Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin (Account/Technical Issues)  |  Contact Global Moderator
September 29, 2020, 10:02:42 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Hawker Tempest II, 1/24 scale rubber power.  (Read 10737 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 18
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 831



Ignore
« Reply #100 on: July 13, 2014, 07:32:16 AM »

Stephen,
             Your challenge in getting a consistant flight is giving me some food for thought because the glide on my big KK Tempest is fine but I am now concerned about getting the power trim sorted. I have used one of the Checz 4 bladers and while they are lower pitch there is still the destabilising effect.
I had a Stahl Barracuda trimmed using a four bladed prop and found it was very power sensitive with 600 turns of .150 thou Tan giving about 30 seconds but when I added a lot more a the Nationals (850) it spiraled into the left. The prop was based on the McHard blade used in thre WW2 Book printed by Model Builder that has the blade area clpse to the hub.At least the Barracuda has reasonable tail area and a high set tail out iod the downwash from the wing.
If you are using the scale section then this may be probmatic as even large radio models have found that there have been control issues with scale sections on the Tempest. It was after all designed for high speed. I hope you are able to sort it out becasue it looks so good in the air.    
      Ricky
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,549

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #101 on: July 13, 2014, 07:58:50 AM »

Thanks Ricky, that's interesting info about the large radio models. Adds to my sense of gloom Grin. It did cross my mind to try it with two blades but the four-blader does look the part especially as it's scale diameter.  My model glides fine, like yours - and when there's bags of power it seems just about stable too - goes wobbly when there's a transition! I still can't see why it wants down elevator even with a forward CG, when the wing incidence relative to the tailplane is a pretty conventional 3 deg.

I did have plenty of blade area close to the hub but removed area here in preference to removing it near the tip. I think my next wheeze might be a tailplane of the same area but much thinner - in fact I'd just try a flat sheet to start with, could run it up in a trice.

Stephen.
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #102 on: July 13, 2014, 08:08:33 AM »

Hi,

I wonder if your active ailerons are causing the instability?  From the video i would just add more nose weight or add down elevator, but i have never trimmed a model as complicated as this with your auto ailerons.  I haven't read your entire thread, so you have to excuse my ignorance, but they have a significant movement from what i saw in the start of your video and whilst they are battling away to try and keep things from rolling around, no adjustment is made to combat the overall lift that each wing is producing and the shift in the centre of lift on each wing that the ailerons are producing.  Why not just restrict their movement, ( as opposed to locking them altogether) And see what happens?  Having said that feel free to ignore this, it is pure guesswork and it's not my beautifully crafted model which will bite the dust when it goes wrong!

Cheers

Andrew
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,549

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #103 on: July 13, 2014, 10:37:44 AM »

Hi Andrew, that's made me think (ouch). It sounds a bit chicken-and-egg but I suppose from the ailerons' point of view it's gusts that are changing the overall lift each wing is producing and the consequent change in centre of lift - the ailerons are trying to oppose that change. Thus if a model can maintain its pitch stability in gusts, it should also be able to maintain it with ailerons reducing the effects of those gusts. It's probably not that simple because gusts change lift by altering local airspeed and AoA whereas ailerons do it by altering camber, but I'm guessing that they're not part of the problem. They do have plenty of movement but full deflection is only reached at 40deg bank angle - the video clip shows me waggling the fus. to swing the pendulum from stop to stop. Inasmuch as one can assume they're helping at all (I believe they are Smiley ), they're normally doing their stuff at much lower deflections. But to borrow your words, that's all pure guesswork on my part!

I think the pitch problem is down to the tailplane. I've added noseweight until the model's quite hard to launch, because you're worried that the grip needed on the rear fus. might make something break. . .that didn't solve matters. . .with more down elevator the tailplane will stall very easily - it's probably part-stalled all the time IMO. I'm trying to think of fixes with minimal scale impact. Yeow that word impact is making me cringe Smiley.

Stephen.
Logged
Graiskye
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 427




Ignore
« Reply #104 on: July 13, 2014, 06:51:55 PM »

Stephen,did you ever try it with the ailerons locked ? Is it possible to fly it with the surfaces locked a'la a conventional model ?
 There are so many things affecting the trim, would make my mind boggle, yuour too be comended for getting as far as yo have.
Locking surfaces was just a thought I had(hey it happens...) hope you eventually solve her and she ends up in the sky for a minute or more.
 Best of.
 Mike.
Logged

"When I think of something monumentally witty, Ill let you know, till then you'll have to amuse yourselves."
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 186
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,813



Ignore
« Reply #105 on: July 14, 2014, 09:21:35 PM »

Lousy luck with the latest crash Stephen- you certainly need to be stubborn to be a pioneer Stephen Grin. So close and it looks magnificent when it’s behaving itself.

My money unfortunately is that the lovely 4 blader is the culprit, due to its area and canard effect as Jon has mentioned. It will be destabilizing in pitch under power and on the glide IMHO.

The increased elevator control under power would help to explain why the elevator is dead critical with a very low effective tail volume due to the propeller area.

You did mention reducing the propeller area but i think i would try to keep the diameter and reduce the area to that of an equivalent 2 blade propeller that would work.

I agree that the fat tail airfoil should be replaced with a thinner airfoil.

Your pendulum aileron control appears to be working well. They are controlling all that torque on a low wing model with minimal dihedral.. Yes it does wander a bit near the stall – which would be expected with the aileron movement causing incipient stalls. This should not be the case if the tail was still in control.

It looks like your flying field is surrounded by German trees, fences and obstacles Cheesy.

Keep at it.

John
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,549

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #106 on: July 15, 2014, 03:24:09 AM »

Hi Mike, thanks for the encouragement. Yes I have tried it with locked ailerons and it didn't show too well in a series of five or ten short flights. The problem in trying to reach solid conclusions though, as you point out, is the number of variables, and that's without the wind! I have no way of saying, after a complete orbit - "Aha! That proves that these 'ere pendulum ailerons work" because the model could have made that circuit with them locked. If I can sort the pitch trim out perhaps I'll see some  conclusive patterns emerging. . .

John, thanks likewise Smiley. I think that - like the wing leading-edge fix - once I bite the bullet fixing the bellcrank should be easy. I'll have to cut a hatch in the top wing surface, which will be hard to hide - that's what's making me hesitate!

I'm secretly quite smug that the prop has scale diameter - I'd be reluctant to change that - but I have noticed in the past that reducing blade area doesn't seem to make much diff. as compared to changing the pitch or diameter. I've also noticed how too fine a pitch is great for stall recovery (model can hang on prop at v. low airspeed because of the greater power output) but lousy for cruise performance (prop acting as brake). I think I'll reduce blade area a bit more, try to thin the blades some more, and reduce pitch as far as seems sensible. Since the model produced some duration (relatively speaking!) on only 3/16" rubber, perhaps I can get by with a lighter motor.

Then I'll put a temporary sheet-balsa tailplane in of the same weight.

Yes there's a cordon of anti-aircraft defences all around, but I think they may be United Nations rather than German, because they attack Focke-Wulfs and Messerschmitts too - they even attack civvie stuff like my PA15 Vagabond Sad. A big problem with the active control setup is that the model can achieve a stable (in roll) state to left or right. . .if the Tempest loses airspeed near the stall or in a gust it can wander off in a new direction. . .the precipitate dives in a couple of those video clips were down to turbulence and windshear around the trees - however in those clips the model was a few metres short of flying into the tree so perhaps windshear saved it from a worse fate Smiley.

Regards,
Stephen.
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 186
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,813



Ignore
« Reply #107 on: July 15, 2014, 09:19:37 PM »

Quote
I'm secretly quite smug that the prop has scale diameter - I'd be reluctant to change that - but I have noticed in the past that reducing blade area doesn't seem to make much diff. as compared to changing the pitch or diameter. I've also noticed how too fine a pitch is great for stall recovery (model can hang on prop at v. low airspeed because of the greater power output) but lousy for cruise performance (prop acting as brake).

This I feel would be true largely if the motor torque was the issue. However it looks like your pendulum ailerons have that largely under control - its the actual area of the propeller that is causing the problem i suspect - a combination of the blade area and pitch.

Thus I'm hoping that your area and pitch reductions will show some improvement.

John
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,549

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #108 on: July 17, 2014, 05:23:39 AM »

Update:

I gave the propeller blades a much narrower profile, thinned them accordingly, and twisted the pitch finer.

I cut a hatch in the top wing skin to get at the bellcrank and reglued that - I hadn't fixed it well initially, which was why such a light and unstressed part could have broken free in a hard bump which didn't do any other damage.

I started with 3/16" rubber then moved to 7/32". The truth was that I noticed very little difference in the model's behaviour - still did the same thing, namely tooling along then suddenly rearing up then diving in a long straight dive. I'm still left wondering if the reduced Re of a narrow-chord blade causes more drag than the lower aspect-ratio and greater surface area of the wide blade? The model showed no more zest than before, and there was no manifestly evident jump in RPM. . .I don't know what you make of that (OZPAF) John, or any other prop experts. . .it's all a big mystery to me. . .I know static motor runs can be very misleading but I should have done some static runs before and after modifying the blades to measure RPM change.

Next I soaked off the tailplane. This had been fixed with PVA with a view to just this contingency. I ran up a 1/16" balsa sheet tailplane and increased its area using strict TLAR methodology. When I measured its area it turned out to be 20% of wing area. It weighs the same as the fabricated, scale one.

The blinkin' great 'ole in the blinkin' fuselage left by the scale tailplane tells a story, I think.

All these mods/repairs were quick to achieve, but by the time the tail was rigged the wind was 13mph according to a local weather station, with stronger gusts, but a few 100-turn flights were all I needed to see that the model was transformed - hardly surprising, but quite something to witness. I immediately felt confident to remove the noseweight, including spinner cap, leading to a 2.5g weight saving, instanter. An overscale hz stab confers a double benefit: stability+reduced weight. Reduced noseweight = reduced pitch inertia; rearward-moving CG = less-loaded, more sensitive tailplane. It seems like some kind of virtuous circle.

This a.m. in what seemed no wind I chucked the model with 490 turns (the un-rounded number is a result of multiples of the gearing of my winder). The model flew off in a way I'd not seen before. A big stall brought it nearly to ground but it just recovered and climbed again. Now I could see there was a very slight wind, drifting the model back into the trees. It stalled its way through what must have been around 20 sec, covering a lot of ground crosswind before smacking into a neighbour's tree. Over the hedge I could see it bizarrely hanging from its prop from the treetrunk (a young birch maybe 20cm diameter, perfectly smooth trunk).

I went cap-in-hand and said "can I 'ave my 'plane back Mister?" and was amazed to find the Tempest completely undamaged! It had flown without its spinner cap, and the freewheel thingy had stabbed the trunk deep enough to suspend the whole model, which was dangling on its braided rubber. I wish I'd had my camera. I must admit I thought the model would be smashed, with severe internal ruptures and dislocations. The motor thrust button has twisted in the noseblock, that's the only evidence of a crash that I've found.

Phew Wink.

Now I have to figger out where to go from here.

Stephen.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Hawker Tempest II, 1/24 scale rubber power.
Re: Hawker Tempest II, 1/24 scale rubber power.
Re: Hawker Tempest II, 1/24 scale rubber power.
Re: Hawker Tempest II, 1/24 scale rubber power.
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 186
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,813



Ignore
« Reply #109 on: July 17, 2014, 05:51:20 AM »

Quote
I don't know what you make of that (OZPAF) John, or any other prop experts. . .it's all a big mystery to me. . .

Me too Stephen –D. I guess I should slink to the back of the class now Cheesy. I'm a little disappointed you didn’t see more of an improvement – however tongue in check I’m afraid – them blades still look large in area. The reduced pitch would also reduce the effective area.- however. The Re no effects on the prop drag and thrust could be interesting I admit. As an empirical rule – I would suggest that a significant drop in thrust would accompany an increase in drag – for similar conditions of power and pitch.

However I’m out of my tree here(trees have a lot to do with this saga it seems Grin) – John Barker (Hepcat) is a much better bet in this area I would think.

It’s good to see that it has improved with the larger tail. Perhaps it can be pared down closer to scale when combined with an even lower blade area.

John failed eggspurt.
Logged
sparkle
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 17
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1,342




Ignore
« Reply #110 on: July 17, 2014, 07:27:09 AM »

 Cheesy Hi Stephen, glad to hear that you are making some progress. Some models seem to need a little cheating! Keep up the good work!  Cheesy Smiley Grin
Logged
Don McLellan
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 67
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 2,464




Ignore
« Reply #111 on: July 17, 2014, 10:17:06 AM »

Great stuff Stephen; one of the all time best threads on HP. 

However, I'm still amazed that you can take a knife to such a beautiful model.  Did the 1:1 have a hatch where you made the opening for servicing the bellcrank?  Grin
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 186
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,813



Ignore
« Reply #112 on: July 18, 2014, 01:42:26 AM »

Ammunition bays perhaps?
John
Logged
Yak 52
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 70
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,562


Jon Whitmore



Ignore
« Reply #113 on: July 18, 2014, 03:14:15 AM »

Very interesting Stephen - progress of a sort, although perhaps leading you away from your preferred scale direction  Undecided

What would be good next is to try the new tail with the scale tailplane area, which should give some indication of the effect of it's thickness?

Jon
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,549

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #114 on: July 18, 2014, 06:13:04 AM »

Well there was no hatch there on the fullsize, but serves me right for not fixing the bellcrank properly. If/when this model has a full overhaul I can probably 'invisibleize' the hatch. I always get this crossover point where a model, beautiful or not in one's own humble or not opinion, becomes a flying machine - then it's a test vehicle and the nicks, scratches and patches that accrue are part of an inevitable process. If a model of mine has ever got as far as a complete overhaul I'm amazed at how doggy and ragged it's become without me even noticing, because I'm treating it as a prototype flying machine. I think if I had the airspace I'd be more of a non-scale duration modeller really.

I guess I should slink to the back of the class now Cheesy.

No, I think you're on the right track John, I reduced blade area a bit more and twisted the blades a bit more and there's a new zip to the model IMO. I don't mean in airspeed, but in its directional stability and gust-handling. I think I just wasn't following your bold vision far enough! I may keep on reducing the blade chord millimetre by millimetre while retaining the same blade length, just out of curiosity, and make new ones to a new profile if any optimum chord/twist seems to emerge from the experiment.

Jon, great minds think alike. Unfortunately I've already muddied the water by changing the prop a large amount, but yes I'm going to creep back towards scale area, that's why I marked a dotted line on the slab tailplane. I suspect thickness might be the culprit since I've flown models with smaller tail volumes than this, but on the other hand maybe John's right and all it needs is a smaller prop.  The prop blades are already reminiscent of scale blades of the Rotol type fitted to late generation British piston aircraft - it's hard to believe that the air bothers to notice them, but they seem to be doing something!
 
Stephen.
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 186
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,813



Ignore
« Reply #115 on: July 18, 2014, 08:20:33 PM »

Good news Stephen. With  luck it could lead to a near scale tail area of thin profile with the skinnier prop.Keeping the prop blades as thin as structurally posible will help to keep Mr Reynold's at bay with these narrow chords.

John
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,549

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #116 on: July 21, 2014, 04:00:33 AM »

Current status: 16" loop of 7/32" rubber; rudder in place but unbalanced and free to float approx 25deg either side; spinner cap fitted to balance rudder weight; temporary flat-plate tailplane approx 1.17 scale area; CG 30% m.a.c.; approx 0.7g added to pendulum bob to increase aileron authority: flying weight 42.2g.

I've uploaded two separate clips rather than compiling them with "windows movie maker" 'cos that program compresses clips drastically, then Utube mashes them some more. Perhaps this way there might be some useful resolution left. . .

http://youtu.be/SQpj_JD-gOc

http://youtu.be/om3A9oTvQ7Y

The first clip is with 490 turns and the turns run out maybe a second before landing. This gives an averaged RPM of over 1800 - considerably higher than I'm used to, but in theory the current motor might just shove the model past 30sec. The 2nd flight is with about 600 turns and the wind is blowing quite a bit. The zooms are partly wind induced probably, but I don't want to add more downthrust so I might try to control power stalls by increasing blade pitch or by reverting to 3/16" rubber. At some point I still plan to reduce blade area further just for the heck of it. If I go too far new blades aren't hard to make. Although the 2nd flight looks harum-scarum and no stabler than earlier test flights I uploaded, I can say there's a real qualitative difference - the earlier flights I felt it was on a tightrope whereas here despite a gusty wind I was more worried that it would fly into the trees than get right out of control. That's down to paring the blade area right down and the temporary hz stab. Kudos to OZPAF John for nagging me about the prop Smiley.

It needs a lot of flying room - flight No.1 it lands only a few feet from that oak tree :-0. I lost the rudder 'servo' tab - never can get in the habit of glancing over a whole model before walking away from where it landed - perhaps a new tab can be set to coax it into a tighter orbit, but then this increases the power of the fin, decreasing spiral stability. I tried the model with fixed rudder and spiral instability was quite evident.

In both flights the ship shows signs of entering the Spiral of Doom (that was a great Indiana Jones movie) when the turns run out. I'm doubtful whether the ailerons could correct this because centrifugal effects aside, the pendulum loses power proportionally to the steepness of the dive. Maybe underpowering it a bit might give a more 'indoor' flight profile where it's still under some power when it lands, and the spiral is averted.

Stephen.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Hawker Tempest II, 1/24 scale rubber power.
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 18
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 831



Ignore
« Reply #117 on: July 21, 2014, 05:14:00 AM »

Stephen,
             Both flights look a lot better. I am sure the reduced blade area is one of the reasons. The idea of using 3/16" rubber I am sure is worth a try as it should give a powered glide and reduce the drag to an acceptable level. The model has a really nice sit in the air and the ailerons do seem to keep the spiral stability in the positive. It almost seems as if there is a critical airspeed where drag related effects take over and are difficult if not impossible to trim out. Could this be another Re related consequence? I watch with interest because I think the lessons are applicable to my FW190D as well. I have just reduced the prop diameter on that as well and the one flight in Sydney was promising.
         Ricky
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,549

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #118 on: July 21, 2014, 05:33:41 AM »

. . .It almost seems as if there is a critical airspeed where drag related effects take over and are difficult if not impossible to trim out. Could this be another Re related consequence? . . .I have just reduced the prop diameter on that as well and the one flight in Sydney was promising.

Probably! Reynolds gets into all of this. I'm surprised that with all these keen aeromodellers out there there's not one who has or has ever had access to a wind tunnel with the ability to visualize flow! So many questions could be answered so quickly. . .

Glad to hear about the promising flight. I'm going to cut down the prop on my Fw 190D too when I drag it out this autumn/winter. It's a quick fix stability-wise but smaller is inevitably less efficient, and a larger but slower revving prop may be no more destabilizing than a small, whizzing prop I'd have thought.  If one accepts a big enough tailplane and enough dihedral then one can mount a huge two-blader and get real duration - scale v. duration, no free lunch etc etc Smiley.

Stephen.
Logged
sparkle
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 17
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1,342




Ignore
« Reply #119 on: July 21, 2014, 07:04:24 AM »

 Smiley love your videos!  Cool
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 47
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,046




Ignore
« Reply #120 on: July 21, 2014, 09:11:11 AM »

Yes - me too!  Remembering my well spent youth persevering with the KK low-wingers notwithstanding now even more than 60 years on I am always impressed by any low wing fighter type flying for more that a few seconds and in what resembles a steady flight path!.. So well done. 

So far I have only been able to test glide the Sea Fury due to weather and opportunity. It did not fall out of the sky and landed the right way up. It was breezy. But there maybe hope. Thanks for the incentive to try harder.

 
Logged
RalphS
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 25
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 920



Ignore
« Reply #121 on: July 21, 2014, 11:45:09 AM »

As far as I could tell from the videos it looks like it is flying.  Well done.
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,549

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #122 on: July 21, 2014, 02:32:42 PM »

Thanks fellas. The videos are a bit short and comic I know, but I take the time to shove 'em on the toob because I love watching other peoples' vids, however short (hey! the long ones can get boring!) and imagine that others also like FF vids even of trim flights Smiley.

David, if your Sea Fury has some over-scale dihedral I'm sure there's hope - what can possibly go wrong? Smiley.

Ralph, thanks. I think I know what you mean - Bill used almost the identical phrase I think earlier in the thread: "well it is flying" (sorry to paraphrase, Bill). I think you both mean that it's aerodynamic rather than ballistic??

I'm off flying for a few days from this evening, so thought I'd take a chance and wind it up. I put on 840 turns and though there was still a bit of wind, and I hadn't done anything to dampen power stalls, I threw it anyway. There are a couple of stills I 'grabbed' from the clip because they show aileron deflection in the useful direction.

http://youtu.be/Df0837KPJU4  note: the MVI xxxxx TRIMMED title doesn't mean the model's trimmed, just that I've trimmed off the junk video before launch with my AVI editor Cheesy.

If it hadn't lost so much height/energy through stall recovery (the depth of these doesn't show well on the clip - it was pretty helter-skelter!) it might have done better, but that puts it through 30sec anyway with somewhat less than full turns, where I take full turns to be 75% of the theoretical breaking turn.

Stephen.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Hawker Tempest II, 1/24 scale rubber power.
Re: Hawker Tempest II, 1/24 scale rubber power.
Logged
Monz
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 152
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,231



Ignore
« Reply #123 on: July 21, 2014, 02:42:56 PM »

Faaantastic!!
Logged
RalphS
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 25
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 920



Ignore
« Reply #124 on: July 21, 2014, 03:17:34 PM »

There are a couple of stills I 'grabbed' from the clip because they show aileron deflection in the useful direction.
Stephen.

If Rupert Moore had come up with your system in the 1940's he would have patented it.  Excellent grabs.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!