X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from poplet2.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3824430 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:14:53 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au Received: from sv1-1.aanet.com.au (sv1-1.per.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.68]) by poplet2.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B51F1737D5 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 05:14:11 +0800 (WST) Received: from ownerf1fc517b8 (203.171.92.134.static.rev.aanet.com.au [203.171.92.134]) by sv1-1.aanet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id E2354BEC03A for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 05:14:08 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <99A9D33683C84540A7D77325805E0ED3@ownerf1fc517b8> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:14:09 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01CA261C.CE716C40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090825-0, 08/25/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01CA261C.CE716C40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed, Totally agree with that assessment - extra weight not good. Yes the 16X is the answer alright. At the rate I'm going it will well = and truly available and might even be light enough to use a derated 2 = rotor version, but I may be just over enthusiastic. George (down under) ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:07 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Well, George, you will undoubtedly get the stock Mazda turbo to = survive a bit longer if you run low boost - but, then you are lugging = around 50 lbs or so all the time for occasional use. I think the evidence is fairly clear based on the number of failures = that folks have had trying to use the stock Mazda turbo. I believe John = Slade even had his modified by a firm down under with fixes that should = have (in my opinion) extended its life and it lasted 11 hours. = Certainly the less you stress it the longer it will probably last - but, = I just wouldn't want one in my aircraft. If I were then I would get the = modifications made that John did. =20 However, the great thing about this hobby is you can take your idea = and try it out. I think in your case you would do best with the one = rotor 16X which should give around 120+HP and be much lighter in weight. =20 Just my 0.02 Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of George Lendich Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 6:23 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? =20 Ed, I'm no Turbo expert, but I agree the TO4 with larger AR has been = successful at living a reasonable time. I also agree that Mazda placed the Turbo close to the engine to get = the most exhaust power to the Turbo for spontaneous acceleration.=20 However I would question if that is in fact what we in Aviation are = seeking - I personally don't believe it is. =20 I may be totally wrong in my thinking, but I believe if we use the = Turbo for altitude compensation or Take-off, I would personally = separate the turbo from the exhaust and put in a feeder tube from the = exhaust tube, controlled by a butterfly or valve that can redirect some = of the exhaust to the Turbo, but only when needed. I believe in this way = the heat and unnecessary use of the Turbo will enable it to live much = longer. =20 In this way I believe we are modifying the flow to the turbo rather = than modifying the turbo in an attempt to live in an environment of = continuous use, and as you suggest, they won't survive a continuous = service. =20 Food for thought, I hope. George (down under)=20 =20 The stock Mazda Turbo really should not, I repeat NOT, be used in = aircraft application. A number of folks have proven this conclusively. = Now IF you run low boost for a limited amount of time you may be OK - a = few folks have done this, but I really wouldn't chance it. The auto = turbo was designed to deliver perhaps 8- 10 psi of boost for 30-60 = seconds to give you that sports car kick in the seat of the pants. The = turbine housing on the stock Mazda turbo is way too small for our = application and will cause the turbine to overspeed destroying the = turbine and bearings. =20 On the other hand, using the correct turbo such as the T04 with a = larger A/R ratio will (as several have shown) making a reliable = turbocharged application. I have two Mazda Turbos sitting on my work = bench, but realized after I got them that they were just not suited for = aircraft application. You really want the turbo as close to the exhaust = as possible to take advantage of the heat energy of the exhaust. In = fact, Mazda attached them right to the exhaust manifold - its not the = heat that quickly kills the stock turbo in aircraft us, its primarily = the unsuitability of the turbine housing and the fact they were never = designed to run hour after hour under boost. =20 =20 I believe there is a firm down under that will modify the stock = Mazda turbo enlarging the A/R ratio and installing a different = compressor - but, in my opinion, you are probably better off to invest = in a turbo designed for this kind of application.=20 =20 Since I don't use max power, except for take off, I have come to the = conclusion that a turbo just wouldn't buy me much except extra weight - = me?, I'm waiting for the 16X {:>) =20 Ed =20 =20 =20 Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of George Lendich Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:21 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? =20 John,=20 I should have said all 13B turbo's have low compression rotors at = manufacture. I did mention Turbo used for normalization,( should have = said, using higher compression rotors). It is a bit of risky business = if not watched carefully IMHO. =20 Do I remember Leon Promet - sadly I do, I personally wouldn't be = calling him a trusted rotary expert, and I know him. He does however = know a lot of knowledgeable people in the rotary rebuilding industry, = I've met some of those as well. =20 I think the proof has been they have to be heavily modified for = Aviation use to keep from overspinning in thinner air. That's my = understanding from watching the chaps who have regularly replaced their = turbo. =20 I personally believe that keeping the turbo as far from the exhaust = manifold and restricting flow to the turbo is the only sure fire way of = keeping them alive for any period of time - in Aviation use. George (down under) >All turbo 13B's require low compression rotors. Not quite true, George. On the advice of two trusted rotary = experts (one of whom was Leon Promet - remember him?), mine has the 9.7 = rotors and 3mm seals. Leon said this just gets you a free 30HP so long = as you don't overboost and you keep the timing & mixture in range. I = don't have any detonation problems boosting to 42 MAP with the IVO prop. = I did notice some detonation / pre-ignition noises early on when running = up with a fixed pitch prop. These went away immediately on throttle back = and didn't do any engine damage. John Slade George Lendich wrote:=20 Gonzalo, I don't know if the Renesis has a turbo version, I didn't think it = did. All turbo 13B's require low compression rotors. You can put Renesis rotors into RX7's but not the other way = around. The RX8 rotors are a high compression rotor, higher than Rx7 = rotors, the RX8 (Renesis) are 10:1 compression. =20 I guess you could use a turbo for altitude normalizing, but great = care would have to used, I can't say I would recommend it. Consider peripheral ported RX7 engine with 44mm inlets. George (down under) In Chile there are only a few Rotaries. Mazda sell a lot of cars = here, but not too many rotaries, and there are no enthusiasts of the = wankel engine, so for support and parts, I'll have to go to the U.S. = anyway. If I chose and engine, a two rotor, which way do you think is = better, the 2004 renesis for example (I saw one in eBay) or the 89-91 or = 93-95 as you said? Can the "modern" renesis be use with a turbo? Thanks Gonzalo.=20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of William Wilson Sent: Domingo, 23 de Agosto de 2009 1:29 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? With only a couple of exceptions the two- and three- rotor = engines take the same parts. Only the "big" center housing and the = eccentric shaft are really special for the 3-rotor engine. Luckily, = these don't usually need to be replaced. Of course, the manifolds, fuel = injection and most of the electronics are unique but you won't use the = stock parts anyway. Most everything else is either the same as, or = interchangeable with, the '89-'91 or '93-'95 13B turbo. Which, of course, brings up the question of whether or not you = can get *those* parts. There is plenty of support in the U.S. for = rotary engines, since Mazda sold lots of RX cars and tuners are used to = bringing in Japan-market parts. Is there such support in Chile? It is = tough enough to build a plane without having to build your own engine = too. 2009/8/22 Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis Well, actually is not that bad. There are a couple of runways = 3000 ft long, and others 2000 ft. Altitudes varies from sea level up to 7500 = ft, but I don't plan to go there often, and if I do, the runway is very = long. I want to have a little more power just in case. I think the 200 HP is = enough, right? Also, what about the parts, it seems that the two rotor parts = are much more available than for the 20B... Thanks!! Gonzalo -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dave Sent: S=E1bado, 22 de Agosto de 2009 17:08 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? While I am in favor of the rotary, it is worth saying that none = of the very few currently flying turbo rotaries have had trouble free installations. I know of John Slade and Dave Leonard, and both have had more = than one turbo failure in the process of finding what works. I do not know if Mistral is currently selling its turbo version. What sort of runway length and density altitude are we talking = about, where you intend to operate? Dave Thomas Mann wrote: > > A two rotor engine produce close to 200 hp at 291 LBS (132 = KGS) > > A two rotor with turbo can produce 230 hp at 328 LBS (149 KGS) > > A three rotor engine can produce 300hp at 390 LBS (177 KGS) > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis > *Sent:* Saturday, August 22, 2009 3:05 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Three or two? > > Hi group. As I told in previous questions, I'm building a Cozy = MK IV, > and I like the Rotary idea. I would like to have between 200 = and 250 > HP, since in Chile we don't have such long runways like in the = U.S. > and is a pretty mountainous country. Regarding this, which way = is > better, a three or two rotor engine? Is the three rotor too = heavy? Can > I use a turbo in a two rotor engine without affecting = reliability and > weight? Etc. > > Thanks. > > Gonzalo > > Chile > -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html =20 -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus = signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus = signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01CA261C.CE716C40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ed,
Totally agree with that assessment - = extra weight=20 not good.
Yes the 16X is the answer alright. At = the rate I'm=20 going it will well and truly available and might even be light enough to = use a derated 2 rotor version, but I may be just over=20 enthusiastic.
George (down under)
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ed=20 Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 = 10:07=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three = or=20 two?

Well, = George, you=20 will undoubtedly get the stock Mazda turbo to survive a bit longer if = you run=20 low boost =96 but, then you are lugging around 50 lbs or so all the = time for=20 occasional use.

I think the = evidence=20 is fairly clear based on the number of failures that folks have had = trying to=20 use the stock Mazda turbo.  I believe John Slade even had his = modified by=20 a firm down under with fixes that should have (in my opinion) extended = its=20 life and it lasted 11 hours.  Certainly the less you stress it = the longer=20 it will probably last =96 but, I just wouldn=92t want one in my = aircraft.  If=20 I were then I would get the modifications made that John=20 did.

 

However, = the great=20 thing about this hobby is you can take your idea and try it out.  = I think=20 in your case you would do best with the one rotor 16X which should = give around=20 120+HP and be much lighter in weight.

 

Just my=20 0.02

Ed=20 Anderson

Rv-6A N494BW Rotary=20 Powered

Matthews,=20 NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html

http://www.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.r= otaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On=20 Behalf Of George Lendich
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 = 6:23=20 PM
To: = Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three = or=20 two?

 

Ed,

I'm = no Turbo=20 expert, but I agree the TO4 with larger AR has been successful at = living a=20 reasonable time.

I = also agree=20 that Mazda placed the Turbo close to the engine to get the most = exhaust power=20 to the Turbo for spontaneous acceleration.

However I would=20 question if that is in fact what we in Aviation are seeking - I = personally=20 don't believe it is.

 

I may = be=20 totally wrong in my thinking, but I believe if we use the Turbo for = altitude=20 compensation or Take-off,  I would personally separate the turbo = from the=20 exhaust and put in a feeder tube from the exhaust tube, controlled by = a=20 butterfly or valve that can redirect some of the exhaust to the = Turbo,=20 but only when needed. I believe in this way the heat and  = unnecessary use=20 of the Turbo will enable it to live much = longer.

 

In = this way I=20 believe we are modifying the flow to the turbo rather than = modifying the=20 turbo in an attempt to live in an environment of continuous use, and = as you=20 suggest, they won't survive a continuous = service.

 

Food = for=20 thought, I hope.

George (down = under) 

 

The stock = Mazda Turbo=20 really should not, I repeat NOT, be used in aircraft = application.  A=20 number of folks have proven this conclusively.  Now IF you run = low boost=20 for a limited amount of time you may be OK =96 a few folks have done this, but I = really=20 wouldn=92t chance it.  The auto turbo was designed to deliver = perhaps 8- 10=20 psi of boost for 30-60 seconds to give you that sports car kick in the = seat of=20 the pants.  The turbine housing on the stock Mazda turbo is way = too small=20 for our application and will cause the turbine to overspeed destroying = the=20 turbine and bearings.

 

On the = other hand,=20 using the correct turbo such as the T04 with a larger A/R ratio will = (as=20 several have shown) making a reliable turbocharged = application.  I have=20 two Mazda Turbos sitting on my work bench, but realized after I got = them=20 that they were just not suited for aircraft application.  You = really=20 want the turbo as close to the exhaust as possible to take advantage = of the=20 heat energy of the exhaust.  In fact, Mazda attached them right = to the=20 exhaust manifold =96 its not the heat that quickly kills the stock = turbo in=20 aircraft us, its primarily the unsuitability of the turbine housing = and the=20 fact they were never designed to run hour after hour under = boost. =20

 

I believe = there is=20 a firm down under that will modify the stock Mazda turbo enlarging = the A/R=20 ratio and installing a different compressor =96 but, in my opinion, = you are=20 probably better off to invest in a turbo designed for this kind of=20 application.

 

Since I = don=92t use=20 max power, except for take off, I have come to the conclusion that a = turbo=20 just wouldn=92t buy me much except extra weight =96 me?, I=92m = waiting for the 16X=20 {:>)

 

Ed

 

 

 

Ed=20 Anderson

Rv-6A N494BW Rotary=20 Powered

Matthews,=20 NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html

http://www.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.r= otaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

From:=20 Rotary motors in = aircraft=20 [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On=20 Behalf Of George Lendich
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 = 2:21=20 AM
To: = Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Three or=20 two?

 

John,=20

I should have said all = 13B=20 turbo's have low compression rotors at manufacture. I did mention = Turbo=20 used for normalization,( should have said, using higher=20 compression rotors).  It is a bit of risky business if not = watched=20 carefully IMHO.

 

Do I remember Leon = Promet -=20 sadly I do, I personally wouldn't be calling him a trusted rotary = expert,=20 and I know him. He does however know a lot of knowledgeable people = in the=20 rotary rebuilding industry, I've met some of those as=20 well.

 

I think the proof has = been they=20 have to be heavily modified for Aviation use to keep from = overspinning in=20 thinner air. That's my understanding from watching the chaps who = have=20 regularly replaced their turbo.

 

I personally believe = that=20 keeping the turbo as far from the exhaust manifold and restricting = flow to=20 the turbo is the only sure fire way of keeping them alive for any = period of=20 time - in Aviation use.

George (down=20 under)

>All turbo 13B's = require=20 low compression rotors.
Not quite true, George. On the advice = of two=20 trusted rotary experts (one of whom was Leon Promet - remember = him?), mine=20 has the 9.7 rotors and 3mm seals. Leon said this just = gets you a=20 free 30HP so long as you don't overboost and you keep the timing = &=20 mixture in range. I don't have any detonation problems boosting to = 42 MAP=20 with the IVO prop. I did notice some detonation / pre-ignition = noises=20 early on when running up with a fixed pitch prop. These went away=20 immediately on throttle back and didn't do any engine = damage.
John=20 Slade


George Lendich wrote: =

Gonzalo,

I don't know if the = Renesis=20 has a turbo version, I didn't think it did. All turbo 13B's = require=20 low compression rotors.

You can put Renesis = rotors=20 into RX7's but not the other way around. The RX8 rotors are a high = compression rotor, higher than Rx7 rotors, the RX8 = (Renesis) are=20 10:1 compression.

 

I guess you could = use a turbo=20 for altitude normalizing, but great care would have to used, I = can't say I=20 would recommend it.

Consider peripheral = ported RX7=20 engine with 44mm inlets.

George (down=20 under)

In=20 Chile there are = only a few=20 Rotaries. Mazda sell a lot of cars here, but not too many = rotaries, and=20 there are no enthusiasts of the wankel engine,  so for = support and=20 parts, I=92ll have to go to the U.S.=20 anyway.

If I chose=20 and engine, a two rotor, which way do you think is better, the = 2004=20 renesis for example (I saw one in eBay) or the 89-91 or 93-95 as = you=20 said? Can the =93modern=94 renesis be use with a=20 turbo?

Thanks

Gonzalo.=20

From:=20 Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironlin= e.net]=20 On Behalf Of = William=20 Wilson
Sent: = Domingo,=20 23 de Agosto de 2009 1:29
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Three or=20 two?

With only a couple of exceptions the = two- and=20 three- rotor engines take the same parts.  Only the "big" = center=20 housing and the eccentric shaft are really special for the = 3-rotor=20 engine.  Luckily, these don't usually need to be = replaced.  Of=20 course, the manifolds, fuel injection and most of the = electronics are=20 unique but you won't use the stock parts anyway.  Most = everything=20 else is either the same as, or interchangeable with, the '89-'91 = or=20 '93-'95 13B turbo.

Which, of course, brings up the = question of=20 whether or not you can get *those* parts.  There is plenty = of=20 support in the U.S. for rotary = engines,=20 since Mazda sold lots of RX cars and tuners are used to bringing = in=20 Japan-market parts.  Is there such support in Chile?  It is = tough=20 enough to build a plane without having to build your own engine=20 too.

2009/8/22 Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis = <gonza@gimenez.cl>

Well, actually is not that bad. There = are a=20 couple of runways 3000 ft long,
and others 2000 ft. Altitudes = varies=20 from sea level up to 7500 ft, but I
don't plan to go there = often, and=20 if I do, the runway is very long. I want
to have a little = more power=20 just in case. I think the 200 HP is = enough,
right?

Also, what=20 about the parts, it seems that the two rotor parts are much=20 more
available than for the=20 20B...

Thanks!!

Gonzalo


-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Rotary motors in = aircraft=20 [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]=20 On

Behalf Of Dave
Sent: S=E1bado, 22 = de Agosto de=20 2009 17:08
To: Rotary motors in=20 aircraft

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or=20 two?

While I am in favor of the rotary, it is worth = saying that=20 none of the
very few currently flying turbo rotaries have had = trouble=20 free
installations.

I know of John Slade and Dave = Leonard, and=20 both have had more than one
turbo failure in the process of = finding=20 what works.

I do not know if Mistral is currently selling = its=20 turbo version.

What sort of runway length and density = altitude=20 are we talking about,
where you intend to=20 operate?
Dave

Thomas Mann wrote:
>
> A two = rotor=20 engine produce close to 200 hp at 291 LBS (132 KGS)
>
> A two rotor = with turbo=20 can produce 230 hp at 328 LBS (149 KGS)
>
> A three rotor = engine can=20 produce 300hp at 390 LBS (177 KGS)
>
> *From:* = Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
>=20 *On Behalf Of *Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis
> *Sent:* = Saturday, August=20 22, 2009 3:05 PM
> *To:* Rotary motors=20 in aircraft
> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] = Three or=20 two?
>
> Hi group. As I told in previous questions, = I=92m=20 building a Cozy MK=20 IV,
> and I like the Rotary idea. I would like to have = between 200=20 and 250
> HP, since in Chile we don=92t have such long = runways=20 like in the U.S.
> and is = a pretty=20 mountainous country. Regarding this, which way is
> = better, a=20 three or two rotor engine? Is the three rotor too heavy? = Can
> I=20 use a turbo in a two rotor engine without affecting reliability=20 and
> weight? Etc=85
>
> = Thanks.
>
>=20 Gonzalo
>
> Chile
>


--<= BR>Homepage:=20  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and = UnSub:
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.htm= l


--
Homepage:=20  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and = UnSub:  =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.htm= l

 

--
 
Homepage:  =
http://www.flyrotary.com/
 
Archive and =
UnSub:   =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html



__________ Information from ESET = NOD32=20 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714)=20 __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 = Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ = Information from=20 ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 = (20080714)=20 __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 = Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

------=_NextPart_000_0013_01CA261C.CE716C40--