Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
October 18, 2019, 02:58:57 PM *
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 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 37   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Show us your P-30's  (Read 61392 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tapio Linkosalo
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

Finland Finland

Posts: 1,182



Ignore
« Reply #350 on: May 23, 2011, 01:57:23 AM »

Inspired by getting the timer working, and also building a VIT system for my old model, I got onto building the new model again. The wing attaches to the pylon the same way as a larger model tailplane goes to tail holder, with the joiner pin locating into a hook on the pylon. Rubber bands will pull the wing forward against the hook, and the incidence is set at the aft of the pylon. When whole wing pivots up for DT, also the wing is in two parts to pack more compactly. In the last pic is the VIT from the old model, from 1mm carbon sheet mostly.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
Logged
Pit
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 129
Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 5,507


aka staubkorb


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #351 on: May 23, 2011, 09:38:52 AM »

That is a really neat setup Tapio!  Is the wing TE simlpy a carbon strip (3 x 1mm)?  I'm getting more an more stoked to try a P-30 (even tho my field will require very short DT's)!
Logged

A Dedicated Convert to:
WWWoFF (Wonderfull Wacky World of Free Flight)

Comparing Spammers to a pile of organic waste is an insult to the organic waste!
dosco
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 864



Ignore
« Reply #352 on: May 23, 2011, 09:40:43 AM »

That is a really neat setup Tapio!  Is the wing TE simlpy a carbon strip (3 x 1mm)?

Sure looks that way...a la Wakefield.

Logged
CometsGallor
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 3
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 33



Ignore
« Reply #353 on: May 23, 2011, 09:54:43 PM »

The new P-30 got it first flights this past weekend at Eloy and was doing ok. During one of the test flights I caught a nice thermal and was pleased to see it stayed in the thermal nicely and the new DT system worked perfect. So it looks like the model has enough potential for a focused effort on weight control. Unfortunately flying was cut short by a pilot error that resulted in a bent prop shaft.
Logged
Tapio Linkosalo
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

Finland Finland

Posts: 1,182



Ignore
« Reply #354 on: May 23, 2011, 11:39:37 PM »

That is a really neat setup Tapio!  Is the wing TE simlpy a carbon strip (3 x 1mm)?

Sure looks that way...a la Wakefield.

2*1 actually. Had to buy 3*1, but I used my miniature tabletop saw (with diamond blade) to cut it down. The assembly was also quite straightforward: I had the ribs cut so that the underside part was still attached with some tiny tabs (as lasercut parts typically are), this doubled to keep the ribs together over the tubular spar, and also provide a platform for the TE (the underpart extend underneath the TE). So I put some tiny bits of tape onto the bottom part (slipped them a little between the rib and underpart) to prevent the TE being glued to the underpart, tacked the TE into ribs, added carbon caps. Then only when the whole panel is firmly glued (LE and most of all the tubular spar in place), I cut the panel loose, flipped it over, and added the underside caps.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Show us your P-30's
Logged
albisko
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

Slovakia Slovakia

Posts: 181





Ignore
« Reply #355 on: May 24, 2011, 06:50:13 AM »

my new model for this season Smiley
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
Logged
albisko
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

Slovakia Slovakia

Posts: 181





Ignore
« Reply #356 on: June 02, 2011, 05:34:11 AM »

short video from test flight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbf-P5q1VBU
Logged
dosco
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 864



Ignore
« Reply #357 on: June 03, 2011, 03:21:21 PM »

2*1 actually. Had to buy 3*1, but I used my miniature tabletop saw (with diamond blade) to cut it down.

Tapio, I presume your horizontal stab is fabricated in a similar fashion? Are you using 2mm x 1mm for the TE of the H. stab?

Logged
Tmat
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 2,933




Ignore
« Reply #358 on: June 03, 2011, 04:34:15 PM »

My F1B stabs use 1.5 mm x 0.5 mm carbon fiber for the TE. For P-30 I think that even 1.0 x 0.5 mm might work. It's really determined by the shrinking force of the mylar covering. A friend of mine has used 0.8 mm diameter carbon rod for a stabilizer trailing edge and it worked perfectly. 0.25 mil (7 gm/sqr/M) mylar and no heavier for a stab.

My F1B wings use carbon sheet cut to 3.0 mm x 0.5 mm at the root, tapering to 1.5 mm x 0.5 mm at the tip.

See the attached drawing for my new P-30 structure. The trailing edges for the wing are 1.5 mm x 0.5 mm tapering to 1.0 mm x 0.5 mm. The stab is 1.0 mm x 0.5 mm only. This is more than strong enough for P-30.

Tony
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Show us your P-30's
Logged

F1B guy...
But don't hold that against me!
Tapio Linkosalo
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

Finland Finland

Posts: 1,182



Ignore
« Reply #359 on: June 04, 2011, 12:23:29 AM »

2*1 actually. Had to buy 3*1, but I used my miniature tabletop saw (with diamond blade) to cut it down.

Tapio, I presume your horizontal stab is fabricated in a similar fashion? Are you using 2mm x 1mm for the TE of the H. stab?

Yes. For the current stab I use 3mm ribs at ends and middle, a couple of 1.5mm ribs in between and riblets in front. Only have caps to tie the TE at the 3mm ribs, but it seems to suffice. LE is 3*3 balsa and spar 2*2 balsa. See the left pic for details.

As Tony pointed out, it is the strength against covering shrinkage that is of importance rather than strength. Then again, would saving 100mg on your tailplane weight make the model fly better? Barely.

While covering the wings with 10 mil (F1A tailplane stuff) mylar, I ran into troubles while the covering pulled and warped the root of the wing seriously. After some tinkering around it seemed to me that it is not the ribs that give in (there is a plywood rib at the root), but rather the whole spar tube bends. In order to spread the covering loads to a larger area, I added two diagonals, and these seem to cure the problem. Of course another solution would be to use lighter mylar that does not tighten so much, but my previous model uses 5 mil mylar (F1B tail stuff), and it  tears quite easily, so this 10 mil stuff  seems to be better. As it seems to be the top side mylar that bends the wings, one option could be to use lighter mylar on top and heavier on the bottom.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 01:47:04 AM by Tapio Linkosalo » Logged
albisko
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

Slovakia Slovakia

Posts: 181





Ignore
« Reply #360 on: June 09, 2011, 03:20:49 AM »

 Grin
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
Re: Show us your P-30's
Logged
Oldtime Flyer
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 335


"Keep it Simple"



Ignore
« Reply #361 on: June 11, 2011, 02:37:47 AM »

My only response to this thread.... What a bunch of overkill?!....

OtF'er
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 96
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #362 on: June 11, 2011, 11:22:01 AM »

My only response to this thread.... What a bunch of overkill?!....

OtF'er


You're kidding, right? People are having fun building airplanes that will last longer, fly better, and look better, and all you can do is slam them for it?
Logged
Zeiss Ikon
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 567




Ignore
« Reply #363 on: June 11, 2011, 01:15:28 PM »

My only response to this thread.... What a bunch of overkill?!....

OtF'er


You're kidding, right? People are having fun building airplanes that will last longer, fly better, and look better, and all you can do is slam them for it?

Actually, to a large extent I agree that extensive use of carbon in a P-30 is overkill.  What do we gain by building a wing that can double as a prybar for unsticking your Jeep when you get into the "mucky" area at the bottom of the flying field?  My 94% Sparky handily demonstrates that one can build a sturdy and very streamlined model (that actually looks like an airplane) and come in well under weight without any reinforcement from modern materials -- adding all that carbon doesn't (IMO) make the model more durable, it just makes it more expensive.  P-30 was intended as an entry level class -- but models with this much carbon (and maybe boron as well), VIT/auto-rudder/flapper setups, Gizmo Geezer front ends, etc. make it seem too complicated and expensive for beginners, who may not realize that a One Night 28 or Souper 30 can be fully competitive if there's the least bit of lift around.

The only advantage I see with extensive use of carbon fiber is that a model will hold trims better -- but if the cost and learning curve are pushing newcomers out of the class, is it really worth it?  Maybe it's time for a "Limited P-30" class -- along the lines of Limited Penny Plane, with limitations on materials and gizmos (say, no carbon fiber, Kevlar, or boron, no in-flight movable surfaces other than for DT, and only ramp freewheels) -- so the "win at any cost" mentality doesn't make the class inaccessible for those to whom a One Night 28 is still a complex and difficult model (as it would have been to me at, say, twelve years of age).
Logged

I'm here to have fun -- but winning isn't bad, either.
Tmat
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 2,933




Ignore
« Reply #364 on: June 11, 2011, 02:49:24 PM »

Carbon fiber is not needed to make a competitive P30. However, I use a lot of carbon fiber simply because models stay in trim. Carbon is easy to work with, and cheap in the quantities we use. Much easier to use a little bit of carbon then to find contest grade balsa imo. And I never, ever use tissue of any kind for the same reason (models covered in mylar stay in trim).

An all composite P-30 and an all balsa P-30 of the same design are always on near equal footing because of the prop. The prop levels the playing field. That's the beauty of the class. No need to go off tilt about making new rules to keep out the experts and all that nonsense. The existing rules allow anyone to compete with virtually any model that fits within the rules. If you want an event that requires the use of stick and tissue then I'd suggest there are plenty available (FAC for example).

Don't try and take away my mylar just because you don't like it! Grin

Tony
Logged

F1B guy...
But don't hold that against me!
applehoney
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 279
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 3,156




Ignore
« Reply #365 on: June 11, 2011, 04:20:43 PM »

I have to agree with Zeiss and OT'f  that P30 is being taken far from its original intention -  easy-to-build, easy-to-fly simple airplanes for the novice to produce with a good chance of success.

As Tony says rightly - the common prop is the leveller. To a degree  ...    however the higher-tech stable structures with developed airfoils that would likely be impractical in all-balsa do and will give a performance edge over the simple airplane and I feel that the newcomer could see one or two of these, look back at his first P30 and be discouraged from further involvement.

The P30 event at the September   'Great Grape Gathering'  is restricted to 'locked-down' airframes and gearboxes are banned. The likelihood of models arriving with multi-functions and gears is very slim but ... the point is made.    Maybe from this small start such restrictions will spread further afield.
Logged
Tmat
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 2,933




Ignore
« Reply #366 on: June 11, 2011, 05:14:21 PM »

High tech structures might give a performance edge over all balsa, but not much. I don't consider Mylar "high tech", it's been in use for perhaps 50 years now? But I digress. I have no problem with a locked down event. I would lose interest if the rules of an event limited one to use only balsa and tissue. It would suit some people to a tee I'm sure. Just not me.



Tony
Logged

F1B guy...
But don't hold that against me!
Zeiss Ikon
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 567




Ignore
« Reply #367 on: June 11, 2011, 05:26:43 PM »

Don't try and take away my mylar just because you don't like it!

I would lose interest if the rules of an event limited one to use only balsa and tissue.

I'm not suggesting eliminating hi-tech materials and techniques from P-30 -- I'm suggesting creating a separate class with the same basic rules except banning certain expensive performance enhancements and techniques with steep learning curves.  The analogy to Penny Plane vs. Limited Penny Plane is exact; any LPP model can be flown in Penny Plane (though it's very unlikely to be competitive; times differ by around 2:1 last I checked).  Similarly, any "Limited P-30" model could fly in full-out P-30, and with better chances than LPP in Penny, since thermals and maxes can let a model with half the dead-air time win on air picking.  The point is to give beginners something where they aren't virtually certain (in a large enough contest, at least) to be beaten out on the basis of technology, and to a lesser extent to make budget less of a competitive factor (yes, contest grade balsa costs more than the R/C wood from the LHS, but not that much more in P-30 quantities).  Experts, if they choose to compete in "Limited P-30", will most likely still win -- but they (you!) will be spending most of their effort on the models that aren't legal in the beginner class, I'd hope, rather than looking at "Limited P-30" as just another place to collect trophies.

BTW, it's also discouraging to beginners to build the best model they know how and get a 45 to 50 second dead-air time, when experts are getting 90 seconds in dead air -- having a separate, limited class that's of less interest to the experts gives a less daunting initial goal...
Logged

I'm here to have fun -- but winning isn't bad, either.
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 96
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #368 on: June 11, 2011, 06:26:57 PM »

Carbon fiber is not needed to make a competitive P30. However, I use a lot of carbon fiber simply because models stay in trim. Carbon is easy to work with, and cheap in the quantities we use. Much easier to use a little bit of carbon then to find contest grade balsa imo. And I never, ever use tissue of any kind for the same reason (models covered in mylar stay in trim).

This is it right here. There is no extra difficulty in using the modern materials, and in fact I find it easier. There are no warps to contend with, the airplanes are stronger (this is a huge advantage--you can fly a composite P-30 in winds that would take that pretty ol' Sparky and shred it to pieces), and let's be realistic--the building time is WAAAAY shorter. OT'F constantly harps that composites and rolled tubes gain nothing. Try slamming that beloved Majestyk against a fence, then do the same with mine. One will be fit for the trash, the other goes on flying (there's no carbon in my current one either, so it's still rather weak compared to what's in this thread). The old box fuselages take forever to build, while I've been known to whip out an entire rolled tube fuse in less than two hours including the time it spends drying over the stove.

Another advantage we see in this thread is that the carbon tube spars actually negate the benefits of geodetic surfaces, so you have a 100% warp-immune wing without the fancy rib layout I personally use. All you need is a drill bit and some pins to prep the ribs for it. Side benefit is of course a spar with no webbing that is strong enough to stand on, and hence handle intense conditions (like flying in the East in spring time, or worse, the UK). And you can do all this while still weighing less than 40 g. If you're willing to sacrifice a little strength for weight, you can also throw in a timer which needs no fuse and then top it off with a cheap radio tracker unit like mine.

I'm sorry, but "Limited P-30" is a silly idea. P-30 is the most popular outdoor class on earth, and the increased use of composites is only feeding interest in that class as people see how inexpensively and easily you can build a super-durable, reliable airplane.

Those who keep building P-30's the old way are fine to do so, but please leave the rest of us alone and quit fussing that the rules should be changed. It makes about as much sense as showing up to team selection with a microfilm covered F1D and fussing at the other fliers for using plastic film on the grounds that our models don't look as pretty and involved special techniques to prep the film for use. There's a total failure to recognize that y'all are the ones who are doing it the hard way. Tissue is harder to use and less durable than mylar just as microfilm is tougher to use and less durable than polyester. The same case can be made for the other aspects involved.
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 96
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #369 on: June 11, 2011, 06:33:12 PM »

I'm not suggesting eliminating hi-tech materials and techniques from P-30 -- I'm suggesting creating a separate class with the same basic rules except banning certain expensive performance enhancements and techniques with steep learning curves.  

We do not need another outdoor beginner's class. The learning curve of these 'enhancements' is an illusion. They actually make it much easier, and if the complaining group were willing to just give these new materials a try, they'd find that it's nothing to complain about. This is not change for the sake of change. It really does have purpose. It's good and y'all need to give it a try before claiming it's beyond you, unnecessary, too expensive, or whatever. It is none of those things.

Of course the same people claim that indoor has gotten too hard, that F1D is beyond beginners, etc. I do believe I've disproven that one... Cheesy
Logged
applehoney
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 279
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 3,156




Ignore
« Reply #370 on: June 11, 2011, 06:40:02 PM »

I never mentioned mylar ......

The point is, Joshua, that P30 is progressing beyond a simple novice class.   An individual with - say - a FA Moth, Lancer or a MiniMax under his belt and with a desire to build something still simple but of better performance will not have the knowledge, access or ability to tackle a model such as you so vociferously support.  He manages his Sooper 30 okay and then finds how inferior in performance it is with your hi-tech machine ...   and likely transfers his interests elsewhere in modelling or just plain quits.  

Your statement that 'we' do not 'need' another class is'nt relevant for should such ever come into existence it would not be of any consequence to you - presumably you would have no interest in participating in such with a lowly balsa model now that you have gathered so much expertise with other materials.   However it is very possible that some of those flying in such an event would, in due course, progress further into more hi-tech airframes .. and others remain content to build and fly simple inexpensive models together on an even basis.

There is something to be said for both sides and both are worthy of consideration.  Though hardly a fair comparison one could look back at a time when a Wakefield was within the basic ability of any model builder, rather than the present lower percentage who have skills and tooling to make use of composites and/or purchase RTF models.   I could not forsee the latter being applicable to P30 in the future but I'd hate to see the class slowly diminish in attraction in a similar manner.

Please note I am NOT advocating a 'limited' all-balsa Wakefield event!   Grin
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 07:22:06 PM by applehoney » Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 96
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #371 on: June 11, 2011, 06:50:12 PM »

There is one item that's being forgotten--kit availability. This actually is a valid problem. I know of four kits for decent P-30's--Clint Brooks', the two Burdov kits, and the Bob White design. They are all overpriced for a beginner because they are all ARF's. There is nothing to fill the gap between the outdated ladder box fuselage P-30's and the modern ones with the whole fuselage assembled and all the ribs cut out and everything else ready for glueing up or even mostly assembled. There's a 200% cost increase in most cases. We need to see a kit for a composite P-30 that gives the materials, maybe even with the fuse pre-formed and glued, but with everything else at most laser cut so that it can be cranked out for a profit at $30-35 or so. You could even just throw in the fuselage blank and some silkspan and say "follow these instructions and wrap it around a pool stick until dry."

I'm trying to think of an affordable P-30 kit I can actually recommend...I'm coming up dry...
Logged
applehoney
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 279
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 3,156




Ignore
« Reply #372 on: June 11, 2011, 07:20:02 PM »

Quote
I'm trying to think of an affordable P-30 kit I can actually recommend...I'm coming up dry...

Exactly. You're thinking 'composite' and they're too expensive.  But there are a number of all-balsa kits and plans available which are affordable for the novice and general flyer and that is where a  basic interest lies.  The ladderbox fuselage may be outdated in your eyes but many are very comfortable  with it and some may well progress to rolled tubes.
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 96
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,724


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #373 on: June 11, 2011, 08:17:56 PM »

Exactly. You're thinking 'composite' and they're too expensive. 

Nope. Only a modern design. I could not find a single modern P-30 out there for less than $55 (Ikara Peewee--a zero composite P-30). As a cross check, I ran some numbers proving that I could produce a composite P-30 for $40-45 with a very, very comfortable profit margin.

The ladderbox fuselage may be outdated in your eyes but many are very comfortable  with it and some may well progress to rolled tubes.

But the point is that it's hard for a beginner to make a ladderbox fuse. They take a long time to build (at least 5 hours for me, and you know well that I build faster than almost anyone else on this forum), and require the builder to cut out a pile of sticks, tediously glue them together, join fuse halves together, and keep that whole thing fairly straight, and then the have to glue tissue all over it after they've done all that. And it requires constant patching if you fly anywhere that doesn't have lots of nice grass like Geneseo or Muncie. My point is that I cannot recommend a ladder box P-30 to a beginner. If I'm helping the beginner, I'll give him my own design, and if he's going to be on his own, I'll have to recommend an expensive modern one to ensure his success because I cannot expect today's beginner to be able to produce a P-30 like that on his own, and then he's got to deal with unstable structures, too (parallel ribs are structurally unstable..that's all there is to it).

If we want to talk about turn-offs, here's one: a spectator asks you how you get one of those cute planes. You tell him he has to build it himself, and he needs to build two fuselage sides out of these little sticks that have to be cut out, then join them together, and finally cover it up with tissue and then there's flying surfaces and fittings and a flame on the tail. I explain to my spectator that he has to build his own plane to compete, but that all he has to do is build the wings and tail, and the fuselage is just a hunk of wood that you wet and wrap around a dowel, and it only takes a couple hours to make, most of which is drying time. I further explain that it'll last for years of abuse and can go swimming without ill effect. Which one do you think is more likely to take up the hobby?
Logged
Zeiss Ikon
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 567




Ignore
« Reply #374 on: June 11, 2011, 08:56:00 PM »

Which one do you think is more likely to take up the hobby?

I guess it depends whether their interest was drawn by a model airplane like the ones they might have built (with mixed or limited success) as kids, twenty to forty years ago or like the ones they've seen in their granddad's stash of old M.A.N. and Flying Models magazines -- or by seeing something that looks like it came out of a toy factory and they ought to be able to buy, fly, and then trash when they're tired of it.

To me, the tube fuselages and plastic coverings look like something factory-built; stick and tissue looks handmade.

BTW, those who claim composites, plastic covering, and such are easier need to explain to me why we always start by recommending a Hangar Rat, Guillow Cadet, Sig Cub, etc. as a starter model -- why would even a Lancer be any good in training to put carbon cap strips on ribs and cover with mylar?  After all, the Lancer starts with cutting loose all those die-cut parts and cutting and installing all those verticals and cross pieces, mounting parallel ribs with multiple spars, and covering with tissue -- all skills I hear being decried as obsolete and unserviceable.  No, we need to start those new kids off with $85 "kits" that require a couple hours to glue together (assuming they don't glue themselves to their model with the CA).  Budgets?  Who could possibly want to fly model airplanes if they can't afford to drop $100 a month on their hobby?  And when was the Builder of Model rule repealed?

I can still buy balsa suitable for P-30 models at the local R/C shop or even Hobby Lobby (which is mainly a craft store); I can get silkspan at the LHS, and stick it on with thinned Elmer's or glue stick; applied wet, it'll take up the most horrendous curves without wrinkling -- and the model building books in the local library cover this technique; they don't say a thing about "modern" materials or how to use or apply them (they hardly mention CA glues).  I don't have a local source for carbon strip, tube, or tow, or mylar covering film and the adhesive required to attach it -- I'd have to buy that stuff on the internet.  How's a beginner going to know where to look?  Search engines don't find the products inside a web store.

Come to that, I don't even have access to a pool cue.  Do I have to be rich enough to own my own pool table to start flying P-30 now?
Logged

I'm here to have fun -- but winning isn't bad, either.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 37   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!