Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 80 of 80

Thread: C-90 Performance Mods

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Woodstock , Ontario
    Posts
    223
    Post Thanks / Like

    engine

    Roger: Define loud. Exhaust or Continental mechanical noise?
    Ron

  2. #42
    Roger Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sweeny, Texas
    Posts
    1,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    No more than normal mech noise. The main noise is the four into 1 exhause on a non standard engine.
    I started with a standard 0-200 engine. I purchased new continental cylinders and sent them to Light Speed Engineering in Santa Paula Ca. Klaus Savier of Light Speed then installed his forged pistons with a 9.4/1 compression ratio. Did a ring and piston fit. the top clearance on the pistons was accomplished by grinding the combustion chamber on some of the cylinders. The intake and exhaust ports were then ported. The valves were then 3 angle cut on all seats and valve faces. The connecting rod were shot peened and balanced and line-bored to fit the larger wrist-pins and balanced. I then installed a electronic ignition by Klaus in place of the right mag.
    The plane is made to standard PA11 plans except for the electric trim, seats, and a full panel. Plus a few other mods.
    There are a few pictures of the construction on www.pmmi-inc.com/planes.html.
    Don at Sensenich made a 72/50 wood prop for cruse and a 80/20 wood prop for floats. The cruse prop gives me a top speed of around 115 mph and the float prop will curse at about 75 mph. The wings were purchased from Dakota Cub and mounted to the plane using Super Cub Struts. Since I did not install a jack screw for trim, I put double tail brace wires on the tail. Other than that it was std construction. I did use some ultralight fabric to install a fishing rod carrier which you can see in the pictures.
    The 4 into 1 exhaust was made for me by Chris Stepp at Aircraft Exhaust Technologies. He has some pictures of it on his web site at http://www.aircraftexhaust.net/. He really did a nice job and it gave me about a 100 rpm adder. I also installed Micro VG's on the plane which lowered the stall by a full 20%.

  3. #43
    Roger Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sweeny, Texas
    Posts
    1,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Made a little typo. The float prop is a 80/27.

  4. #44
    R. JOHNSON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    DODGEVILLE WI
    Posts
    372
    Post Thanks / Like
    Roger, do you feel that the increased performance with the 4 to 1 over the stock system is worth the money if you had to do it over? Also if you had to pick either the elect. ignition or the exhaust what would you go with? Also how much horse power is your engine putting out? Thanks in advance for your time, Ryan.

    EDIT: I think you answered my exhaust question when I seen in another post you've had three sets. I have another question though, have you thought about trying the J-3 mount for the zero degree thrust angle? Thanks, Ryan.

  5. #45
    Roger Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sweeny, Texas
    Posts
    1,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    The four into one gave me the most boost for the buck. Picked up 100+ rpm when I put it on. I would not go to the 0 thrust. Have tried it and picked up very little. Like the added performance getting off the water with the 4 deg of look down. If I want to go fast, I get in the 172 with my wife. She won't let me fly, but she lets me ride.
    The homebuilts are really nice, because you don't have to guess what works the best, just go try it. By the way, my PA11 can keep up with the 172 but I have it looking at the ground at that speed. I think I am putting out about 120 to 125 hp, but my fish that I caught last summer get bigger when I get back to Texas.

  6. #46
    Cub junkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    My Moms basement
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Roger,Do you like the trim you have opposed to the jack screw system? Were you trying to eliminate some of the headaches associated with maintaining a jack screw system? Kevin

  7. #47
    acroeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Burlington, NC
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like

    C90

    Roger- I have been looking at the 4 into 1 exhaust as well. I currently use a Luscombe 2 into 1 setup off an 8E. It works well and is also loud (but I like that). I wonder If I would get any gain over this setup? It is very free flowing.

    Any issues with Claus' pistons? I have a set of C85 pistons moly coated that I was planning to use but the 9.5 to 1 sure sounds like it would be a huge gain. The C85 trick probably adds 5-8 hp but only adds a little to the compression ratio.

    How much time is on your engine? Any problems so far? You have done all the mods I have been wanting to try-
    Eric

  8. #48
    Roger Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sweeny, Texas
    Posts
    1,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    I used the electric trim just so I could get the control on the stick and have a real fine trim control. The only trouble with my system is that the trim tab is about 4 times as large as it needs to be but don't want to rebuild the elevator.
    I think the 4 into 1 collectors that Chris builds reall pull a vacuum on the remaining 3 exhaust tubes and help cut down on back pressure.
    I have had no problems with the engine and the pistons seem to work fine. I only have about 125 hr on the engine. Flew it to Canada and back and on floats for the summer. I am getting good oil analysis back but my oil usage is only about 1 qt in 25. Would like it to use a little more oil. The oil does not turn black like my other planes. Will know more in a few years but for now it is really a smooth engine without any vibrations at any speed.
    About the only change I would make is to the Float plane prop. Should be a 80/32. I turn about 3,000 wide open and 2850 on lift off.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    western Washington
    Posts
    531
    Post Thanks / Like
    Someone posted this link on another discussion site- it's from the Flybaby website and has some good poop on the small Continentals.

    www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm

    Rooster

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    >C85 pistons are flat topped, and are about 1/8" taller than O-200 (pin to top). Normal compression is about 6-1 with O200 pistons,

    7.0:1

    > running C85's takes it to about 7/7.5-1?....sorry I don't know the exact number.

    8.7:1

    ? LyCon's are a domed top piston that run up to about 10-1 and take special rings.

    Lycon flat-top 9.5:1 ----- can't get 10's for the O-200. I'm running 9.5:1 Lycons in an O-200 that I'm building up now.

    Lycon pistons have 3 rings vs. 4 rings for the C-85 pistons.

    Gapless rings are made by Total Seal to fit about anything imaginable.

  11. #51

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fireball, stumble on throttleup and quitting at low rpm during taxi are both often a result of running an A-65 spider on the C-85 and C-90. About a fourth of C-85's seem to be using 65 spiders. You can tell a 65 spider by the abrupt external neckdown in the throat. The 85, 90, and O-200 spiders have a uniform diameter throat. If you have a C-85 spider, polish it.

    The cheapest solution is to throttle up more slowly, take about 2 seconds to shove the throttle in.

  12. #52
    acroeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Burlington, NC
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Vaccum pump gear? Leave it out?

    I am assembling my C90-12F engine and am considering leaving the vacuum pump gear and housing out. In looking at the oil flow I think as long as I have a well fitting blank off plate it should work fine- Anyone know of a reason I should not do this? I am sure the engine would pick up a little hp without the friction of the gear plus I loose a pound or two off the engine.

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quoted -- "Normal compression is about 6-1 with O200 pistons, running C85's takes it to about 7/7.5-1?....sorry I don't know the exact number".

    Normal compression for C90/O-200 is 7.00:1
    C85 pistons with C90/O-200 crank gives 8.68:1
    Klaus Saviar pistons 9.4:1
    NFS pistons 9.5:1
    9.5 pistons with no changes in timing or jetting will give a 9.76% increase in power and torque.

  14. #54
    tcraft128's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    St. Marys GA
    Posts
    789
    Post Thanks / Like
    Make sure you plug those holes where the gear bolts on.
    Turning money into noise since 1996

    Our Build here


  15. #55

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by acroeric View Post
    Besides using C-85 pistons and the p/n 530788 35 degree overlap cam (approved cam - just hard to find) what other mods are being done to increase the power from the C-90's? Mine is a -12. I have heard that using a intake spider off an A65 and grinding it to make it flow better also helps. I do not want to do anything that has not proved reliable.
    why a A65 spider? there a lot smaller throat then the c-90 ?

  16. #56
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    There's a lot of info on Continental 4-bangers -- what fits what, performance mods, etc-- on this webpage:


    http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  17. #57

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    A65 spider has an external and internal stepdown in the throat that the 85/90/O-200 spider doesn't have. Opening the 65 spider up for 'improved' flow will cause it to crack at the stepdown due to over thinning the throat wall.

    Read the two paragraphs under 'Cam Design Changes' on Page 1 of SB M49-17 and note that Continental explicitly says that the 24° cam gives more power and better acceleration than the 35° 788 cam.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	attachment-21.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	73.3 KB 
ID:	28264   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	attachment-38.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	71.4 KB 
ID:	28265  
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by JimC; 11-02-2016 at 02:17 PM.

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like
    that's why I was asking why someone would use a A65 carb spider

  19. #59

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    As an aside, the stock O-200 cam gives more power and torque than either of the C90 cams up to a density altitude of about 9400-10,000 feet. At sea level, according to Continental, anytime the O-200 is between 2150 rpm and about 2900 rpm, it is producing more torque than the peak torque of the C90.

  20. #60
    Farmboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Glens Falls, NY
    Posts
    2,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JimC View Post
    .

    Read the two paragraphs under 'Cam Design Changes' on Page 1 of SB M49-17 and note that Continental explicitly says that the 24° cam gives more power and better acceleration than the 35° 788 cam.
    Jim,
    Would you say that Continental's statement on the -788 cam is based on the stock engine and exhaust, so depending on what other mods one may install, the -788 cam may well provide a benefit? Most engines benefit from breathing easier, hence exhaust mods are typically first, and then intake mods may follow.

  21. #61

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    "Most engines benefit from breathing easier"

    I would agree with that, and the 90's 24° cam would also benefit from that as well. As would the 35° cam of the O-200. Continental did not dyno these engines with the J3 or PA11 exhausts installed. My personal preference is for the sharper lobed O-200 cam, but that's because I never have to launch at density altitudes above 10,000 feet. The 90 cams will outperform the O-200 cam when the manifold pressure drops below 21 inches.

    I typically prop the O-200 to give a 55 mph climbout between 2500 and 2800 rpm and an 79-81 mph cruise at 2250-2350 rpm. In a J3, I'm leary of a 55 mph climb at more than 2800 rpm with much less than 3 gallons in the nose tank for fear of unporting the tank outlet during the climb. At 2800 rpm and 55 mph, the J3 deck angle is very steep.

    I've designed an offset J3 'muffler' that fits within the stock heat shrouds (so looks externally stock with shrouds mounted) but doesn't muffle and flows somewhat better than stock while also clearing the -12 oil screen housing. I haven't built or flown it yet, but am looking forward to doing so. I haven't given any attention yet to the 11 exhaust.
    Last edited by JimC; 11-03-2016 at 12:33 AM.

  22. #62
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like
    Better suck and blow help performance. Here's my choice for air filters...as close to an open system as I've tested for static rpm on a C-90 with their P10-7150 FFA/PMA element:

    http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.co...dfs/007217.pdf

    Gap

  23. #63

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    So, with a volumetric efficiency of about 0.8, at 2800 rpm the 90 and O-200 will pump about 130 cfm. That gives an improvement of 0.4 inch of H2O over the Brackett, for about a tenth of a percent increase in power output. About 0.1 to 0.15 hp. That's about a 2 fpm increase in the J3's rate of climb. Every bit helps.

  24. #64
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    9,792
    Post Thanks / Like
    I haven't had an air filter on my J4 for the last 900hrs

    Glenn
    "Optimism is going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with you!"

  25. #65
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JimC View Post
    So, with a volumetric efficiency of about 0.8, at 2800 rpm the 90 and O-200 will pump about 130 cfm. That gives an improvement of 0.4 inch of H2O over the Brackett, for about a tenth of a percent increase in power output. About 0.1 to 0.15 hp. That's about a 2 fpm increase in the J3's rate of climb. Every bit helps.
    On pretty much a standard August day at 425' MSL, 72F, 29.85" Hg from set to 0' on altimeter...MP gauge read 30.10" Hg. Nosed into the bank on floats...fresh C-90 in a PA-11. Prop Sen 76AK-2-40. Used digital remote sensing Proptach sitting on panel. Here's the WFO static data I recorded with a new Brackett filter element and new Donaldson P10-7150:

    Brackett 28.5" 2300 rpm
    No air filter 29" 2325 rpm
    Donaldson filter 28.9" 2320 rpm

    Every little bit helps.

    GAP

  26. #66
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubdriver2 View Post
    I haven't had an air filter on my J4 for the last 900hrs

    Glenn
    Probably not many volcanoes or blowing dust where you live?

    GAP

  27. #67

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree wholeheartedly about the every bit part.
    So, the chart and text in the link was wrong?
    (it doesn't jive with your numbers - it gives a half inch of water difference for 130 cfm, and you are seeing a half inch of mercury - big difference)
    Last edited by JimC; 11-03-2016 at 11:38 AM.

  28. #68
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JimC View Post
    I agree wholeheartedly about the every bit part.
    So, the chart and text in the link was wrong?
    (it doesn't jive with your numbers - it gives a half inch of water difference, and you are seeing a half inch of mercury - big difference)
    Well that's what went down for me, not sure what Donaldson did but I suspect they used a flow bench and not a real engine. I repeated the test forwards and then backwards the same day...same results. The Brackett has two potential flow issues...the foam element (mine was unused) and the backing/anti-backfire louvered metal plate. Both are restrictions versus an open air box. I didn't try just the Brackett filter without the foam element. The Donaldson and K&N/Challenger filters don't use the metal backing. Later I compared the Donaldson vs Challenger in that PA-11 and saw no detectable difference.

    I also compared the Brackett versus the Donaldson on my current C-85 Stroked Taylorcraft w/C-150 exhaust, newly rebuilt tight airbox, and saw similar static results with the same prop...Brackett about 2415 and Donaldson about 2440. The rpm bounces around some but the Donaldson again offered about 0.4-5 "Hg manifold pressure and increased static rpm. Yes the static is above TCDS specs and a hundred or so over my previous PA-11 with C-90. Not all engine installations are created equal.

    Edit: I install MP gauges to quickly detect carb ice and monitor MP at idle and WFO. Lower is better at idle (10-11"); higher better WFO (I like to see no more than 1" Hg system loss) and as close to ambient air pressure as possible. It's just a way to note a tight engine and infer volumetric efficiency.

    GAP
    Last edited by BC12D-4-85; 11-03-2016 at 11:54 AM.

  29. #69
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    9,792
    Post Thanks / Like
    On my other cub I still use the original folded media wash and oil type, last forever

    Glenn
    "Optimism is going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with you!"

  30. #70

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't like the brackett either (except in very, very dusty conditions).

    I typically see about a 25-30 rpm static difference between the Brackett and no filter.

    I'm thinking about a C150 exhaust for my O-200 11. How is it working out for you?

  31. #71
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JimC View Post
    I don't like the brackett either (except in very, very dusty conditions).

    I typically see about a 25-30 rpm static difference between the Brackett and no filter.

    I'm thinking about a C150 exhaust for my O-200 11. How is it working out for you?
    The only comparison (and a loose one at best) is between my former PA-11 C-90-8F with the Piper exhaust and my current C-85-12F Stroker with the Cessna C-150 system...static rpm was higher on the latter with the same intake and internals (I have a C-90 cam in the Stroker). I assume Cessna and Continental did their best to get power out of the O-200 while providing heat for the cockpit. So yes I'm happy with the system. The headers can be curved inwards some (Atlee did mine for the builder) to fit a tight cowl.

    Another option that may fit better would be the Luscombe exhaust: http://www.acornwelding.com/pdf/Lusc...del%208E_F.pdf or similar. Good reports on these as well.

    More on this: http://luscombe.org/technicaldocs/ba...t%20system.pdf and http://dc65stc.blogspot.com/2010/09/...onversion.html

    GAP

  32. #72

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Main advantage to the C150 exhaust is that I have one lying around.
    Are you running the 788 cam in the Stroker?
    Or the 24° cam?
    Last edited by JimC; 11-03-2016 at 02:51 PM.

  33. #73
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JimC View Post
    Main advanage to the C150 exhaust is that I have one lying around.
    Are you running the 788 cam in the Stroker?
    Or the 24° cam?
    Well if the C150 exhaust is sitting there then have a go at it...might take some fitting and as I mentioned the headers can be bent closer to the engine. I'm running a C-90 forged cam and required lifter bodies in a C-85 case machined for them...I assume it's a 531076 with 24* overlap (others did the work). The SBM47-16 (Rev. 1960 Supp. No.1) and M49-17 discuss this. Magneto timing to the upper range of acceptable tolerance is important.

    Edit: I'd also experiment with exhaust stack length at some point. See if exhaust reversion timing can affect power in that installation.

    GAP
    Last edited by BC12D-4-85; 11-03-2016 at 03:02 PM.

  34. #74

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    "Magneto timing to the upper range of acceptable tolerance is important".

    True. In one O-200, I run 28° BTDC with the 9.5 pistons and the 35° overlap O-200 cam. Am thinking about advancing a bit more. Other O-200 is stock.

  35. #75
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JimC View Post
    "Magneto timing to the upper range of acceptable tolerance is important".

    True. In one O-200, I run 28° BTDC with the 9.5 pistons and the 35° overlap O-200 cam. Am thinking about advancing a bit more. Other O-200 is stock.
    Seeing as how mine's still wearing a C-85 data plate under TCDS E-233, 28R/30L* is the legal upper tolerance range (+-1*) listed for a STC SE00979AT Stroker. Not sure what an O-200 would tolerate. I'm not an A&P so I just throw $ at the builders.

    GAP

  36. #76

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    I pull a cylinder and look at the pistons ever hundred hours or so. I suspect the 9.5 O-200 would tolerate 28/30, but haven't actually tried it. Wanted to build up a few hundred hours at 28° first. It's also bored 0.015" oversize. So far, so good. Tried Total Seal rings, but couldn't get the valve guides to quit leaking oil due to the increased suction. With them, got a puff of blue smoke every time I cobbed the throttle.

  37. #77
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pre-detonation might manifest itself on the piston tops...pocking and irregular carbon coverage...so if it looks good then fly more. I guess I'd rather have a little more oil on the guides as long as they aren't coking and as a result show offset of the valves. How do the inner valve covers look? Any sign of excessive exhaust blowback through the guides and seals and uniform between cylinders? Are the exhaust valve faces uniform in discoloration and seating/cooling well?

    I wrestled with installing higher compression pistons than 7:1 with this latest engine but decided against it as I wanted durability and not to expose the builder to undue scrutiny. Cooling then becomes more critical too. So it works well enough.

    They did something to the center main cross-bolting to help it hold hands better, but I expect it wasn't a complete through bolt like the larger engines. The carb is a MS but without jetting mods one has to be careful with A/F ratios feeding power produced.

    If I did it again I'd probably try the Luscombe exhaust (maybe with a crossover tube between stacks for a 2-1-2 setup) unless someone has dynoed one and found a loss of performance over a C-150 system.

    GAP

  38. #78

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    No noticable blowback through the guides. Valves and seats look and seal good (I run 93 octane mogas with ethanol). Carb is an MA3-SPA 10-4115 with brass float. 9.5 cooling is not an issue on a J3 (no intercylinder baffles), but I don't think I'd be comfortable running more than 10.0:1 pistons on mogas at advanced timing.

  39. #79
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ok Jim I missed the J-3 part...so an exhaust external to the cowl is not an issue of fit I assume. Well I'd surely experiment with exhaust to see if there's any benefit to be gained.

    How's your mixture distribution between cylinders? Do you see any visible color differences on the internals or EGT spread? If so, how have you dealt with it? I was thinking of having Atlee X the outlet of the airbox to maybe straighten the flow into the carb but forgot when it was time to have it done. I don't have an EGT.

    Prop...I've read here and elsewhere about which pulls the best...what's your current preference in a Sen or Mac? Lots of Cattos have migrated north to Alaska but I'm reluctant to try just yet.

    Gary

  40. #80

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    The C150 exhaust would have been for my 11, not the 3.

    Mixture distribution seems OK - no signs of temperature distress, runs very smooth. J3 is non-electric, so don't have good figures on CHT/EGT. Were they bad, I think it would have shown up during recurrent internal inspections.

    Mac 7440 seems to outpull everything else up to 2700 rpm. Above that Mac 7535 comes into its own.
    I'm curious about Catto, but no experience.

Similar Threads

  1. J-3 mods
    By JimC in forum Modifications
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-19-2006, 10:11 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •