X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-PolluStop: No license found, only first 5 messages were scanned Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.101] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.1) with ESMTP id 1200294 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:25:03 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.101; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-111-186.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.111.186]) by ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k5LCODg4012487 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:24:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000801c6952d$9db50130$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Ivoprop Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:24:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C6950C.164FEA00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C6950C.164FEA00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You're welcome, David Yes, the folks on this list are an invaluable source of information - = and you don't even have to pay for it {:>) For the RV, the oil cooler below the oil pan appears to be a good = location - my oil temp problem was not resolved until I moved the cooler = into that location. Send a photo of your use of Van's new style opening = and how you intend to use it when you get to that point. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: hoursaway1@comcast.net=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:32 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Ivoprop Thanks Ed, they did respond & I have decided to try the Ivo Mag. the = one for sale is the high pitch so we will see how the numbers come out, = our setup is similar to Bill E. and yours, w/intake for oil cooler = under eng. oil pan line below prop, throttle body opening is new style = Van's below cowel, thanks also to all that responded this is truly a = great source of info & knowledge. Thanks again, David -------------- Original message --------------=20 From: "Ed Anderson" =20 Dave, I have absolute no experience with any prop other than the = fixed pitch wood Performance Propellers. Several guys on this list, = however do have in-flight adjustable IVO props, so they will probably = respond. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: hoursaway1@comcast.net=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:58 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Ivoprop Ed; This is Dave Cook, we met at several Sun-n-Fun flyin's = including this year. Do you (or anyone else reading) know anything about = the Ivoprop magnum inflight adjustable, am still shopping for a prop, = will need to make a choice VERY soon. Application will be; RV6A 13B = Turrentine build w/mods done, RWS EC2, EM2 & PSRU-B, 3.5" throttlebody. = Thanks, David. -------------- Original message --------------=20 From: "Ed Anderson" =20 > Thanks Charlie, I'll read the Low Flow Articles.=20 >=20 > Its no secret that you reduce exit airflow drag by = accelerating it to the=20 > outside airstream velocity. We also know that if we make an = area smaller=20 > that the air velocity will speed up. I will be very interested = in how they=20 > do it without incurring drag. It would take a higher pressure = area in front=20 > of the narrow exit in order to force the hot air through a = smaller area.=20 > Since mass flow will remain constant, you can increase the = velocity and get=20 > the same amount of air through a smaller exit area or increase = the area and=20 > get a larger volume of air through at a slower velocity.=20 >=20 > But when you decrease the exit area you generally will experie = nce pressure=20 > increase in front of the narrow area (which in this case is = inside the=20 > cowl). That pressure increase in back of a core or fins would = tend to=20 > oppose the air flow coming in to the determent of good = cooling. If they had=20 > exhaust augmentation then I could see how that would work.=20 >=20 > But, I should stop speculating and read the articles and see = if that=20 > improves my understanding of how a smaller exit improves = cooling.=20 >=20 > Ed=20 >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Charlie England"=20 > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft"=20 > Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:00 PM=20 > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Exit area smaller than intake was = External=20 > Diffusion=20 >=20 >=20 > > I've read several articles that talk about making the exit = smaller than=20 > > the inlet. The key was not exhaust augment a tion, but exit = ducting that's=20 > > effectively the reverse of the 'pressure recovery' of the = inlet. Think of=20 > > the P-51. IIRC, the CAFE Foundation articles talk about it.=20 > >=20 > > http://cafefoundation.org/v1/research.htm=20 > >=20 > > Try the 'local flow' articles (BTW, look at the most = efficient exit shape;=20 > > it's not gills or a 'reverse NACA').=20 > >=20 > > I think that the old 130% of inlet ideas gained popularity = before=20 > > homebuilders really understood how to get air in & out of a = cowling=20 > > efficiently. If you look at that Mustang II in the exit area = you will=20 > > almost certainly see some significant changes from 'stock' = below the=20 > > cylinders & around the bottom of the firewall. I talked to = Tracy Saylor=20 > > (sp?), owner of the 180 hp, 230+ mph RV-6 about how he does = it, & his mods=20 > > to guide the air after it cools th e cylinders & oil are = pretty impressive.=20 > >=20 > > Charlie=20 > >=20 > > Ed Anderson wrote:=20 > >=20 > >> Ok, thanks, Thomas.=20 > >>=20 > >> I understood correctly 135% OF the exit - just conveyed my = understanding=20 > >> improperly. Yes, if you have them already scanned I would = like a copy.=20 > >> I hope there are a few photos as I am interested whether or = not they may=20 > >> be using exhaust augmentation (whether they realize it or = not).=20 > >>=20 > >> Ed=20 > >>=20 > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas y Reina Jakits"=20 > >>=20 > >> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft"=20 > >> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 4:30 PM=20 > >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Exit area smaller than intake was = External=20 > >> Diffusion=20 > >>=20 & gt; >>=20 > >>> Ed,=20 > >>> there is a mistake as the intake is not 135%bigger than, = but 135% of the=20 > >>> exit.=20 > >>> It still makes it 1.35 times bigger than the exit.=20 > >>>=20 > >>> I posted this last in April 2005, the latest response to = the subject was=20 > >>> on=20 > >>> 14th of december by Monty Roberts.=20 > >>> It always starts with a question to verify the intake = bigger than exit=20 > >>> claim,but "no mistake" that's what it is!=20 > >>>=20 > >>> Please search the archive or let me know if you want me to = repost the=20 > >>> post!=20 > >>> It was about Brian Schmidtbauers Mustang II being the = fastest around!=20 > >>> Also menetioned is Dave Anders' RV-4, details in the CAFE = report.=20 > >>> I have the essential pages of the Kitplanes article sc = anned, let me know=20 > >>> if=20 > >>> you want them emailed....=20 > >>>=20 > >>> It just shows that rules of thumb are not always the best = solution. Most=20 > >>> likely just the most economic one to build.....=20 > >>>=20 > >>> Thomas=20 > >>>=20 > >>> PS: Search "Kitplanes" and go for the 14th Dec.,2005 = posts!!=20 > >>>=20 > >>>=20 > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Anderson"=20 > >>>=20 > >>> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft"=20 > >>> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 6:35 AM=20 > >>> Subject: [FlyRotary] Exit area smaller than intake was = External=20 > >>> Diffusion=20 > >>>=20 > >>>=20 > >>>> That's very interesting, Thomas. I too recall seeing in = several pl aces > >>>> reference to=20 > >>>> exit area being some multiple of the inlet with the = ratios varying from=20 > >>>> 1.2 -1.7.=20 > >>>> There certainly could be some kind of phenomena I have = not hear of or=20 > >>>> read about, but seems strange you would ever have your = intake area more=20 > >>>=20 > >>> than=20 > >>>=20 > >>>> the exit area. But assuming no error then it would appear = to me that=20 > >>>> external diffusion is taking place.=20 > >>>>=20 > >>>> What that indicates to me is that the exit area (what = ever size=20 > >>>> it was) provides adequate airflow for cooling flow = through the engine=20 > >>>> compartment.(assumption is the engine did not get = cooked). Enough air=20 > >>>=20 > >>> mass=20 > >>>=20 > >> ;>> ; HAD to leave the cowling sufficient to carry away the = necessary BTUs of=20 > >>>> heat. That said, then if the inlets were 135% larger than = the exit=20 > >>>> area,=20 > >>>> then air HAD to be spilling around the inlet or area of = external=20 > >>>=20 > >>> diffusion.=20 > >>>=20 > >>>> The air molecules in this part of the airflow (external = to the cowl)=20 > >>>> then=20 > >>>> contributed NOTHING to carrying away heat from the = engine, but do add=20 > >>>> to=20 > >>>> drag - that left only=20 > >>>> the air that past through the core (or over the cooling = fins of the=20 > >>>=20 > >>> cylinder=20 > >>>=20 > >>>> head) to provide for cooling. Since this air has now been = heated and=20 > >>>=20 > >>> expands=20 > >& gt;>=20 > >>>> to a larger volume, you traditionally need a larger exit = area to=20 > >>>=20 > >>> accommodate=20 > >>>=20 > >>>> this large volume of heated air. That air must leave the = engine=20 > >>>> compartment via the exit. So I just am unable to come up = with a=20 > >>>> scenario=20 > >>>> where having an inlet larger than the exit area would be = beneficial.=20 > >>>>=20 > >>>> Having said that, it did just trigger a thought about why = this might be=20 > >>>> tried and=20 > >>>> how it might be made to work.=20 > >>>> .=20 > >>>> We do know that for air exiting the cowl to provide = minimum drag it=20 > >>>=20 > >>> ideally=20 > >>>=20 > >>>> should be accelerated back to the airstream velocity bef = ore=20 > &g t;>>> intermixing.=20 > >>>=20 > >>> We=20 > >>>=20 > >>>> can theoretically do this by taking the larger volume of = heat air and=20 > >>>> designing an exit area=20 > >>>> which would accelerate the air molecules increasing the = velocity of=20 > >>>> the=20 > >>>> exiting air and reducing drag. However, to accelerate the = cowl air=20 > >>>=20 > >>> velocity=20 > >>>=20 > >>>> to anything really meaningful,=20 > >>>> would require added energy. This leads me to believe that = perhaps an=20 > >>>> exhaust augmentation system could be used to provide = increased velocity=20 > >>>> to=20 > >>>> the exiting air using the energy in=20 > >>>> the exhaust flow. If the exiting airflow velocity is = increased over=20 > ; >>>> t han=20 > >>>> normally associated with exiting air, then more air of = course could=20 > >>>> flow=20 > >>>> through a smaller opening, this would perhaps permit one = to have a=20 > >>>> smaller=20 > >>>> exit area than intake area and still=20 > >>>> get good cooling and low cooling drag.=20 > >>>>=20 > >>>> So with an exhaust augmentation system "helping" the air = in the cowl to=20 > >>>=20 > >>> exit=20 > >>>=20 > >>>> quicker and at a higher velocity, I can see where a = smaller exit area=20 > >>>=20 > >>> might=20 > >>>=20 > >>>> indeed be workable.=20 > >>>> But, without an exhaust augmentation system, I just don't = see how a=20 > >>>=20 > >>> smaller=20 > >>>=20 > >& gt;>> exit area would be beneficial.=20 > >>>>=20 > >>>> Any mention of exhaust augmentation??=20 > >>>>=20 > >>>> Well that my $0.02 worth on the topic=20 > >>>>=20 > >>>> Ed=20 > >>>>=20 > >>>> Ed Anderson=20 > >>>> Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered=20 > >>>> Matthews, NC=20 > >>>> eanderson@carolina.rr.com> Hi Steve,=20 > >>>=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > --=20 > > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/=20 > > Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/=20 > Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C6950C.164FEA00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You're welcome, David
 
Yes, the folks on this list are an invaluable = source of=20 information - and you don't even have to pay for it {:>)
 
For the RV, the oil cooler below the oil pan = appears to be=20 a good location - my oil temp problem was not resolved until I moved the = cooler=20 into that location.  Send a photo of your use of Van's new style = opening=20 and how you intend to use it when you get to that point.
 
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 hoursaway1@comcast.net =
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 = 11:32=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Ivoprop

Thanks Ed, they did respond & I have decided to try the = Ivo Mag.=20 the one for sale is the high pitch so we will see how the numbers come = out,=20 our setup is similar to Bill E. and yours,  w/intake for oil = cooler under=20 eng. oil pan line below prop, throttle body opening is new style = Van's=20 below cowel,  thanks also to all that responded this is truly a = great=20 source of info & knowledge.  Thanks again,   =20 David
 
--------------=20 Original message --------------
From: "Ed Anderson"=20 <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Dave, I have absolute no experience with any = prop=20 other than the fixed pitch wood Performance Propellers.  = Several guys=20 on this list, however do have in-flight adjustable IVO props, so = they will=20 probably respond.
 
Ed
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 hoursaway1@comcast.net =
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 = 6:58=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] = Ivoprop

Ed;  This is Dave Cook, we met at several Sun-n-Fun = flyin's=20 including this year. Do you (or anyone else reading) know anything = about=20 the Ivoprop magnum inflight adjustable,  am still shopping = for a=20 prop, will need to make a choice VERY soon. Application will=20 be;  RV6A  13B Turrentine build w/mods done, RWS EC2, = EM2 &=20 PSRU-B, 3.5" throttlebody.  Thanks, David.
 
--------------=20 Original message --------------
From: "Ed Anderson"=20 <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>

> Thanks Charlie, = I'll read=20 the Low Flow Articles.
>
> Its no secret that you = reduce=20 exit airflow drag by accelerating it to the
> outside = airstream=20 velocity. We also know that if we make an area smaller
> = that the=20 air velocity will speed up. I will be very interested in how = they=20
> do it without incurring drag. It would take a higher = pressure=20 area in front
> of the narrow exit in order to force the = hot air=20 through a smaller area.
> Since mass flow will remain = constant,=20 you can increase the velocity and get
> the same amount = of air=20 through a smaller exit area or increase the area and
> = get a=20 larger volume of air through at a slower velocity.
> =
> But=20 when you decrease the exit area you generally will experie nce = pressure=20
> increase in front of the narrow area (which in this = case is=20 inside the
> cowl). That pressure increase in back of a = core or=20 fins would tend to
> oppose the air flow coming in to the = determent of good cooling. If they had
> exhaust = augmentation=20 then I could see how that would work.
>
> But, I = should=20 stop speculating and read the articles and see if that
> = improves=20 my understanding of how a smaller exit improves cooling. =
>=20
> Ed
>
>
> ----- Original Message = -----=20
> From: "Charlie England" =
> To:=20 "Rotary motors in aircraft" =
> Sent:=20 Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:00 PM
> Subject: [FlyRotary] = Re: Exit=20 area smaller than intake was External
> Diffusion =
>=20
>
> > I've read several articles that talk = about making=20 the exit smaller than
> > the inlet. The key was not = exhaust=20 augment a tion, but exit ducting that's
> > = effectively the=20 reverse of the 'pressure recovery' of the inlet. Think of =
> >=20 the P-51. IIRC, the CAFE Foundation articles talk about it. =
>=20 >
> > http://cafefoundation.org/v1/research.htm =
>=20 >
> > Try the 'local flow' articles (BTW, look at = the most=20 efficient exit shape;
> > it's not gills or a 'reverse = NACA').=20
> >
> > I think that the old 130% of inlet = ideas=20 gained popularity before
> > homebuilders really = understood=20 how to get air in & out of a cowling
> > = efficiently. If=20 you look at that Mustang II in the exit area you will
> = >=20 almost certainly see some significant changes from 'stock' below = the=20
> > cylinders & around the bottom of the firewall. = I=20 talked to Tracy Saylor
> > (sp?), owner of the 180 hp, = 230+=20 mph RV-6 about how he does it, & his mods
> > to = guide the=20 air after it cools th e cylinders & oil are pretty = impressive.=20
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> > = Ed=20 Anderson wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, thanks, = Thomas.=20
> >>
> >> I understood correctly 135% = OF the=20 exit - just conveyed my understanding
> >> = improperly. Yes,=20 if you have them already scanned I would like a copy.
> = >>=20 I hope there are a few photos as I am interested whether or not = they may=20
> >> be using exhaust augmentation (whether they = realize it=20 or not).
> >>
> >> Ed
> = >>=20
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas y = Reina=20 Jakits"
> >>
> = >> To:=20 "Rotary motors in aircraft" =
>=20 >> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 4:30 PM
> >> = Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Exit area smaller than intake was = External=20
> >> Diffusion
> >>
& gt; = >>=20
> >>> Ed,
> >>> there is a = mistake as=20 the intake is not 135%bigger than, but 135% of the
> = >>>=20 exit.
> >>> It still makes it 1.35 times bigger = than the=20 exit.
> >>>
> >>> I posted this = last in=20 April 2005, the latest response to the subject was
> = >>>=20 on
> >>> 14th of december by Monty Roberts. =
>=20 >>> It always starts with a question to verify the = intake=20 bigger than exit
> >>> claim,but "no mistake" = that's=20 what it is!
> >>>
> >>> Please = search=20 the archive or let me know if you want me to repost the
> = >>> post!
> >>> It was about Brian=20 Schmidtbauers Mustang II being the fastest around!
> = >>>=20 Also menetioned is Dave Anders' RV-4, details in the CAFE = report.=20
> >>> I have the essential pages of the = Kitplanes=20 article sc anned, let me know
> >>> if
>=20 >>> you want them emailed....
> >>> =
>=20 >>> It just shows that rules of thumb are not always = the best=20 solution. Most
> >>> likely just the most = economic one=20 to build.....
> >>>
> >>> Thomas =
> >>>
> >>> PS: Search = "Kitplanes" and=20 go for the 14th Dec.,2005 posts!!
> >>>
> = >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- = From:=20 "Ed Anderson"
> >>> =
>=20 >>> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft"=20
> >>> Sent: = Saturday, June=20 17, 2006 6:35 AM
> >>> Subject: [FlyRotary] Exit = area=20 smaller than intake was External
> >>> Diffusion =
> >>>
> >>>
> = >>>>=20 That's very interesting, Thomas. I too recall seeing in several = pl aces=20 > >>>> reference to
> = >>>> exit=20 area being some multiple of the inlet with the ratios varying = from=20
> >>>> 1.2 -1.7.
> >>>> = There=20 certainly could be some kind of phenomena I have not hear of or =
>=20 >>>> read about, but seems strange you would ever = have your=20 intake area more
> >>>
> >>> = than=20
> >>>
> >>>> the exit area. = But=20 assuming no error then it would appear to me that
>=20 >>>> external diffusion is taking place.
>=20 >>>>
> >>>> What that indicates = to me is=20 that the exit area (what ever size
> >>>> it = was)=20 provides adequate airflow for cooling flow through the engine =
>=20 >>>> compartment.(assumption is the engine did not = get=20 cooked). Enough air
> >>>
> >>> = mass=20
> >>>
> >> ;>> ; HAD to leave = the=20 cowling sufficient to carry away the necessary BTUs of
>=20 >>>> heat. That said, then if the inlets were 135% = larger=20 than the exit
> >>>> area,
> = >>>>=20 then air HAD to be spilling around the inlet or area of external =
> >>>
> >>> diffusion.
>=20 >>>
> >>>> The air molecules in this = part of=20 the airflow (external to the cowl)
> >>>> = then=20
> >>>> contributed NOTHING to carrying away = heat from=20 the engine, but do add
> >>>> to
>=20 >>>> drag - that left only
> >>>> = the air=20 that past through the core (or over the cooling fins of the =
>=20 >>>
> >>> cylinder
> = >>>=20
> >>>> head) to provide for cooling. Since = this air=20 has now been heated and
> >>>
> = >>>=20 expands
> >& gt;>
> >>>> to = a larger=20 volume, you traditionally need a larger exit area to
>=20 >>>
> >>> accommodate
> = >>>=20
> >>>> this large volume of heated air. That = air must=20 leave the engine
> >>>> compartment via the = exit. So=20 I just am unable to come up with a
> >>>> = scenario=20
> >>>> where having an inlet larger than the = exit=20 area would be beneficial.
> >>>>
>=20 >>>> Having said that, it did just trigger a thought = about=20 why this might be
> >>>> tried and
>=20 >>>> how it might be made to work.
> = >>>>=20 .
> >>>> We do know that for air exiting the = cowl to=20 provide minimum drag it
> >>>
> = >>>=20 ideally
> >>>
> >>>> should = be=20 accelerated back to the airstream velocity bef ore
> = &g=20 t;>>> intermixing.
> >>>
> = >>>=20 We
> >>>
> >>>> can = theoretically do=20 this by taking the larger volume of heat air and
>=20 >>>> designing an exit area
> = >>>> which=20 would accelerate the air molecules increasing the velocity of =
>=20 >>>> the
> >>>> exiting air and = reducing=20 drag. However, to accelerate the cowl air
> >>> =
>=20 >>> velocity
> >>>
> = >>>> to=20 anything really meaningful,
> >>>> would = require=20 added energy. This leads me to believe that perhaps an
>=20 >>>> exhaust augmentation system could be used to = provide=20 increased velocity
> >>>> to
>=20 >>>> the exiting air using the energy in
>=20 >>>> the exhaust flow. If the exiting airflow = velocity is=20 increased over
> ; >>>> t han
>=20 >>>> normally associated with exiting air, then more = air of=20 course could
> >>>> flow
> = >>>>=20 through a smaller opening, this would perhaps permit one to have = a=20
> >>>> smaller
> >>>> exit = area=20 than intake area and still
> >>>> get good = cooling=20 and low cooling drag.
> >>>>
>=20 >>>> So with an exhaust augmentation system = "helping" the=20 air in the cowl to
> >>>
> >>> = exit=20
> >>>
> >>>> quicker and at a = higher=20 velocity, I can see where a smaller exit area
> = >>>=20
> >>> might
> >>>
>=20 >>>> indeed be workable.
> >>>> = But,=20 without an exhaust augmentation system, I just don't see how a =
>=20 >>>
> >>> smaller
> >>> =
> >& gt;>> exit area would be beneficial. =
>=20 >>>>
> >>>> Any mention of = exhaust=20 augmentation??
> >>>>
> = >>>> Well=20 that my $0.02 worth on the topic
> >>>> =
>=20 >>>> Ed
> >>>>
> = >>>>=20 Ed Anderson
> >>>> Rv-6A N494BW Rotary = Powered=20
> >>>> Matthews, NC
> >>>> = eanderson@carolina.rr.com> Hi Steve,
> >>> =
>=20 >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- =
>=20 > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
> > Archive = and=20 UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
> = >=20
>
>
>
> --
> Homepage:=20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/=20
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C6950C.164FEA00--