Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - New Chris Heinz Letter Today

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

New Chris Heinz Letter Today
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Davcoberly(at)wmconnect.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:51 pm Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Let's hear some comments on the new Chris Heinz Letter on lowering our Vne and Gross Weight among others!  David Coberly 601XL Ready to Fly / Corvair  [quote][b]

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:26 pm Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

First, here is a link to the new letter on Zenith's web site:

  http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/c-heintz-letter-7-2009.pdf

 

 Now for the requested comments . . .



 I am glad to hear someone from the Zenith/Zenair community actually suggest there is a need to do something about all the accidents.  Reduction of gross weight and airspeed limits certainly should help with the future safety record of this design.



 I am now more hopeful I will receive "Official" design changes for the XL that I decided to wait for before entering flight testing.  The ones I want are aileron mass balance and control system force changes as demanded by the NTSB.



 Paul

 XL grounded



 

 At 04:50 PM 7/7/2009, you wrote:



 [quote]Let's hear some comments on the new Chris Heinz Letter on lowering our Vne and Gross Weight among others!  David Coberly 601XL Ready to Fly / Corvair 

  	  Quote: 	
		  

[/b] 	
[b]

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

There are the design changes.



VNE 140

MGW 1255#s

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

sabrina

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 170

Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Do Not Archive

Last edited by sabrina on Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:52 am; edited 2 times in total

planes_by_ken(at)bellsout
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:22 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

I can live with the lower V speeds.  It is the gross weight reduction 

that I am concerned about.  I never will be light weight.  I hope 

"temporary" will be the case.

Ken Lilja

Juan Vega Jr

Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 157

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:22 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Paul,

you will most likely not get your wish as mass balancing opens up an engineering can of worms.  and the stick forces will not be modified as this is a little wing loaded aircraft with a wide speed envelope.  I suggest you either finish the plane and sell it and get a heavy wing loaded aircraft like a Cessna or just sell the zoidac and movw on.   OPtion 3 is finish your plane, and learn to fly it within its design parameters.  You are issing out by not flying your plane.  



Juan



--

z601(at)anemicaardvark.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:24 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

On Tuesday 07 July 2009 18:50, Davcoberly(at)wmconnect.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Let's hear some comments on the new Chris Heinz Letter on lowering our Vne

 and Gross Weight among others!  David Coberly 601XL Ready to Fly / Corvair


	


 	  Quote: 	
		  From my perspective, it's very simple. The airspeed limitation is easy to do, 

and is an operational prodcedure. 
	




The reduction in gross weight is totally unacceptable. The original weight was 

marginal in its usefullness. The reduction severely limits the usefulness of 

the aircraft.



My wife and I were going to go on our own weight reduction program, and limit 

the amount of baggage to fly the aircraft. Now, it simply won't carry both of 

us. I can't wait to explain this to her!



Does this mean the original design calculations were incorrect, or that this 

is a CYA?

-- 

=============================================

                Do not archive.

=============================================

                Jim B Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

     Retired aerospace technical manager

=============================================

jmaynard

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 394
Location: Fairmont, MN (FRM)

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:39 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:18:54AM -0400, Juan Vega wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Paul, you will most likely not get your wish as mass balancing opens up an

 engineering can of worms.  and the stick forces will not be modified as

 this is a little wing loaded aircraft with a wide speed envelope.  I

 suggest you either finish the plane and sell it and get a heavy wing

 loaded aircraft like a Cessna or just sell the zoidac and movw on.  OPtion

 3 is finish your plane, and learn to fly it within its design parameters. 

 You are issing out by not flying your plane.


	


The answer "no" is *ALWAYS* acceptable to the question "will we fly this

airplane today?". Paul obviously chooses to answer that question differently

from you.



It is *NEVER* acceptable to try to twist another pilot's arm to go flying if

he feels it is unsafe. Period. Please stop doing it.

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP   http://www.conmicro.com

http://jmaynard.livejournal.com       http://www.tronguy.net

Fairmont, MN (KFRM)                        (Yes, that's me!)

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

jmaynard

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 394
Location: Fairmont, MN (FRM)

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:39 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 09:27:06AM -0500, Jim Belcher wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   On Tuesday 07 July 2009 18:50, Davcoberly(at)wmconnect.com wrote:

 > Let's hear some comments on the new Chris Heinz Letter on lowering our Vne

 > and Gross Weight among others!  David Coberly 601XL Ready to Fly / Corvair

 From my perspective, it's very simple. The airspeed limitation is easy to do, 

 and is an operational prodcedure. 

Indeed. 140 MPH is 121.65 knots; the top of the green is 108 KIAS, and I've

only had it up to 120 once in a power-on descent in absolutely smooth air. I

don't think this one will affect anyone.

 	  Quote: 	
		   The reduction in gross weight is totally unacceptable. The original weight was 

 marginal in its usefullness. The reduction severely limits the usefulness of 

 the aircraft.

Absolutely. Basically, I'm now restricted to solo flight.

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP   http://www.conmicro.com

http://jmaynard.livejournal.com       http://www.tronguy.net

Fairmont, MN (KFRM)                        (Yes, that's me!)

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:04 am Post subject: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

 	  z601(at)anemicaardvark.co wrote: 	
		  On Tuesday 07 July 2009 18:50, Davcoberly(at)wmconnect.com wrote:

Does this mean the original design calculations were incorrect, or that this 

is a CYA?

-- 	




The original 1320 has been flown for years by a large number of airplanes. In all of the design studies that have been done, including those by our friends at ZBAG, it has only been called it into question where the +/- 6G Ultimate load are concerned. So yes I'd have to say it is a case of CYA.



Since I'm building an EXP-HB and I get to write the POH. I think an even lower manuvering speed when loaded above 1255 will have the same effect. I will, of course, do some research and finally testing during my 40 hours to back that up.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:11 am Post subject: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

 	  jmaynard wrote: 	
		  It is *NEVER* acceptable to try to twist another pilot's arm to go flying if

he feels it is unsafe. Period. Please stop doing it. 	




Nobody is trying to twist anyones arm into flying. But if a person has decided that they are not going to fly a plane without a certain modification from the designer and there is a very good chance if not a near certainty that that the modification in question is not going to come then they need to either get rid of the plane or design the modification themselves, install it and test it. 



But it is probably a good idea that someone who doesn't have reading comprehension skills and has no understanding of the limits of regulatory power of the NTSB not be out flying.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:12 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

At 07:18 AM 7/8/2009, you wrote:

HI Juan,



I don't understand you.  You have said about ten times now that I 

should give up my nearly life long project to build a Zodiac.  Why do 

you keep saying that.



First, I have ignored your opinion on my life's direction many times 

before and will continue to do so.



Second, I find your suggestions offensive.  You have offered to fly 

my plane for me - as if your manhood makes you a better pilot than me 

and that makes it OK to fly this death trap.  What, exactly, makes 

you think my pilot skills are not up to flying the XL while yours are?



Third,  your latest nonsense that I should get a better airplane and 

not continue down the path of completion for my Zodiac seems the most 

outrageous comment you have made to date.  Why do you think I could 

use such a plane when I have told you and the list many times that I 

don't have a medical and can't fly anything other than LSA?



How is it that you KNOW what will not happen with regard to the XL 

design enhancement?



Or perhaps, you just keep ignoring what I say just like I keep 

ignoring what you say.



The simple truth is that the NTSB has DEMANDED mass balance for the 

ailerons and control system redesign.  I am confident that will 

happen at some point.  Perhaps it has already been done for the LAA 

exercise.  We will learn more about those secret design changes when 

the LAA completes its test program.  I am sure it includes mass 

balance for the ailerons and other design improvements, but I am not 

sure what other improvements.



Now that Chris has admitted through his new reductions in safe flight 

and weight parameters for the XL that the design needs work, I am 

more optimistic than ever that we will get the changes that are 

clearly needed.  So, why do you continue to tell me to go away and 

get a better plane?



Paul

XL grounded



 	  Quote: 	
		  



Paul,

you will most likely not get your wish as mass balancing opens up an 

engineering can of worms.  and the stick forces will not be modified 

as this is a little wing loaded aircraft with a wide speed 

envelope.  I suggest you either finish the plane and sell it and get 

a heavy wing loaded aircraft like a Cessna or just sell the zoidac 

and movw on.   OPtion 3 is finish your plane, and learn to fly it 

within its design parameters.  You are issing out by not flying your plane.



Juan

z601(at)anemicaardvark.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:22 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

On Tuesday 07 July 2009 19:48, Gig Giacona wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 There are the design changes.



 VNE 140

 MGW 1255#s


	


In reading the letter from Chris Heintz, I note several things:



1) These are recommended procedures.

2) They appear to be temporary until the real problems can be ascertained.

3) There seems to be an implicit admission there really is a problem(s).



I  think I see an admission that there is (are) a problems, as yet 

unidentified, but they do not yet know what the actual problem(s) are. They 

seem to be hopeful they can be identified, and that the restrictions will be 

lifted. 



Asking for reduced speed and weight reduces the overall structural 

requirements on the aircraft, which may very well reduce the problem(s). 

After all, we beef up aircraft structural design to carrry more load and go 

faster. Reducing the load and the speed should reduce the workload on the 

structure. However, I also see this as placing Chris Heintz on record in a 

proactive role.



Since these restrictions reduce the usefullness of the aircraft substantially, 

I hope we see an early resolution to these issues. If not, there may well be 

some aviation lawyers who are the only winners in the whole issue.



Meanwhile, I need to get back in my shop and continue work on my new single 

place aircraft. It's called a Z601XL. Ever hear of it?

-- 

=============================================

                Do not archive.

=============================================

                Jim B Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

     Retired aerospace technical manager

=============================================

jmaynard

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 394
Location: Fairmont, MN (FRM)

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:22 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:04:39AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Since I'm building an EXP-HB and I get to write the POH. I think an even

 lower manuvering speed when loaded above 1255 will have the same effect. I

 will, of course, do some research and finally testing during my 40 hours

 to back that up.


	


You might want to rethink this, Gig. Maneuvering speed goes up when gross

weight goes up, not down. My POH says that maneuvering speed is 90 KIAS at

1320 pounds, dropping to 84 KIAS at 1150 pounds.

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP   http://www.conmicro.com

http://jmaynard.livejournal.com       http://www.tronguy.net

Fairmont, MN (KFRM)                        (Yes, that's me!)

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

jmaynard

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 394
Location: Fairmont, MN (FRM)

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:23 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:11:39AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   jmaynard wrote:

 > It is *NEVER* acceptable to try to twist another pilot's arm to go flying if

 > he feels it is unsafe. Period. Please stop doing it.

 Nobody is trying to twist anyones arm into flying.


	


That's sure what Juan looks like he's doing.



 	  Quote: 	
		   But if a person has decided that they are not going to fly a plane without

 a certain modification from the designer and there is a very good chance

 if not a near certainty that that the modification in question is not

 going to come then they need to either get rid of the plane or design the

 modification themselves, install it and test it.


	


I would agree if there wasn't just such a mod being tested in the UK right

now. I believe that, when those results are in, the mod will be made

available for the Zodiac community in general, and probably mandated for AMD

aircraft by safety letter.



 	  Quote: 	
		   But it is probably a good idea that someone who doesn't have reading

 comprehension skills and has no understanding of the limits of regulatory

 power of the NTSB not be out flying.


	


Then why is Juan still flying? Gig, that one cuts both ways. Just because

the NTSB does not have regulatory power does not diminish their expertise

and the force of their recommendations.



I'm satisfied by the German testing that there's not a problem as long as

aileron control cable tensions are properly maintained. However, when the

unanimous guidance of the aeronautical engineering community is that reying

on cable tension alone is insufficient, I don't consider it unreasonable to

not fly until another means of flutter prevention is available.

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP   http://www.conmicro.com

http://jmaynard.livejournal.com       http://www.tronguy.net

Fairmont, MN (KFRM)                        (Yes, that's me!)

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

ernieth(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:43 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

---> The simple truth is that the NTSB has DEMANDED mass balance for

the ailerons

The NTSB can demand that LSA rules be revised and changed. But Lucky

for us they cant tell us how to build OUR planes. Demand all you want

it does not mean anything

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Paul Mulwitz<psm(at)att.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 At 07:18 AM 7/8/2009, you wrote:

 HI Juan,

 I don't understand you.  You have said about ten times now that I should

 give up my nearly life long project to build a Zodiac.  Why do you keep

 saying that.

 First, I have ignored your opinion on my life's direction many times before

 and will continue to do so.

 Second, I find your suggestions offensive.  You have offered to fly my plane

 for me - as if your manhood makes you a better pilot than me and that makes

 it OK to fly this death trap.  What, exactly, makes you think my pilot

 skills are not up to flying the XL while yours are?

 Third,  your latest nonsense that I should get a better airplane and not

 continue down the path of completion for my Zodiac seems the most outrageous

 comment you have made to date.  Why do you think I could use such a plane

 when I have told you and the list many times that I don't have a medical and

 can't fly anything other than LSA?

 How is it that you KNOW what will not happen with regard to the XL design

 enhancement?

 Or perhaps, you just keep ignoring what I say just like I keep ignoring what

 you say.

 The simple truth is that the NTSB has DEMANDED mass balance for the ailerons

 and control system redesign.  I am confident that will happen at some point.

  Perhaps it has already been done for the LAA exercise.  We will learn more

 about those secret design changes when the LAA completes its test program.

  I am sure it includes mass balance for the ailerons and other design

 improvements, but I am not sure what other improvements.

 Now that Chris has admitted through his new reductions in safe flight and

 weight parameters for the XL that the design needs work, I am more

 optimistic than ever that we will get the changes that are clearly needed.

  So, why do you continue to tell me to go away and get a better plane?

 Paul

 XL grounded

> 

>

> Paul,

> you will most likely not get your wish as mass balancing opens up an

> engineering can of worms.  and the stick forces will not be modified as this

> is a little wing loaded aircraft with a wide speed envelope.  I suggest you

> either finish the plane and sell it and get a heavy wing loaded aircraft

> like a Cessna or just sell the zoidac and movw on.   OPtion 3 is finish your

> plane, and learn to fly it within its design parameters.  You are issing out

> by not flying your plane.

>

> Juan

Do Not Archive

tonyplane(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:02 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Paul,

  

 In reply to your statement:

 " The ones I want are aileron mass balance and  control system force changes as demanded by the NTSB".



 Unless I am reading the NTSB report  wrong,

  

 Page 11 of the NTSB report has the  "Recommendations" not "Demands" that:

  

 a Ground Vibration Test be conducted and  "consideration" of mass-balanced ailerons,

 and an "evaluation" the stick force gradient at max  aft CG and notification to the pilots of the stick-force gradient that  occurs at the aft cg, especially at higher G forces.

  

 Since most of us, or possibly none of us, have ever  had access to or have read the forwarding letter of ZBAG to the NTSB, is it  possible that ZBAG letter had the "Demands"???

  

 Tony Graziano

 XL/Jab; N493TG; 509 hrs

 



 [quote]   ---

pavel569

Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 77

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:06 am Post subject: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

 	  Quote: 	
		  Second, I find your suggestions offensive.  You have offered to fly 

my plane for me - as if your manhood makes you a better pilot than me 

and that makes it OK to fly this death trap.  What, exactly, makes 

you think my pilot skills are not up to flying the XL while yours are?

	




Paul,

I agree that Juan's comments are often very offensive and sometimes inappropriate but I must say that in this case, he is probably right.

If I'd ever call the plane I'm building with the dream of flying it once "a death trap", the next the day it will be for sale. It means you have zero confidence in your Zodiac and mass balance or stick stiffness modes can bring it up a little but you'll still fly it with the vision on wing flying away. Where is the fun of flying, then?

Nothing personal, I just don't want a fellow builder to call my plane these names unless it is true.

_________________
Pavel
CA
Zodiac 601XL
Stratus Subaru EA-81
Tail, flaps, ailerons, wings, fuselage, canopy done ...
"do not archive"

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:23 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Hi Tony,



 First, let me say I have no knowledge of ZBAG letters or any other activities of that group.  I am not a member and really don't care what they say or do.



 As to the language of the NTSB, I will yield to your interpretation of the exact points.  My take is that they DEMANDED that the entire fleet of XLs be grounded until the safety issues are resolved.  If I have overemphasized the aileron mass balance or control gradient change, then I apologize.   



 Still, the decision I made is to ground my plane until those specific  changes have been made and approved by appropriate engineers and organizations (e.g. Zenith).  You might think the German tests negate the need for aileron mass balance, but I don't.  That is because all the experts I have spoken to on this subject say the balance is needed whether aileron flutter can be proved to be a problem or not.  This includes a number of high ranking FAA safety folks and also a number of highly experienced kitplane folks.  For me to drop the need for aileron mass balance would take at least the NTSB saying it isn't needed - something I doubt I will ever see.



 I realize I am being very conservative on my decision point and that other people can and should make their own decisions.  However, I wonder if all the people who are continuing to fly their XLs had another airplane in their hangar they would still choose to fly the XL.  Besides being a safety decision it winds up being a financial decision too.



 Paul

 XL Grounded



 

 At 08:56 AM 7/8/2009, you wrote:

 [quote]Page 11 of the NTSB report has the "Recommendations" not "Demands" that:

  

 a Ground Vibration Test be conducted and "consideration" of mass-balanced ailerons,

 and an "evaluation" the stick force gradient at max aft CG and notification to the pilots of the stick-force gradient that occurs at the aft cg, especially at higher G forces.

  

 Since most of us, or possibly none of us, have ever had access to or have read the forwarding letter of ZBAG to the NTSB, is it possible that ZBAG letter had the "Demands"???

  

 Tony Graziano

 XL/Jab; N493TG; 509 hrs[b]

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:31 am Post subject: New Chris Heinz Letter Today

Hi Pavel,

I agree with your point . . . in general.  However, there are a 

couple of issues I consider important that you didn't mention.

First, I have dedicated a great deal of time and money in building my 

XL.  I would really like to finish the project by flying it and 

getting it through phase 1 testing.  Having an unfinished project 

really annoys me.

Second, I think the XL is generally safe, but has some nasty risks 

associated with it.  I believe the NTSB has taken all the appropriate 

considerations in mind and proposed a reasonable solution that would 

make this a safe airplane.  This is subject to further analysis by 

experts and might be modified in the future.  Still, I think there is 

a "Solution" to the high risks of structural failure that have shown 

themselves in a relatively large number of fatal events.

I am willing to wait for the issues to be resolved before flying my 

plane.  I am not yet willing to give up on it completely.

Paul

XL grounded

At 09:06 AM 7/8/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 > Second, I find your suggestions offensive.  You have offered to fly

 > my plane for me - as if your manhood makes you a better pilot than me

 > and that makes it OK to fly this death trap.  What, exactly, makes

 > you think my pilot skills are not up to flying the XL while yours are?

 >

Paul,

I agree that Juan's comments are often very offensive and sometimes 

inappropriate but I must say that in this case, he is probably right.

If I'd ever call the plane I'm building with the dream of flying it 

once "a death trap", the next the day it will be for sale. It means 

you have zero confidence in your Zodiac and mass balance or stick 

stiffness modes can bring it up a little but you'll still fly it 

with the vision on wing flying away. Where is the fun of flying, then?

Nothing personal, I just don't want a fellow builder to call my 

plane these names unless it is true.

--------

Pavel

CA

Zodiac XL N581PL (Reserved)

Stratus Subaru EA-81

Tail, flaps, ailerons, wings done, fuselage is on the table ....

Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 52122#252122

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 1 of 4

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