck.com/eu/index.asp?ent=dv&id=6711
http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/san07/page1.html
http://www.irishairpics.com/photo/1029467/L/Yakovlev-Yak-52/G-CBSS/Etienne-Verhellen/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346095#346095
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/groundingrussiandirective_814.doc
http://forums.matronics.com//files/groundinglithuaniandirective_146.doc
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rapport_bea_yak_ra_3332k_920.pdf
Message 13
| 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: | Yak-52 Generator. |
Hello !
I am looking for a Yak-52 Generator.
If you have one for sale, please contact me off-list at :
janie@yak52.fr
Thank you, Etienne.
http://www.wayakc2008.ru/participants/belgium/43-etienne-verhellen.html
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346106#346106
Message 14
| 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: Yaks "issues" in Continental Europe. |
G'day US friends,
I am really really sorry guys about bothering you with these kind of non
relevant mails.
Etienne seems to have a problem with me (and many others) but it doesn't
need to be posted here.
So I will not answer point by points to this .... personnal attack on the
list.
Etienne we already spoke more than one hour last sunday and I thought thing
s
were clear....I have no more time for this.
Please stop saying everywhere that RAxxxK is a problem in Europe and let my
association (more than 50 pilots proprietor of RAK planes) do its job
speaking with the relevant CAA and russian administration in order to keep
in flight the RAxxxK planes.
Stop spending your time posting on the net that RAK planes are dangerous.
Concerning the accident in France you are very fast in your conclusion. I
am in contact with the French CAA, the Police and the office of
investigation and neither the plane maintenance neither the RAK registratio
n
is in question.....
Please read your own mails.
Have a good night and please STOP !!!!!
SORRY AGAIN GUYS
Didier
2011/7/12 Etienne Verhellen <janie@yak52.fr>
>
> Hi all !
>
> Under a topic called "Yak-52 Fuel Tanks" (!!), on Jun 24, 2011,
> Didier BLOUZARD from France wrote this :
>
> "Etienne, Last week I was in a meeting with Belgium CAA and they told us
> about your mails to them. you have succeeded in grouding all the russian
> registered YAK in Belgium and France and Netherland will probably follow
the
> move. We all thank you for your huge effort in telling everywhere that a
RAK
> YAK is more dangerous than the other registrations. The result is in
> temporarily grouding. BRAVO. Now you can be known as the man who grouded
the
> YAK
> We will remember that. Thanks again
> Didier BLOUZARD"
>
> A few remarks :
>
> 1. Didier, please read the title of the topic before posting.
> The title was "Yak-52 Fuel Tanks" but unfortunately your post has
> nothing to do with it.
> Please start a new topic if you have problems you would like to discus
s
> on the Yak-list.
>
> 2. You had a meeting with the Belgian CAA. Good for you !
>
> 3. I was NOT there. I do NOT know what the Belgian CAA told you.
> And I do NOT know what YOU told the Belgian CAA.
> But I can assure you I have never ashed them to ground Yaks in
> Belgium :) [Exclamation]
> As you probably know, I fly a Yak in Belgium myself :D
>
> 4. Nevertheless, you write that Russian registered Yaks (RAxxxxK) have
> been grounded in Belgium ... You write :
> "Grounded in Belgium AND France AND Netherland will probably
> follow". A little bit of a confusing statement to say the least :
> * Grounded in Belgium AND France WITH Netherland to follow the move
> OR
> * Grounded in Belgium WITH France AND the Netherland to follow the move
> ?????
>
> 5. YOU then imply that I am responsable for this temporary grounding !!?!
!
> -------------------------------
>
> Come on Didier, let's be serious for a moment !
>
> I want to make it clear to everyone reading the Yak-list that :
>
> 1. as far as I am aware, Russian "registered" Yaks (RAxxxxK) have not
> been grounded in Belgium. I have not seen any document/letter issued
> by the Belgian CAA stating what you write Didier. So please, before
> posting in the future, make sure what you write is correct instead
> of spreading harmlful rumours.
>
> 2. Finally, unlike yourself I do not meet with the Belgian CAA and
> (unfortunately ! [Wink] ) I have certainly no influence on their
> decisions [Exclamation]
>
> There are indeed issues with RA registrations in Continental Europe,
> especially following a few fatal accidents in France :
> http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=121933
>
> http://paris-ile-de-france.france3.fr/info/crash-d-un-avion-deux-morts-68
527285.html?onglet=videos&id-video=vanv_CRASH_AVION_TOU_1407653_00YJMII
P_250420111808_F3
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
>
> http://www.lecharpeblanche.fr/2011/04/25/deux-morts-dans-le-crash-dun-yak
-52/
>
> For info, the UK CAA has established a framework to legally operate and
> maintain Yaks.
>
> I have attached the 2 letters from the UK CAA explaining why RA (and
> LY)registrations were grounded in the UK. In a nutshell, Yakovlev aircraf
t
> DO NOT meet the requirements applicable to civil aircraft certification t
hat
> would allow a Standard Certificate of Airworthiness to be issued accordin
g
> to the provisions of Article 33 of the ICAO Convention (Annex 6) with
> respect to the mutual acceptability of such certificates within any ICAO
> Contracting State. That's why Yaks are EXPERIMENTAL in the States.
> They are lucky in the US of A.
>
> We have to put up with non uniformed "rules" and incompetent CAAs in Euro
pe
> !
>
> As you know Didier, Yaks have been grounded in France before, as you can
> read on page 11 of this report :
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
> Yakovlev aircraft were grounded in France in February 2002 because they
> were not "civilian certified" ... etc.
> "En France, les avions de construction russes (Yak 12, 50, 52, 54, 55 et
> Sukho=EF 26, 29 et 31) ont =E9t=E9 interdits de vol en f=E9vrier 2002 par
la
> Direction G=E9n=E9rale del=92Aviation Civile (DGAC) car ils n'=E9taient p
as
> immatricul=E9s sur un registre civil et parce que leur r=E9gime de certif
ication
> ne pouvait =EAtre d=E9termin=E9 clairement".
>
> YOU did not write BRAVO to the Yak-list to congratulate me then ! [Rolli
ng
> Eyes]
>
> Also read the conclusion ( in French !) on page 19 of this report :
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/ra-k080504/pdf/ra-k080504.pdf
> The French CAA and EASA should take appropriate measures !
> "La DGAC et l=92EASA devraient clarifier la situation et prendre, en
> cons=E9quence, les dispositions n=E9cessaires".
> That's exactly what I wrote in this article :
> http://www.emagazine.flightinternational.com/1Z4dd63f96463e4012.cde/page/
47
> Isn't it time national aviation authorities (EASA ?) agreed on common
> standards to maintain and operate Yaks in Europe ?
>
> SO, if you have genuine concerns about RA registrations in France or in
> Continental Europe, Didier, I would be more than happy to help.
>
> But acting as you do, contacting the Belgian CAA and spreading false
> informations on the Yak-list is CERTAINLY not going to help !
>
> A constructive approach would be a better tactic.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Etienne.
>
> Yak 52 "janie".
> UK registered G-CBSS.
> Maintained and operated under the supervision of the UK CAA.
> http://fanairplane.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=9763
> http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6867609
> http://fanairplane.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=7325
> http://www.airliners.net/photo/955944/L/
> http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=861131
> http://www.abpic.co.uk/popup.php?q=1011615
> http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/129003L.html
> http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=01058969
> http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=6195
> http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=2901
> Etc ... etc ... ! 8)
> * Get instruction from an experienced Yak flight instructor to avoid this
:
> http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2010/g-ak100612/pdf/g-ak100612.pdf
> * Make sure your aircraft is properly maintained.
> Obvious I know but some people think they will save a few bucks by doing
it
> on the cheap (flight instruction and maintenance) ...
> not a very good idea long term ...
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> --------
> http://www.flyforfun.be/?q=yaks
> http://www.planecheck.com/eu/index.asp?ent=dv&id=6711
> http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/san07/page1.html
>
> http://www.irishairpics.com/photo/1029467/L/Yakovlev-Yak-52/G-CBSS/Etienn
e-Verhellen/
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346095#346095
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/groundingrussiandirective_814.doc
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/groundinglithuaniandirective_146.doc
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rapport_bea_yak_ra_3332k_920.pdf
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Didier BLOUZARD
didier.blouzard@gmail.com
0624243672
Message 15
| 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: Duxford Mid-Air |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harv" <martin.harvey@kbr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:08 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Duxford Mid-Air
>
> Chaps
>
> This is about the clearest video to come up thus far.
>
> http://www.flyingfilm.co.uk/
>
> Glad they all got out, thats the main thing.
>
>
> Rgs
>
> Harv
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346025#346025
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| 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: Duxford Mid-Air |
Shack.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Davis <markdavis@wbsnet.org>
>Sent: Jul 12, 2011 11:02 AM
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Duxford Mid-Air
>
>
>This accident illustrates the reason all U.S. military formations (with the
>exception of demonstration teams) routinely break out of an echelon. In
>this case, it appears the Mustang pulled straight up for an extended period
>and disappeared at the AD's 6:00 high (unless he can twist his head 360
>degrees like Linda Blair in the Exorcist). I know it's the wingman's
>responsibility to maintain sight of the lead, but if they lead maneuvers to
>a position that the wingman can't see him and then has to reaquire a visual,
>it's putting an unneccessary burden on the wingman to pick out his lead with
>another Mustang downwind out of the previous formation. Maybe it's a
>standard recovery technique in the UK, but not across the pond. This
>accident was probably wouldn't have happened if they had broken out of an
>echelon. It's great that no one was hurt, but they were both LUCKY.
>
>Mark Davis
>N44YK
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Etienne Verhellen" <janie@yak52.fr>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:12 AM
>Subject: Yak-List: Re: Duxford Mid-Air
>
>
>>
>> A very very important reminder of the single MOST IMPORTANT rule of
>> formation flying :
>>
>> NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF THE LEAD AIRCRAFT.
>>
>> http://www.flyingfilm.co.uk/
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013219/Pilot-Rob-Davies-escapes-WW2-fighter-mid-air-collision-airshow.html
>>
>> --------
>> http://www.flyforfun.be/?q=yaks
>> http://www.planecheck.com/eu/index.asp?ent=dv&id=6711
>> http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/san07/page1.html
>> http://www.irishairpics.com/photo/1029467/L/Yakovlev-Yak-52/G-CBSS/Etienne-Verhellen/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346068#346068
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Attachments:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/2010_05_15_adam_marx_19_352.jpg
>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/815649x_133.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 17
| 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: Duxford Mid-Air |
Mark,
Do u realize how much investigative work we all just saved the British Authorities?
Back to my arm chair for the next game.
The way I see this, God had them both under control. Maybe they just briefed it
that way and it didn't work in the air like it did on the chalk board.
Everybody is alive and bruised egos.
Moving on.
Bill
On Jul 12, 2011, at 11:02 AM, "Mark Davis" <markdavis@wbsnet.org> wrote:
>
> This accident illustrates the reason all U.S. military formations (with the exception
of demonstration teams) routinely break out of an echelon. In this case,
it appears the Mustang pulled straight up for an extended period and disappeared
at the AD's 6:00 high (unless he can twist his head 360 degrees like Linda
Blair in the Exorcist). I know it's the wingman's responsibility to maintain
sight of the lead, but if they lead maneuvers to a position that the wingman
can't see him and then has to reaquire a visual, it's putting an unneccessary
burden on the wingman to pick out his lead with another Mustang downwind out
of the previous formation. Maybe it's a standard recovery technique in the
UK, but not across the pond. This accident was probably wouldn't have happened
if they had broken out of an echelon. It's great that no one was hurt, but
they were both LUCKY.
>
> Mark Davis
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Etienne Verhellen" <janie@yak52.fr>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:12 AM
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Duxford Mid-Air
>
>
>>
>> A very very important reminder of the single MOST IMPORTANT rule of formation
flying :
>>
>> NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF THE LEAD AIRCRAFT.
>>
>> http://www.flyingfilm.co.uk/
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013219/Pilot-Rob-Davies-escapes-WW2-fighter-mid-air-collision-airshow.html
>>
>> --------
>> http://www.flyforfun.be/?q=yaks
>> http://www.planecheck.com/eu/index.asp?ent=dv&id=6711
>> http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/san07/page1.html
>> http://www.irishairpics.com/photo/1029467/L/Yakovlev-Yak-52/G-CBSS/Etienne-Verhellen/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=346068#346068
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Attachments:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/2010_05_15_adam_marx_19_352.jpg
>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/815649x_133.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|