[NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
Chad Northeast
chadnortheast at shaw.ca
Thu Aug 19 10:13:50 AKDT 2010
Don't you want to pick a team that has pilots you know are able to bring legal models?
IMO (and how we do it in Canada) is that a team selection should be enforced like a WC's, that means, sound and weight on every flight. If its hard to do on home turf, its a lot harder to do when traveling around the world.
PS: Mark you are right, all competitors in the finals, should have legal models before getting there ;-) and not after :) Both mine were :)
Hell Dave L.'s were legal with a bag of graphics and scissors on the wing LOL....I think I have a picture of that.
Chad
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net>
Date: Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:54 am
Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
To: chad at f3acanada.org, 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Ah ha, the 5's place person flying with the huge advantage
> of an overweight
> airplane wins!
>
> Why weigh anyone if it's not a team selection contest? Or even
> if it is?
> There's no requirement to fly the same plane at the WC. We
> already run every
> contest in the US except the Nats with unlimited weight, Why not
> that one
> too? Wonder if there just may be a couple of flyers who would
> come to the
> Nats if they knew no planes would be weighed?
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Chad
> Northeast
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 1:14 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
>
>
> "And at the
> > Nats, the only planes that should be weighed are the top 4 F3A
> > places. Let's forget about weighing any of the others. Just do
> a
> > size check and that's all."
>
> Not really acceptable, in the FAI finals its a new contest, the
> top 4 going
> into the finals, could be the bottom 4 after the finals.
> You need to
> process everyone that is in the finals to ensure they are all
> legal, as
> there is no way to predict the results.
>
> It would be sad if you processed the top 4 from the semi's, and
> during the
> finals a 5th person made the team who was not processed, and was
> found to be
> flying an illegal model.
>
> Chad
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
> Date: Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:25 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> > Yes Mike I can carry an extra pound or two in the van. I don't
> > want to. So I do everything I can to make my planes less than
> 5
> > kilos. Easier on my joints too.
> >
> > As far as local contest weigh in is concerned....I agree.
> > Therefore it seems to me that at least 50% of the folks that
> > don't attend the Nats may be flying heavier than max airplanes
> > and none's the wiser. Fine with me. It also seems to me the
> main
> > point for increasing the weight limit is so that people can be
> > "legal" at the US Nats.
> >
> > Truth is that there are only 4 people that truly have use 5
> kilo
> > of less airplanes: the team that will represent us at the WC.
> > The rest of us can have a variable weight and it's not a big
> > deal, except, if the rule was relaxed, it will open the can of
> > worms of escalating cost once again. Dave Lockhart had a good
> > review of how that process works a couple years ago, so it
> makes
> > no sense to rehash old stuff
> >
> > In my view, I would prefer that the rule remain in an effort
> to
> > control cost to the current (admitedly high) level. And at the
> > Nats, the only planes that should be weighed are the top 4 F3A
> > places. Let's forget about weighing any of the others. Just do
> a
> > size check and that's all.
> >
> > Finally, if we were to relax the weight limit to say 12 lbs
> give
> > or take, okay fine, make sure planes were made from balsa and
> > ply. Fiberglass to be used only to finish not to build
> composite
> > strength. In fact about the only composite parts allowed
> should
> > be wing and stab joiners and gear/pants. In other words, make
> a
> > good attempt to control cost.
> >
> > We have got to get cost under control in my view or the sport
> > will become too expensive for most. It may be too expensive
> for
> > most right now
> >
> > My 2 1/2 cents
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dr Mike <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
> > To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-
> > discussion at lists.nsrca.org>Sent: Thu, Aug 19, 2010 10:58 am
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> >
> > Matt, I agree with the size restriction, but I think you and
> > your van could carry another 2 pounds>heck we have guys
> > flying 12+pound planes at local contests all the time.
> When is
> > the last time someone weighed an airplane at a local
> contest?
> > When is the last time anyone enforced that rule?
> Practically
> > speaking the weight limit is academic.
> > Mike
> >
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
> > discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
> > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:46 AM
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> >
> >
> > A 2 meter, 5 kilo plane is about my physical max. I physically
> > have a difficult time getting something larger in the minivan.
> > At one time I dabbled in 1/3 scale IMAC but that proved too
> big
> > and too heavy to haul around....just a plain pain in tuchous
> > (can I say 'tuchous' in this forum?)
> >
> >
> >
> > Besides, I find it great fun to figure out how to make a
> 2meter,
> > 5 kilo plane come out at 4.5 kilos....don't you?
> >
> > MattK
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ronlock at comcast.net
> > To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-
> > discussion at lists.nsrca.org>Sent: Thu, Aug 19, 2010 9:29 am
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> > An excellent discussion - especially the "unintended
> > consequences" part. Thanks for the diatribe Mark !
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we should be particularly sensitive to an increase in
> > AMA weight standard resulting (in a couple of years) in larger
> > designs that take up more room, cost more, and are no
> > longer compatible with F3A.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ron Lockhart
> >
> > Dist II CB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-
> > discussion at lists.nsrca.org>Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010
> > 9:05:03 AM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> >
> > The challenge here is that rules of this nature, limiting
> rules,
> > be it in Pattern, Sailing, Stock car, whatever, are NOT in
> place
> > to restrict the average guy, they're in place to restrict the
> > innovator. The guys that push the limit.
> >
> >
> >
> > In our sport, the "average" guy is stuck pushing the limit
> > because he's trying to copy and follow the innovators.
> We all
> > want the triple volumetric 2 meter bird because that's what
> > Chip/Andrew/Quique and company have pushed the boundary's
> too.
> > A prophecy still makes weight with nooooo
> problem.
> >
> >
> >
> > So the problem is simple. IF the rules change, it
> clearly will
> > help the average guy for a year or two. But then the
> innovators
> > will once again push the limits (they wouldn't BE limits if no
> > one was pushing) and we would see new designs that the average
> > guy can't easily keep within the rules.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bipes have not really caught on because they're too difficult
> to
> > make weight with. Only the very best builders with very
> few
> > limits on funding for all the best and lightest equipment have
> > made them work. Add a pound and that will very likely
> change.to
> > where all the top guys can make them work, which will then
> push
> > the average guy to try and make them work. At the
> end of the
> > day, all it adds is cost as we obsolete a whole generation of
> > viable aircraft to the dumpster.
> >
> >
> >
> > All one needs to do for confirmation on that is to review the
> > evolution of aircraft that occurred when we removed the LAST
> > limiter.engine displacement. Prior to that, weight
> was only a
> > secondary limiter because displacement restricted how big of a
> > plane you could carry around. Once removed, we had 10
> years of
> > growing aircraft and growing engines. All costing more,
> NOT
> > just because the new stuff was more expensive.that's just
> > natural inflation and evolution, but because the lifespan of a
> > model was shorter. Designs changed SIGNIFICANTLY
> every year.
> >
> >
> >
> > Finally, we're back to a semi stable development cycle which
> has
> > aircraft like the Integral enjoying a 5-6 year run and is
> still
> > considered competitive even in FAI (I believe that's what Pete
> > Collinson flew in the finals this year).
> >
> >
> >
> > It's not that we're not listening. We're simply trying
> to avoid
> > mistakes from the past and make as sure as we can that the
> rule
> > changes won't have disastrous unintended consequences.
> >
> >
> >
> > The rule change that is currently on the ballot provides a
> > sizeable variance for those in the lower classes to help
> > accommodate aging aircraft (which seem to gain weight
> > magically), repaired used aircraft, and beginning
> > builders..without changing the goal (and therefore the
> designers
> > goal) of maintaining a 5KG weight limit.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok.off my soapbox. Sorry for the diatribe.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> > CB for Dist 3
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Atwood
> >
> > Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President
> >
> > 5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
> >
> > Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 | Fax: 440.684.3102
> >
> > mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com | www.paragon-inc.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
> > discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dr Mike
> > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:42 AM
> > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lance,
> >
> > Regarding the CB, I agree with you that those generalities are
> > anal comments. Most of the guys are giving freely of
> their time
> > and we are lucky to have them. On the weight issue, the
> 11
> > pounds is a bit restricting. When that rule was made,
> planes
> > had a 60 inch span, were 48 inches long and weighed 7
> lbs. now
> > they are volumetrically double or triple so the wing loading
> is
> > the same or lighter. Needs to go up at least a pound or two.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
> > discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Patterndude
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 8:35 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a 10 lb e-symphony, there are low 10 lb Evo's and both
> > these planes are super rigid an tough. There are e planes that
> > I'm afraid to touch because of fragility and they cost more
> too.
> > Point is, the consumer has choices and don't need to fly a
> > dangerous airframe. They choose to. Remember the glow Impacts
> > that lost their tail in a snap but hundreds were sold AFTER
> this
> > fact was known on this list?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As a CB guy I don't like being generalized against. I ask for
> > input all the time. Even call people and tell people where my
> > head is at all the time without preaching.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 18, 2010, at 8:11 PM, Tim Taylor
> > <timsautopro at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > We can always ignore it, we've done that for years unless
> you're
> > in the top 3-5 at the Nats.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In this day and age of instant communication we no longer need
> a
> > Contest Board to decide what we do or not. With all due
> respect
> > to the CB we don't need you guys anymore, we can poll the
> > membership directly and set the rules. Far more representative
> > that way.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The only time I ever tried to talk to a CB member about a
> rules
> > proposal in person I got the old "I know better than you and
> I'm
> > going to do what I want so we don't need to discuss it."
> He
> > then refused to even talk about anything at that point. Left a
> > very bad taste I tell you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tim
> > --- On Wed, 8/18/10, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> > To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-
> > discussion at lists.nsrca.org>Date: Wednesday, August 18, 2010,
> > 7:53 PM
> >
> > The rules proposal to eliminate the weight limit didn't make
> the
> > first CB
> > vote. Too bad IMO!
> > Dave
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> > Ron Hansen
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:35 PM
> > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> >
> > I'm concerned that these new electric only planes that are
> > designed to make
> > weight won't hold up to the normal wear and tear of an average
> > intermediateor advanced pilot or flying off of a rough grass
> > runway. Is this a valid
> > concern? I think so but maybe I'm over reacting.
> That is why
> > I'm in favor
> > of eliminating the weight limit altogether. The proposal
> to
> > slightly raise
> > the weight limit won't allow someone to fly an electric Focus
> II for
> > example.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> J
> > N Hiller
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:17 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> >
> > I've been following this with interest. E-power is looking
> > better all the
> > time and I probably will make the change. I like to build
> prefer
> > a wood
> > airplane. About how much total weight is in a suitable E-power
> > system or
> > empty airframe ready for radio etc? Any numbers readily
> > available would be
> > helpful in understanding the distribution of weight.
> > Thanks
> > Jim Hiller
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:02 AM
> > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> >
> > And to recall.....that is the Spark with custom wings and
> stabs,
> > which saves
> > substantial weight? There are very few unmodified kits
> > available that are
> > RTF electric at 10.25. There are some airframe examples
> for
> > which glow /
> > electric are similar weight, but that is not the norm - not
> yet
> > anyway - my
> > opinion.
> >
> > My electric Bravo was 10 lbs even at the 2009 NATs (only 4 oz
> > more than the
> > Vivat I flew in 2005) and I would be scared of the structure
> if
> > it were any
> > lighter. Of course it could be lighter still IF I went
> from
> > 5000 to 4350
> > lipos (~6 oz) and ditched the dual RX batts and Vregs (~2 oz)
> > and used
> > lighter ESC and wiring (~ 2 oz).
> >
> > Point being....even tho 10 lb electrics are possible, and
> > becoming more
> > common, it is still pretty easy to build electrics at 11+ lbs
> without> careful planning and attention to detail. I think
> it will
> > become a
> > non-issue soon enough.....even in Europe and Asia electrics
> are
> > coming on
> > strong.....so the glow kits will become increasingly scarce.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> > Atwood, Mark
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:06 AM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> >
> > I would argue that you can't "disregard" the airframe given
> that
> > an all
> > electric airframe is much lighter.
> >
> > My answer to the question? There is almost no
> difference. I'm
> > flying a
> > full 2M plane that weighs 10lbs 4oz with light batteries,
> 10lbs,
> > 8oz with
> > very heavy batteries. My two Black Magics with
> glow weighed
> > 10lbs 6oz and
> > 10lbs 8oz RTF minus CDI (add approx 4oz for that).
> >
> > I believe we're just now seeing full electric designs that are
> > optimized for
> > weight and are coming in light. Prior to that,
> many of the
> > designs still
> > had unnecessary structure as a legacy from Glow. I'm
> pretty
> > sure that
> > evolution is not complete yet either.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Atwood
> > Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President
> > 5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
> > Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 | Fax: 440.684.3102
> > mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com | www.paragon-inc.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> > Ron Van Putte
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:58 AM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> >
> > Tough question. Will you insist on using 30C lipos, when
> 20C lipos
> > are much lighter? Do you plan on using a particular
> motor? Motor
> > weights vary substantially. Some ESCs are a lot heavier
> than others.
> >
> > My guess would be that the weight difference between a complete
> > electric-power system and a complete glow-power system, disregarding
> > the airplane, would be 10-16 ounces.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > On Aug 17, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Dr Mike wrote:
> >
> > > Ok so I am going to ask the question again... in your estimation
> > > what is the
> > > difference in weight between the complete electric power
> > system and
> > > the
> > > complete glow system-disregarding the airplane?
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf
> > Of Ron
> > > Van Putte
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:30 AM
> > > To: General pattern discussion
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> > >
> > > Dave WAS trying to show the difference between glow and electric.
> > >
> > > Generally, airplanes that started out as glow-powered are heavier
> > > than one for electric power, because of the vibration. The
> > > difference between the two packages gets complicated.
> For
> > glow, you
> > > include spinner, prop, engine, motor mount, ignition
> > system, fuel
> > > tubing (and fittings), fuel tank and anything else which is
> > > exclusively for glow. For electric, you include
> spinner, prop,
> > > motor, motor mount, ESC, wiring, lipo batteries and
> > anything else
> > > which is exclusively for electric. When you add it up,
> the
> > weight> differences can be pretty dramatic. If you don't
> > carefully select
> > > all the components, you can easily add an unneeded 4 ounces
> > to an
> > > electric-powered airplane.
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > On Aug 17, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Dr Mike wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks Dave, I am referring only to the power
> > packages,not the
> > >> planes. Those are what I am looking for, the difference
> > between>> glow and electric.
> > >>
> > >> Mike
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-
> > >> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 7:41 AM
> > >> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 12 oz +/-4 oz.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Exact number depends on a bunch of things -
> > >>
> > >> - on the electric side, which motor, motor mounting,
> > ESC, lipo, RX
> > >> power system?
> > >>
> > >> - was the plane originally built lighter for electric,
> > or with more
> > >> beef for glow?
> > >>
> > >> - CDI / non CDI, type of mount, and what type of
> > ignition and RX
> > >> power?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I can tell you that a number of Prestige planes have
> > been built
> > >> with various glow and electric power plants. For the
> > most part,
> > >> the glow airframes are +4 oz to start with (the added
> > beef for glow
> > >> vibration). Most of the glow setups ended up at 9.5
> > lbs, +/- 4
> > >> oz. Most of the electrics ended up at 10.25 lbs, +/-
> 4 oz.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dave
> > >>
> > >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-
> > >> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dr Mike
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:33 AM
> > >> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > >> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Could someone tell me the difference in weight between
> > say a YS 1.7
> > >> with muffler/tank,etc vs electric?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >> Mike
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of
> > virus signature
> > database 5374 (20100817) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3079 - Release
> Date:
> > 08/18/1014:35:00
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ NSRCA-
> discussion
> > mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ NSRCA-
> discussion
> > mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3080 - Release Date:
> 08/19/1002:35:00
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100819/1e41c889/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list