<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Lucida Sans; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 acc_role="text" CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>
<DIV>I'm just guessing here, but you were probably using full power a lot last
year in that sequence.... which tells me that</DIV>
<DIV>it was severely underpowered then. Which would also be part of the
reason you are/were having such variable speed</DIV>
<DIV>problems. I'm also guessing that no matter what you do, you don't
have enough pitch speed for windy conditions. You would need </DIV>
<DIV>somewhere around an additional 300 rpm on a given prop for the windy
conditions, above what you need just to fly the</DIV>
<DIV>sequence in calm air... That would probably be a minimum needed
increase. Sounds like you need a different motor/battery combo</DIV>
<DIV>to solve the dillemma... </DIV>
<DIV>As far as the constant speed thingy goes, it sounds like you were having
great variances in speed, usually at the tops of manuevers, </DIV>
<DIV>causing you to pinch off the radius... As a pilot, you may not notice
the severity of the change in speed or see how it's taking you </DIV>
<DIV>off your line. The "more advanced" competitors were probably trying
to clue you in to what was happening by suggesting to you to</DIV>
<DIV>try to keep a more constant speed. Doing so, gives you much better
timing, therefore allowing you to draw better manuevers...</DIV>
<DIV>My advice would be to get more power than you need, so you can compete on
an equal level, no matter what the weather conditions.</DIV>
<DIV>If your just wanting to be a casual competitor and competition isn't really
your thing, then just disreguard all of the above...</DIV>
<DIV>It's still a lot of fun to do, and really helps with our flying
abilities....</DIV>
<DIV>Best of luck</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rex</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A
title=mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net href="mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net">Fred
Huber</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:52
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>With e-power... changing props changes power.<BR><BR>13X6.5 and
14X6... the 14X6 will draw slightly less power. Since we lost <BR>power
but gained static thrust.. where's the power loss show up? Lost
<BR>speed. If a plane is already a little marginal on speed for handling
wind, <BR>reducing pitch is a problem. Also if you want to try plaing
the game of <BR>trading airspeed for vertical, loss of speed is a
disaster.<BR><BR>Rated prop for my motor is the 14X8. The 13X6.5 was
being used because it <BR>was enough and gave the increased flight time for 2
rounds of the old <BR>schedule.<BR><BR>Find anyone flying Masters level flyer
who thinks its a good idea to allow <BR>speed to change in a maneuver and will
complain about downgrade if speed <BR>varies noticeably. Maybe its one
of the points that fall in S&G... I'm not <BR>bothering to look it
up Maneuvers that have speed vary when its not <BR>supposed to look
sloppy.<BR><BR>The more advanced competitors who are coaching me are
CONSTANTLY telling me <BR>to maintain constant speed throughout loops, half
cubans, Immelman, Split S <BR>and the cobra... Since they are likely to
sit in the judges' chairs durring <BR>contests when I fly (they HAVE sat in
judges chairs when I have flown at <BR>contests...) I know I had better
maintain constant speed within any given <BR>maneuver.<BR><BR>And if its
marginal at its current setup... then thats proof that the new <BR>schedule
demands more from the plane than the old schedule.... Which means <BR>the new
schedule increased the cost of entry to competition at Sportsman
<BR>level.<BR><BR>Since this is supposed to be about how to entice beginners
to fly Pattern <BR>(not about why my plane needs to be upgraded to meet the
demands of the more <BR>difficult schedule) and percieved cost of getting
started is one of the <BR>stumbling blocks to enticing beginners to the
sport: The new schedule <BR>demanding a higher performance plane is
contrary to the purpose of the <BR>Sportsman class. My aircraft
performance issues are just an example of the <BR>increased performance
demanded.<BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Ken Thompson" <<A
title=mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net
href="mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net">mrandmrst@comcast.net</A>><BR>To:
"NSRCA Mailing List" <<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>Sent:
Sunday, January 07, 2007 11:01 PM<BR>Subject: Re:
<BR>[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR><BR><BR>>
While I certainly agree with the added expense of larger battery
packs<BR>> would make this combo seem out of reach for most Sportsman
pilots, an<BR>> E-plane in general would do the same. An increase of
500 to 700 mAh in <BR>> size<BR>> would go a long way in increasing your
time in the air while not adding a<BR>> seriously detrimental increase in
weight.<BR>><BR>> I agree in the judging criteria for losing speed,
hence my statement about<BR>> increasing your speed into the
maneuver. You don't need to jerk the model<BR>> into vertical to
tighten the radii a "little". The only reason for<BR>> tightening
that radii is to allow a tighter radii at the top, hence making<BR>> them
equal. Considering the fact I said you could possibly shorten
your<BR>> uplines a little, certainly doesn't constitute an interpretation
that I<BR>> meant to shorten it to 5'.<BR>><BR>> I agree with the
slowing down in your upline of the stall turn, however,<BR>> that isn't
what makes a stall turn a stall turn. It's the stopping at the<BR>>
top that makes it a stall turn. Of course, I agree with you that
the<BR>> slowing down in your vertical line of the stall is
inevitable. If <BR>> someone's<BR>> plane is running out of
"climb" at the top of their stall turn, and they<BR>> have to maintain fuul
power to make a respectable height, their power is<BR>> marginal, at
best.<BR>><BR>> The difference in props will not change your level
flight speed enough to<BR>> make your model incapable of handling windy
conditions, only increase your<BR>> pull in the up lines, which if you fly
the path, not the nose, it will <BR>> help<BR>> you with your vertical
lines in the wind.<BR>><BR>> As for the necessity of the 91 4-stroke
motor over the 61 2-stroke, I <BR>> can't<BR>> argue with that
fact. The 4-stroke has it's "power curve" in a lower RPM<BR>> range
while allowing it to swing a larger prop thus increasing thrust. <BR>>
You<BR>> could also decide to go to one of the 90 sized 2-strokes and have
a ton of<BR>> power while staying within the weight limits you are looking
for, all <BR>> while<BR>> saving money over the same size
4-stroke. Please understand I know all <BR>> of<BR>> this
motor talk costs money, that I won't dispute.<BR>><BR>> I certainly wish
I was close to you geographically, I would love to come<BR>> over and see
if there was some way we could work out your power problem <BR>>
with<BR>> the new sequence.<BR>><BR>> Ken<BR>> ----- Original
Message ----- <BR>> From: "Fred Huber" <<A
title=mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net
href="mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net">fhhuber@clearwire.net</A>><BR>> To:
"NSRCA Mailing List" <<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:54 PM<BR>> Subject: Re:<BR>>
[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR>><BR>><BR>>>
these packs are $250 a set... Larger ($300 to $500 a set) brings
model<BR>>> weight up requiring larger motor (lets spend another $250 to
$400) and <BR>>> you<BR>>> end up at 1.5 KW before it will perform
with the added weight. So that <BR>>> is<BR>>> not an
option.<BR>>><BR>>> CONSTANT SPEED is a judging criteria. So
unlimited vertical is a<BR>>> requirement for a vertical up-line....
unless you want to be downgraded<BR>>> for<BR>>> losing
speed.<BR>>><BR>>> Stall turn you can slow down on the way up...
you have to or its not a<BR>>> stall-turn, its a wingover = 0'd the
maneuver.<BR>>><BR>>> If you have inadequate power for the up-line
a tighter pull will kill<BR>>> speed<BR>>> due to higher G
forces... counterproductive. And sticking 5 ft of<BR>>>
up-line<BR>>> at 1/4 normal loop radius then pushing isn't going to
score well even if<BR>>> line length is not a judging
factor.<BR>>><BR>>> This is reality from actually flying the
model.<BR>>><BR>>> Sure, the 14X6 will give some more static
thrust compared to the <BR>>> 13X6.5...<BR>>> and lose airspeed...
which equates to not handling wind.<BR>>><BR>>> It all adds up
to... what WOULD work for the old Sportsman WON'T do the<BR>>>
new<BR>>> sequence.<BR>>><BR>>> And I note you didn't
comment on the glow power model's need for a change<BR>>> from a .60
2-stroke to a .91 4-stroke for MARGINAL ability to do the<BR>>>
up-line<BR>>> when the .61 was JUST FINE for the old
sequence.<BR>>><BR>>> These are planes I have actually
flown. Results that have been proven.<BR>>><BR>>> The new
Sportsman sequence needs more power:weight (static thrust, to get<BR>>>
vertical ascent capability as the main factor requiring more power)
than<BR>>> the<BR>>> old sequence.<BR>>><BR>>>
Someone's going to pop up saying that a .61 2-stroke can make more
BHP<BR>>> than<BR>>> a .91 4-stroke... Sure... if you want
to run the 2-stroke spinning a<BR>>> small<BR>>> prop as fast as
the engine will turn. Measure static thrust with props<BR>>>
you'd<BR>>> actually fly Pattern with. USEABLE power from the .91
is superior... and<BR>>> the 4-stroke with stock muffler weighs less
than the 2- stroke with stock<BR>>> muffler. The .91
wins.<BR>>><BR>>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>>> From:
"Ken Thompson" <<A title=mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net
href="mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net">mrandmrst@comcast.net</A>><BR>>>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:41 PM<BR>>> Subject: Re:<BR>>>
[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>>
Fred,<BR>>>><BR>>>> At the risk of seeming
argumentative, I don't entirely agree with your<BR>>>>
statements. I'm relatively new to flying, especially Pattern, but
there<BR>>>> are<BR>>>> a few things I've learned in my 3
years of competition.<BR>>>><BR>>>> In doing a stall turn,
you want to run out of forward motion at the top,<BR>>>>
not<BR>>>> necessarily power. It's possible you may be trying
to extend your lines<BR>>>> too<BR>>>>
far.<BR>>>><BR>>>> As for the vertical upline, carry more
speed into the maneuver, tighten<BR>>>> your<BR>>>> radii a
little, shorten your line and you should have enough "oomph"
to<BR>>>> carry over the top.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Again,
not to be argumentative, however, a 1.5:1 power to weight
would<BR>>>> give<BR>>>> you unlimited vertical. I
would be extremely surprised if that kind of<BR>>>> power would be
necessary to carry a clean upline of 375 to 400 ft.,<BR>>>>
which<BR>>>> should be considered a very respectable elevation to
make your <BR>>>> transition<BR>>>> to<BR>>>> level
flight.<BR>>>><BR>>>> As for the Quest, a very nice plane I
might add, you might want to try a<BR>>>> 14<BR>>>> x 6, if
available. The larger disk while maintaining the lower
pitch,<BR>>>> has<BR>>>> always helped me increase my
vertical abilities. As for not being able<BR>>>>
to<BR>>>> finish 2 sequences on 1 charge, larger packs are in
order.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Ken Thompson<BR>>>> D6
Newbie<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> ----- Original Message
----- <BR>>>> From: "Fred Huber" <<A
title=mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net
href="mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net">fhhuber@clearwire.net</A>><BR>>>>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>>>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 8:47 PM<BR>>>> Subject:
Re:<BR>>>>
[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>>
The stall turn you can run out of power at the top and still
complete<BR>>>>> it.<BR>>>>> (you NEED to run out of
power at the top)<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> The vertical up line
you have to make a sustained straight up line at<BR>>>>> constant
speed and then have the "omph" left to make the same raius
<BR>>>>> push<BR>>>>> to<BR>>>>> get back
level as the radius used to pull into the up
line.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> 1:1 power:weight would do the
old Sportsman. You need 1.5:1 to do that<BR>>>>>
up<BR>>>>> line and have the power to wind
compensate.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> A Golberg Tiger 60 with a
.61 2-stroke in the nose could to the old<BR>>>>>
Sportman<BR>>>>> sequence. (with just problems due to wanting to
roll with rudder input)<BR>>>>> With a .91 4-stroke.. (which gives
a significant improvement in<BR>>>>> up-lines)<BR>>>>>
It would be marginal at best.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> My Quest
3D e-powered was fine for the old Sportsman sequence using<BR>>>>>
13X6.5<BR>>>>> at 800 watts. For the new sequence I had to
prop-up to 14X8, drawing<BR>>>>> 900<BR>>>>>
watts. (fortunately the motor, battery and ESC are rated for that)
I<BR>>>>> simply COULD NOT do the up line with the
13X6.5.<BR>>>>> I put the E-powered Quest together specificly to
fly sportsman, aiming<BR>>>>> at<BR>>>>>
2<BR>>>>> rounds per battery charge. I now can't count on
having the power to<BR>>>>> complete the second round. (longer
sequence AND more power required to<BR>>>>> do<BR>>>>>
it.)<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
<BR>>>>> From: "Ken Thompson" <<A
title=mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net
href="mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net">mrandmrst@comcast.net</A>><BR>>>>>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>>>>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 7:03 PM<BR>>>>> Subject:
Re:<BR>>>>>
[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Fred,<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Why is that vertical
upline any harder to complete than the old stall<BR>>>>>>
turn?<BR>>>>>> They both end at the same
elevation...<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
----- Original Message ----- <BR>>>>>> From: "Fred Huber"
<<A title=mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net
href="mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net">fhhuber@clearwire.net</A>><BR>>>>>>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>>>>>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:20 AM<BR>>>>>> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion]<BR>>>>>>
SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
I STILL think that the new Sportsman sequence is a mistake.
Vertical<BR>>>>>>> up-line<BR>>>>>>>
requires too much airplane performance and THAT is going to keep
some<BR>>>>>>> potential beginners from
competing.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
FHH<BR>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
<BR>>>>>>> From: "Mike Hester" <<A
title=mailto:kerlock@comcast.net
href="mailto:kerlock@comcast.net">kerlock@comcast.net</A>><BR>>>>>>>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>>>>>>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:06 AM<BR>>>>>>> Subject:
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small<BR>>>>>>>
Models...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
That is because people are looking fo a magic fix that I am
utterly,<BR>>>>>>>> totally, absolutely convinced does
not exist.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> I
am also absolutely utterly convinced that messing with the
rules<BR>>>>>>>> too<BR>>>>>>>>
much<BR>>>>>>>> over airframes in ANY class right now
will ultimately have the<BR>>>>>>>>
opposite<BR>>>>>>>> effect of what people are trying to
accomplish.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
You guys know as well as I do that a major part of the draw
in<BR>>>>>>>> pattern<BR>>>>>>>>
is<BR>>>>>>>> the planes themselves to a lot of people.
Not all, but a substantial<BR>>>>>>>>
number.<BR>>>>>>>> In the sportsman class, if a guy has
the ambition to secure a 2 <BR>>>>>>>>
meter<BR>>>>>>>> plane,<BR>>>>>>>>
history shows (around here anyway) that you're MUCH more likely
to<BR>>>>>>>> see<BR>>>>>>>>
him<BR>>>>>>>> next year in intermediate. The guy with
the Kaos.....more likely,<BR>>>>>>>>
not.<BR>>>>>>>> It's<BR>>>>>>>> not
because of cost, that is an excuse. Remove that excuse,
they'll<BR>>>>>>>> just<BR>>>>>>>>
find another. And now you've screwed the guy who WOULD have
been<BR>>>>>>>> around<BR>>>>>>>>
next<BR>>>>>>>>
year....<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> So
let me get this straight....if you want to fly a 2 meter
plane<BR>>>>>>>> with<BR>>>>>>>>
a<BR>>>>>>>> OS<BR>>>>>>>> or YS160,
you would have to fly advanced? Jeez, that's not a
good<BR>>>>>>>>
idea.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> When I
started, my first contest, I knew I was going to do it.
I<BR>>>>>>>> scratch<BR>>>>>>>>
built a 2 meter plane and went for it. I wasn't the only one,
most<BR>>>>>>>> others<BR>>>>>>>>
in<BR>>>>>>>> sportsman also had 2 meter planes. One
actually had bought a world<BR>>>>>>>>
team<BR>>>>>>>> member's plane and was flying
it....pretty well I might add...and I<BR>>>>>>>>
have<BR>>>>>>>> to<BR>>>>>>>> say
that even through masters and many years, that season was some
<BR>>>>>>>> of<BR>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>> best competition I have ever had. And
we're still here. It produced<BR>>>>>>>>
myself,<BR>>>>>>>> AC Glenn, Bryan Kennedy, Steve Homenda
to name a few. Steve was the<BR>>>>>>>>
only<BR>>>>>>>> one<BR>>>>>>>> who
wasn't flying a 2 meter plane, he was flying a 40 sized
Arresti<BR>>>>>>>> and<BR>>>>>>>>
whipping everyone's tail with it. Oddly enough, he didn't
get<BR>>>>>>>> deterred<BR>>>>>>>>
by<BR>>>>>>>> the big bad evil 2
meters.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> There
is no magic change to the rules that's going to bring
<BR>>>>>>>> newcomers<BR>>>>>>>>
in<BR>>>>>>>> droves. You get creative, do what you can,
and you make the best of<BR>>>>>>>>
what<BR>>>>>>>> you<BR>>>>>>>> get.
We're not driving people away in droves like some people seem
<BR>>>>>>>> to<BR>>>>>>>>
think.<BR>>>>>>>> If we are, it certainly isn't the rules
regarding the size of the<BR>>>>>>>>
planes<BR>>>>>>>> and<BR>>>>>>>>
cost. Maybe, just maybe it has more to do with a lot of
the<BR>>>>>>>>
negativity?<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong....but I'm pretty sure
I'm<BR>>>>>>>> not<BR>>>>>>>>
=)<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
-M<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>>>>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>>>>>>> <A
title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>>>>>>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
-- <BR>>>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming
message.<BR>>>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free
Edition.<BR>>>>>>>> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database:
268.16.7/618 - Release Date:<BR>>>>>>>>
1/6/2007<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>>>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>>>>>> <A
title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>>>>>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>>>>> <A
title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>>>>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
-- <BR>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming
message.<BR>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free
Edition.<BR>>>>>> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database:
268.16.7/618 - Release Date:<BR>>>>>>
1/6/2007<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>>>> <A
title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>>>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>>><BR>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>>> <A
title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
-- <BR>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>>>>
Checked by AVG Free Edition.<BR>>>> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus
Database: 268.16.7/618 - Release Date:
1/6/2007<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>>> <A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>> <A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
-- <BR>> No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>> Checked by AVG
Free Edition.<BR>> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.7/618 -
Release Date: 1/6/2007<BR>>
<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A
title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>