[NSRCA-discussion] the joy of trim

Sun Mar 9 04:10:46 AKDT 2008

Chris et al

I received a question regarding measurement technique off list. It raised 
the valid question of just how are the measurements being discussed 
obtained? Here's my response.

The first issue is a reference line - just what are the variables of wing / 
stab incidence / thrust line being referenced to. Some designers / kits tell 
you and others don't. The variables need be referenced to something - the 
actual numbers don't really matter relative to the reference (just to each 
other), but a constant reference is necessary.

The second issue is a repeatable measuring method of the accuracy desired. 
By repeatable, I mean getting the same exact answer to a measurement every 
time that measurement is made. You're right in that many of the tools 
offered in the mainstream of modeling are useless, better to use a 
yardstick. Obviously, we want better precision than that offered by a 
yardstick for decalage. Some measure with accurate tools from a flat surface 
and calculate the angles - this works fine, but I like toys.

 I use a Macklenburg-Duncan digital level that reads to 0.1 deg. A plus is 
that a level is easily checked for calibration - just rotate it 180deg on a 
surface and compare readings, the digital level is easily calibrated if it's 
off. To "connect" the level to the airplane I use the "Vee - blocks on 
stands" system published in the K-Factor years ago by the late Erik 
Hawkinson.  http://www.wtp.net/DBEST/djigs.html  For details of the process, 
take a look at the Partner build document I published a few years ago. 
http://pages.suddenlink.net/donramsey/

Additionally, the core module is removable from the level and light enough 
to use to ensure equal center for elevators. For control travels I use the 
Gator Magic Gadgets by Ivan Kristensen (no longer sold), a simple wire 
pointer attached to the surface and a protractor on a post. Jerry's system 
is better and a toy I probably need.

Earl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <shinden1 at cox.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] the joy of trim

> Chris
> I`ve wached Earl fly his Abbra it was very good looking in the Air and he 
> beat me severly with it LOL
> you should use his setup advise to start with and go from there,, Earl is 
> very precise.
> Let us know how it turns out
> Bryan
> ---- krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Wow, that's pretty interesting. I'm going to try some of the things you 
>> mention here Bryan.
>>   I thought we were all shooting for 1.5 degrees or so of down thrust, .5 
>> degrees of wing incidence. I do agree, I feel like my Abbra has too much 
>> down thrust.. A little more up would help with a few things that I can 
>> now see.
>>   Back to the garage..
>>
>>   Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> shinden1 at cox.net wrote:
>>   thanks Lance
>> we all know I`m a terrible writer and thats part of my reasoning here
>> I have great respect for Matt and his abilities he is a great modeler and 
>> designer.
>> I am trying to use past experience when helping with these issues as a 
>> guide to how far out of line these things can get because of a 
>> misunderstanding that leads into a poor fix
>> or a modeler who is not up to the task and trys to take the shortcut 
>> ,,,there are no shortcuts
>> I would be willing to bet 98% of pattern fliers don`t even know what 
>> their down thust is and have never measured it. 1deg down is a lot.
>> and most could not find a baseline to start with as a watermark for later 
>> measurements
>> I was trying to point out that it should be a method of fine tuning 
>> rather than using it to steer a wayward airplane into submission.
>> The wing is the most important ,powerful and effective way to adjust 
>> flight path ,,, airfoil ,stab placement , engine thrust ,,are way down 
>> the list in importance as seen with a foamy,,
>>
>> First things first ,,get the wing inc right THEN,, the ac/g ..you would 
>> be surprised at how for off you can fly c/g and get away with it ,,,
>> What Matt and I call pulling to the Canopy and what Joe Blow calles it 
>> i`m sure ,, are two different things.{BTW I would bet most of the fliers 
>> out there with differential fix problems ,,are there becuase of an up 
>> line pull,
>> usually because your flying a tail heavy airplane } if ou use tail weight 
>> to create a pos angle of attack lots of little problems arise you have to 
>> use inc to creat the lift and C/g to adjust the feel
>> earlier I was trying to make the bigger picture nothing against what Matt 
>> was offering ,,,,
>>
>> I disagree there is more than one way to trim there is only one way
>> our accepted outcome is the difference
>> I would like to say I`m probably more hard headed than the Next guy , so 
>> I stick to my guns till proven wrong but accept it when I can be proven 
>> wrong,, ,, after designing over 15 pattern airplanes and keeping notes 
>> ,,, my outcome notes all say the same thing in the end ,it never changes 
>> ,,even when I get a bright idea to change or tweak the setup it leads me 
>> back to where I started.
>> After watching Arch fly his Black magic in the bumpy 25mph winds in 
>> Crowly La. A smoking performance ,,,I might add
>> the BM appeared to be on rails then,,watching my own airplane dance 
>> around I realized something I knew But had ignored ,,,it made me go back 
>> to the notes where I found the answer ,,, it never changed!!
>> the BM was a great design Properly trimmed BUT,
>> I,, had been trying to adjust upline canopy pull with engine thrust and 
>> tail weight ,,,,I don`t have the Luxury of calling the designer and 
>> asking where to put the C/G and wing Inc ,,,I have to find it
>> when I realized it needed more wing inc less tail weight and less down 
>> thrust it reaffirmed my notes and when the next time I flew in those 
>> conditions it proved me right you have to balance all these things
>> The airplane flys around the wing ,,,,let the airplane talk to you ,,be 
>> honest in you evaluations accept nothing but absolute perfection it is 
>> attainable
>>
>> would anyone like to try an onlist diagnosis of their airplane?
>> you tell me the Set up ,,they must be very Accurate give me the Symptoms 
>> ,,and I`ll provide the cure
>> you tell us what is happening with the input ,,,BEWARE it can be tedious 
>> and it might include using a saw!!
>> any takers ??
>> Bryan
>> sorry to be so longwinded
>> ---- Lance Van Nostrand
>> wrote:
>> > Bryan,
>> I have been anticipating your response but now it seems it won't be 
>> coming
>> soon. Maybe we can take this offline. There's no way anyone could
>> interpret my response as being argumentative and I know your are tough
>> enough to take a few pin pricks without flinching. Certainly I have my 
>> own
>> experiences and opinions but those are completely set aside. I believe
>> there are always at least 10 correct answers to any modeling question but
>> each answer is right within its own context.
>>
>> In other words, I start from 0-0 and have my trim process advance from 
>> there
>> and usually get very good results. I think, if I remember correctly your
>> old KF article and our live discussions, you start from 1/2 degree 
>> positive
>> inc in wing and stab and advance from there. Since I know your path is
>> different from mine I am trying to learn from you. this is why I question
>> and ask for deeper explanation. Maybe it's just not there. The answer
>> might be "I never tested in a wind tunnel, can't explain why it works, 
>> but
>> it does so just try it and enjoy." But I hate to see you bow out when
>> someone asks for more details. that makes Krishlan's comment seem 
>> relevant
>> when, knowing how much you help others and contribute to this sport, it
>> shouldn't be.
>>
>> --Lance
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From:
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 5:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] the joy of trim
>>
>>
>> > Ok Matt
>> > I accept, your probably right ..
>> >
>> > I will now bow out of the discussion it`s not going anywhere and I`m
>> > waiting my time trying to inform, it seems all the people I`ve helped
>> > accomplish what I`m preaching have quit the sport or they are scared to
>> > write !!
>> > I`ll leave you with this ,
>> > demand of perfection is different by each persons ability and goals,
>> > sometimes we deceive ourselves in thinking we kow it all or
>> > we get caught up in out wording every one and talking nonsense ,, then 
>> > no
>> > one gets anything out of the conversation
>> > and then, you die of a thousand pin pricks
>> > I can remember sharing pos inc setup with Nat on numerous occasions and
>> > Nat out worded me and proved me wrong on paper and you know he can ,, 
>> > in a
>> > Popeye Fried chicken House of all places,
>> > However I find out years Later he now uses My setup I`m proud
>> > ok ,I`ll stop beating a dead horse I know better than to start this
>> >
>> > carry on
>> > Bryan
>> >
>> > ---- rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
>> >> Bryan,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I respectfully disagree on the upline, full power issue. The downline 
>> >> is
>> >> a totally different trim situation because the vectors involved are
>> >> different
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> MattK
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >>
>> >> From: Nat Penton
>> >>
>> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>> >>
>> >> Sent: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 7:16 pm
>> >>
>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] the joy of trim
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'm thinking, I'm thinking ----- Original Message ----- From:
>> >> shinden1 at cox.net> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
>> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 1:53 PM
>> >> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] the joy of trim > Matt, I refer back to
>> >> my earlier post > thrust is not the issue. > wing inc. will always
>> >> trump thrust,, in power and influence over vertical > lines. > thrust
>> >> is a" very fine tune" issue it should not be used to adjust > tracking
>> >> issues > > jump in Nat ,, why do you not need down thrust on your
>> >> design?? > Bryan > ---- rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote: >> If the model
>> >> pulls to canopy on aï¿½FULL POWERï¿½vertical upline and you >> reduce
>> >> downthrust, the problem will worsen. You need to add downthrust >>
>> >> (about 1 degree initially, and more if needed). I would not mess with 
>> >> CG,
>> >> >> at least not yet. >> >> >> ï¿½ >> >> >> Horizontal flight places
>> >> quite a load on the wing....the wing must lift >> the load 
>> >> accordingly.
>> >> Vertical flight removes the load therefore whatever >> trim was found
>> >> in horizontal flight will affect the vertical flight. The >> simplest
>> >> fix is downthrust addition for the condition Mike references, >> but
>> >> assumes that the model is close to begin with. >> >> >> ï¿½ >> >> >>
>> >> Downline flight (NO POWER) is a totally different trim scenario and 
>> >> may
>> >> >> indeed require wing/stab inc adjustment and CG adjustment. >> >> >>
>> >> ï¿½ >> >> >> It should be understoodï¿½that it is an iterative process 
>> >> to
>> >> get "perfect" >> trim. >> >> >> ï¿½ >> >> >> MattK >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: J N
>> >> Hiller >> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List >> >> Sent: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:33
>> >> am >> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more - Rolls >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The airplane may be flying
>> >> with positive trim. Try reducing the down >> thrust or move the CG
>> >> back. >> >> >> If it doesnt help put it back. >> >> >> Jim Hiller
>> >> >> >> >> ï¿½ >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From:
>> >> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org >>
>> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Michael
>> >> >> Wickizer >> >> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 8:19 AM >> >> To:
>> >> NSRCA Mailing List >> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS
>> >> Questions+more - Rolls >> >> >> ï¿½ >> >> >> Bryan: >> >> ï¿½ >> >>
>> >> I agree that the plane doesn't know which direction it's flying, but 
>> >> then
>> >> >> why will a plane fly straight and level then pull to the canopy in
>> >> >> uplines?ï¿½ This has been driving Brett and me crazy for over a 
>> >> >> year.ï¿½
>> >> >> Admittedly, it a much shorter drive for me:) >> >> ï¿½ >> >> Mike
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Date: Thu, 6 Mar
>> >> 2008 23:13:48 -0500 >> >> > From: shinden1 at cox.net >> >> > To:
>> >> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org >> >> > Subject: Re:
>> >> [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more - Rolls >> >> > >> >> > Chris ,,
>> >> the airplane does not know it`s flying horizontal or vertical >> >> >
>> >> the wings are still lifting whether up or down that s why we can use 
>> >>  >>
>> >> > the vertical up or down to test this problem , >> >> > Bryan >> >>
>> >> > ---- krishlan fitzsimmons homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>
>> >> > > Lance, >> >> > > >> >> > > Just a thought though, if going
>> >> straight up, up straight down, aren't >> > > the up and down ailerons
>> >> both inducing equal drag, no lift? I've >> > > often wondered if our
>> >> straight up test is actually a perfect test for >> > > this. It is for
>> >> our up and down lines, but what about our 45's or >> > > horizontals
>> >> where we do indeed have lift on the low aileron and drag >> > > on the
>> >> other? This would create a different condition I'm guessing.. >> > >
>> >> Probably small, but still a little different because as I mention, >> 
>> >>  >
>> >> > both create drag on the up or downline.. Still, it's the best test 
>> >> > we
>> >> >> > > have I guess.. >> >> > > >> >> > > Chris >> >> > > >> >> >
>> >> > Lance Van Nostrand patterndude at tx.rr.com> wrote: >> >> > > This
>> >> thread is timely because I've been experimenting with >> > >
>> >> differential >> >> > > recently on a new design that seems to need it.
>> >> Never needed it >> > > before on a >> >> > > pattern plane but now I
>> >> might. My test is to fly very high, point the >> > > nose >> >> > >
>> >> directly at the ground and roll pure aileron. Plane should be axial, 
>> >>  >>
>> >> > > but >> >> > > remember that axial is along the vertical CG, which
>> >> may not be a line >> > > that >> >> > > pierces the wing LE/TE. You
>> >> need to do it a few times to be sure that >> > > their >> >> > > is
>> >> an axis that everything rotates around and that line is straight. >> >
>> >> > If it >> >> > > wobbles, then we have an issue. Another way to
>> >> determine this is to >> > > do >> >> > > unlimited rolls while flying
>> >> straight up. If the airplane >> > > consistently arcs >> >> > > off
>> >> its vertical line, you have a problem. >> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> Aerodynamics suggests two contributors. One is that the lowered >> > >
>> >> aileron >> >> > > increases the lift of the airfoil and lift creates
>> >> drag so this wing >> > > may >> >> > > pull the plane off axis. the
>> >> other is that the spiral slipstream of >> > > the prop >> >> > > is
>> >> pushing down on the right wing and up on the left so up/right >> > >
>> >> aileron is >> >> > > more effective than up/left and down/left is more
>> >> effective than >> > > down/right. >> >> > > >> >> > > The overall
>> >> effect for most pattern planes is minimal and usually >> > > 
>> >> ignorable,
>> >> >> >> > > but on IMAC style planes these factors can be significant 
>> >> >> >> > > and
>> >> the >> > > resulting >> >> > > differential corrections may need to
>> >> be adjusted with something as >> > > simple as >> >> > > a prop
>> >> change (from 3 blade to 2 for example). >> >> > > >> >> > > the
>> >> correction of course is to start playing with aileron >> > >
>> >> differential. >> >> > > Given the contributors I've suggested, its not
>> >> a given which way you >> > > go with >> >> > > the differential to
>> >> correct the problem and the answer might not even >> > > be >> >> > >
>> >> symmetrical. >> >> > > >> >> > > Note that contributor #1 above will
>> >> change if you are flying upright >> > > or >> >> > > inverted, so it
>> >> would seem that a correction for upright flight would >> > > simply >>
>> >> >> > > exacerbate inverted flight, but contributor #2 is the same for 
>> >> >> > > any
>> >> >> > > flight >> >> > > mode but is throttle dependent. >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > --Lance >> >> > > >> >> > > ----- Original Message ----- >>
>> >> >> > > From: "Koenig, Tom" >> >> > > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" >> >> >
>> >> > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 4:45 PM >> >> > > Subject: Re:
>> >> [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more - Rolls >> >> > > >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > > My head is spinning!!! The more I think about this, the more
>> >> >> > > > questions I >> >> > > > have.........rather than answers! >>
>> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Maybe the contra rotating prop set up on a Voodoo
>> >> X( Nat??) maybe >> > > > the >> >> > > > answer?? >> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > I still 'feel', that the best rolls I get are with a 0
>> >> differential >> > > > set >> >> > > > up-BUT- somehow I 'drive' that
>> >> wing to 0 ( or should that be some >> > > > sort >> >> > > > of
>> >> equilibrium??) during the rolls. Certainly in my case, it seems >> > >
>> >> > to be >> >> > > > Pilot dependant!!! >> >> > > > I'm starting to
>> >> think that my rudder control has turned to the >> >> > > > proverbial
>> >> trying to micro analyse what's happening! >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Tom
>> >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > -----Original Message----- >> >> > > > From:
>> >> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org >> >> > > >
>> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of >> >> >
>> >> > > shinden1 at cox.net >> >> > > > Sent: Friday, 7 March 2008 9:15 AM >>
>> >> >> > > > To: NSRCA Mailing List >> >> > > > Subject: Re:
>> >> [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more - Rolls >> >> > > > >> >> > > >
>> >> what happens on a 4piont? >> >> > > > Bryan >> >> > > > ---- Del
>> >> Rykert wrote: >> >> > > >> The general consensus has been that the
>> >> faster moving molecules >> > > >> over >> >> > > > the top surface
>> >> don't require as big as a deflection as the aileron >> > > > that >>
>> >> >> > > > deflects towards the bottom of the plane. What one tries to
>> >> achieve >> > > > is >> >> > > > the plane tracks as purely straight
>> >> on a string as possible while >> > > > one >> >> > > > rolls both
>> >> directions without introducing any yaw. >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> Del
>> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> > > >>
>> >> From: >> >> > > >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" >> >> > > >> Sent:
>> >> Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:49 PM >> >> > > >> Subject: Re:
>> >> [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more - Rolls >> >> > > >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > > >> > Nat and all you other aerodynamicists, >> >> > > >>
>> >> > >> >> > > >> > I thought that the rational for "aileron 
>> >> > >> >> > > >> > differential"
>> >> was that >> >> > > > upward deflection causes more drag than downward
>> >> deflection so to >> >> > > > equalize drag and prevent yaw with 
>> >> aileron
>> >> deflection, aileron >> >> > > > differential is needed. It seems that
>> >> you guys are now saying that >> >> > > > ain't so. Please elaborate.
>> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > George >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >>
>> >> > ---- Nat Penton wrote: >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > =============
>> >> >> >> > > >> > IMO center hinged or top hinged is OK. With top hinge, 
>> >> >> >> > > >> > to
>> >> >> > > >> > achieve >> >> > > > equal vertical travel of the trailing
>> >> edge requires different >> > > > angular >> >> > > > travel, up vs
>> >> down. The objective is zero aerodynamic differential. >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> > > >> > Ron I don't think a fairing would prevent separation 
>> >> >> >> > > >> > but,
>> >> how >> > > >> > are >> >> > > > you able to fair the gap using the
>> >> top hinge ? Nat >> >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> > >
>> >> >> > From: ronlock at comcast.net >> >> > > >> > To: NSRCA Mailing List
>> >> >> >> > > >> > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:20 AM >> >> > > >> >
>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more - Rolls >> >> > > >>
>> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > And while your at it, I'd appreciate
>> >> some discussion of the >> > > >> > impact >> >> > > > of the top
>> >> hinge system as seen on Viavat, and Prestige birds - >> > > > (top >>
>> >> >> > > > hinged, with fairing that eliminates the gap at deflection) 
>> >> >> > > >  >>
>> >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > Thanks, Ron Lockhart >> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> >> > > >> > -------------- Original message -------------- >> >> > >
>> >> >> > From: vicenterc at comcast.net >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > Nat,
>> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > Could you explain why the differential
>> >> should be different for >> >> > > > non-center hinged? I understand
>> >> that the mechanical configuration >> > > > of >> >> > > > non-center
>> >> hinged requires differential to obtain same travel in >> > > > both >>
>> >> >> > > > directions. However, the travel up and down should be close 
>> >> >> > > > to
>> >> >> > > > equal. >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > Thanks, >> >> > > >>
>> >> > >> >> > > >> > -- >> >> > > >> > Vicente "Vince" Bortone >> >> >
>> >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > -------------- Original message -------------- 
>> >> >> >> > > >> > From: "Nat Penton" >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > Tom
>> >> >> >> > > >> > It's just something that is peculiar to the Southern >>
>> >> >> > > > Hemisphere. >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > Changing wing
>> >> incidence will not help. Unless things are really >> >> > > > screwed
>> >> up , at our roll rates, centrifugal forces are too low to >> >> > > >
>> >> cause a problem. You want zero differential, aero speaking ( same >> 
>> >>  >>
>> >> > > > up/down if center hinged ). >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > I
>> >> find the best check is the fast half-roll in the vertical up. >> >> > 
>> >>  >
>> >> > Regards Nat >> >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> > >
>> >> >> > From: Koenig, Tom >> >> > > >> > To: NSRCA Mailing List >> >> >
>> >> > >> > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 7:24 PM >> >> > > >> > Subject:
>> >> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >>
>> >> > >> >> > > >> > Hi Troy! >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > Thanks for
>> >> the info. I thought you would be toiling away on >> >> > > > the next
>> >> developmental stage of these engines!! >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> >
>> >> Hopefully soon, I can find the time to get flying again. I am >> >> > 
>> >>  >
>> >> > looking forward to running this little beast. I am still a little >>
>> >> >> > > > concerned in keeping it quiet though. >> >> > > >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> > Four blade props? I have some of the 18.1 x 12 two bladers >> 
>> >> > >> >  >>
>> >> > > > but I just cant see how I'll shut the thing up with these paint 
>> >> > > >  >>
>> >> >> > > > stirrers?? >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > Also-one more
>> >> question to any of you out there in pattern >> >> > > > land. >> >> >
>> >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > I have struggled with aileron differential for
>> >> years. I am >> >> > > > just not happy with the rolls. I have tried
>> >> various design >> > > > fixes-but >> >> > > > about the only one that
>>
>> === message truncated ===
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try 
>> it now.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 