That is a question that he refuses to answer. All the evidence indicates that he has not.
BJC
Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:
BJC
Dan Thomas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 6,977
I would not protest a real improvement, and fuel injection is one means of doing that. The reason I emphasize training, training, training is that most of us homebuilders cannot afford upscale engines that use fuel injection, whether it's mechanical or EFI. Many of us can barely afford a basic airplane and many more who want to fly will never do it unless it's a basic, carbureted airplane. That's why we need to understand carb ice, and it really is not difficult to do so. There is simply a resistance to more training and study. If old airplanes keep on flying, the buyers need to know this stuff. That's all there is to it. And that includes instructors as well, many of who do not understand carb ice and many other aspects of of physics. As an mechanic as well as an instructor, I used to hold annual refreshers on many such things just to get our instructors to a level that was readily recognized
by the government as exceptional.
Too many flight schools are training students to pass an exam. The absolute minimum. If 70% was a pass, that's what they shoot for. And on those exams there are seldom any questions about carb ice or skidding turns or any of many other pitfalls. Flight tests are similarly far too easy. We never did that, and we gave pretest exams to see where the weak spots were. In the US, full stalls are seldom examined, and spins almost never. In Canada the PPL student has to perform a stall and a CPL student has to perform both stalls and spins, from any one of several possible scenarios including a skidding turn, just to see if the student has any grasp of the subject.
I still maintain that "safer" airplanes won't do the trick. Better training will go much farther and in a much more affordable manner. Modern light airplanes can't get much safer without making them totally unaffordable and impractical. There are physical limits, you know.
I answered that question a long time ago, y'all must have missed it. Do either of you have any comments that are related to the subject at hand, such as why its impossible to build an airplane that might save someone from their own mistakes, or explain how the laws of physics aren't being followed, how control becomes more difficult at slow speeds,....you know,on topic related stuff someone can learn from rather than personal innuendo. A lot of people have actually taken time to try to make this a decent thread where people can view a difference of opinion and decide what they wish to gain from it. I don't see any real contribution by either of you that might be helpful to anyone. So far, no one has explained to me why the ability to not just retain control, but to have extroadinary control at extremely slow speeds is not beneficial. Secondly, no one has explaned why the ability of an airplane to maintain lift and a safe margin above stall speed even if inadvertantly cross-controlled is not advantageous to any pilot. How bout taking all that aeronautical expertise you two profess and just write something that explains those two topics to me. Don't wander off into other veins, simply tell me why those two premises are incorrect.
Remember the first time you did slow speed manuevering and how mushy the controls became. Now consider what it is like to be flying at appx half that speed and still having control.
1. Tell me why the ability to have extrodinary controllability at extremely slow speeds is not a beneficial or desirable feature.
2. Tell me why the ability to maintain a safe margin above stall speed when inadvertently cross-controlled is a bad design feature.
Those are the key points here, and they were merely demonstrated by the designer and several other pilots by making a flat turn as an exhibition of controllability.
Here is your opportunity to contribute something worthwhile to this thread rather than one line commentary that benefits no one.
Last edited:
I'm all for technology, even in small increments. For example, thankful that I don't have to preflight with a grease gun to grease rocker bushings before every takeoff!
If the fairly tale comes through and the stall proof plane shows up, I'll be the first to fly it. If that doesn't happen for 25-50-100 yrs, what do we do in the interim? Not fly? Watch people crash because there is not a technology solution to save them? Or train them on how safely operate what we have using derived best practices? What if they don't want to be trained or trained only to the minimum level?
I tend to stay away from absolutes (for example, "no matter what happens, 'x' will never happen"), can't help but notice nobody has called a boat "unsinkable" since the Titanic. For sure, people will figure out a way to accomplish the impossible and can not totally eliminate the human interface.
If the fairly tale comes through and the stall proof plane shows up, I'll be the first to fly it. If that doesn't happen for 25-50-100 yrs, what do we do in the interim? Not fly? Watch people crash because there is not a technology solution to save them? Or train them on how safely operate what we have using derived best practices? What if they don't want to be trained or trained only to the minimum level?
I tend to stay away from absolutes (for example, "no matter what happens, 'x' will never happen"), can't help but notice nobody has called a boat "unsinkable" since the Titanic. For sure, people will figure out a way to accomplish the impossible and can not totally eliminate the human interface.
No, I agree with you that safer airplanes will never completely relieve the problem, but they can help. No matter how much training is given, there will still be mistakes made....because we are human. The answer is that both can help and if used in concert with one another we can probably take safety standards even higher. I just think its wrong to dis something which is done to obtain a desired flying characteristic (slow/short landing ability) when its discovered that it has a side benefit that improves safety. Virtually every evolutionary change in general aviation design has been incorporated with safety factors as a major design component. I'm with you when the govt mandates expensive and costly features be added that price people out of flying, or make cars and houses unaffordable to people. Various OSHA policies that drive businesses to close and the loss of jobs because safety regs and practices are oppressive. I'm with you 100% on that type stuff. On the other hand I don't think something like the cost of a fixed slat added to a wing is a financial burden. As for the carb icing problems, I have wondered if some type of ultrasonic device could not be adapted that would shatter ice quickly (and cheaply) couldn't be adapted to aero carbs. Then if a pilot erred that had something other than slower reacting heat that could help them. Technology is a wonderful thing and shouldn't be stimied when it can be adapted cheaply and easily to existing products. On the other hand, I would not want to see the FAA madate that everyone had to buy a brand new $1000 carb either.
In and of themselves, in isolation, there's nothing wrong with either of them. The issue is that virtually nothing in airplane design happens "in isolation." For every benefit, there's a cost. Large control surfaces are heavy, draggy, and require larger control forces. For something like the Storch and its replicas, where their flying speed is so low that control forces even from very large control surfaces are minimal, having that level of control power isn't an issue and indeed, for the design mission, it's a necessity. Put those same size control surfaces on a Glasair III or the faster RV's, it's almost certain that the pilot would no longer be able to move the controls when flying at cruise speeds, or would need boosted controls. The former is dangerous, the latter is a huge weight gain, which drives the takeoff weight of the aircraft quite a lot higher, as a larger engine, fuel tanks, and therefore structure are required to maintain the same performance.
Same with slats and the other high-lift devices used by an airplane like the Storch. They're all tremendously draggy, even when retracted. Engine size to maintain the target performance, and therefore fuel weight, and the structure necessary to carry both, increase, and probably quite a bit. You can't have a laminar-flow wing with slats. Bigger flaps require bigger actuators and structure, both heavier. It all adds up.
An airplane's design is always a gigantic set of trade-offs and compromises. An airplane like the Storch, whose entire reason for existing is low-speed performance, accepts one set of benefits and costs. An airplane like an RV or Glasair, which spend a tiny fraction of their flight time at low speeds, can usefully trade pilot training for greatly increased high-speed performance at a much lower cost in airframe, engine, and fuel. There is no "blanket" solution, and there never will be. It's all well and good to say, "Airplanes should have this safety feature!!!", but the reality is that safety features also come with costs, and must be weighed against how the airplane is intended to be used, and by the training and experience that can be expected of the typical pilot flying that design.
Avoiding the question again isn't helping any. Care to link the post? Or simply answer the question here?
Lower stall speeds are nice, no one here has argued any differently - but they come at a cost that is not worth it to the majority of pilots. If we wanted a low stall speed, we would get a plane with one. It's not beneficial to most to show up at the pancake breakfast at lunch time, or have to leave a week early to make it to Oshkosh. If you want a really low stall speed, get a powered parachute.
You have this backwards. It's not even a design feature, nearly every single plane ever designed with ailerons and rudder controls can be cross controlled if it has a safe margin above stall speed. That's what a safe margin is. The Storch does not magically create a safe margin above stall speed once it's cross controlled. If it is cross controlled too close to stall, it will stall and try to enter a spin, same as any other plane.
Here's an opportunity to realize that when everyone, including those who have extensive expertise in the field you are discussing, the science of the field, the current & past authorities, and even the originators of the field, disagrees with your uninformed opinion, then you're probably wrong, and need to rethink your premise rather than digging in your heels and trying to stretch the argument to fit your flawed conclusions. Flat turns are vastly inferior and have a larger turning radius than a banked turn at the same speed. The only thing that allows any plane to do a flat turn is margin over stall speed, and nearly every plane can do one with margin over stall speed. Many people have patiently related these things, then gave up and left this thread, not because they were proved wrong, but from exasperation caused by one individual persisting in jumping to unjustified conclusions, arguing against what no one has claimed, and refusing to learn from those kind enough to attempt to teach voluntarily. By steadfast arguing while refusing to learn, an individual can discourage the experts from voluntarily sharing their knowledge in the future, and so the world becomes a worse place for it.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,598
:gig:
it all looks like bait to me. the guy has a love affair with his keyboard. LOL.
uhoh I see Topaz coming down the hall again.
I'm still at a loss how it improves safety (I'd like to at least see the data) but here goes:
Let's say somebody comes up with a STC'd bolt on slat/slot kit for 172's and Cherokees the most popular light planes. What kind of safety benefit would it provide, how would it impact operation of the airplanes and how many people would buy it?
Dan Thomas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 6,977
Refresh our short memories by posting your experience.
We HAVE talked about why extraordinarily safe cross-control at low speeds isn't practical or safe. You have to understand airfoil chordline and what happens to it when you move an aileron down. You have to understand angle of attack, the stall phenomenon and its progression and a bunch of other stuff. Manufacturers now mostly have had differential ailerons and wing washout for a long time--60 years and more-- to help mitigate cross-controlled stalls and spins, but people still crash those airplanes. You could design an aileron system that has ailerons only going up, not down, for roll control at low speeds, but now you've lost a whack of control authority and have added complexity and cost in the form of devices to shift the aileron movement from up-down to up-only. Mitsubishi used roll spoilers instead of ailerons on their MU-2 to get rid of the down-aileron problem, and those airplanes gained an awful reputation for crashing. In turbulence you'd use the roll control extensively to keep level, and every time to raised a spoiler you lowered that wing but didn't raise the other, and repeated actions like that would result in rapid descent rates right when we didn't want them--on approach near the ground. I know an old pilot who had flown those things and he sure didn't care for that feature. Now you have to be type-certified to fly one of those things, not just hold a multi rating. The "safer" airplane needs a bunch of extra training to keep from crashing it. Ironic, huh?
One of the nice things about aviation history is that it tends to follow what works. So we have common airplanes like the Cessna 172--more than 44,000 built since 1956--and the basic airframe and handling qualities have changed very little in 62 years. They've added so many safety features, like 26G seats, autopilots, glass panels and so on that they had to up the horses from the original 145 to 150 then 160 and then 180. That needed more fuel so the tanks got bigger. The original empty weight shot from 1300 or so up to around 1750 now, and then they had to increase gross from 2200 to 2300 and then to 2550 to still be able to carry practical loads. The only real improvement was in about 1973 when they drooped the leading edge of the wing, which lowered stall a hair and improved low-speed handling. And what happened? People still find ways to crash them.
There are all-composite airplanes, Cessna 400 and Cirrus being common examples. Composites were all the rage in the early '70s: this was going to be the wave of the future. No more riveted-together anachronisms looking more like locomotive boilers than airplanes. Trouble was not only the increased cost of production, but their empty weight was no better. An empty Cirrus SR20 weighs somewhere north of 2100 pounds, much heavier than a 172. It has only 20 HP more than the 172. It carries four people like the 172 but grosses 500 pounds higher. (Some of that, of course, is about 70 pounds of parachute. And the 'chute needs repacking and a new rocket every ten years, at a cost of something like $15K.) Somehow, this light composite stuff didn't work out as well as we were hoping, at least in some of these ships. Airplanes need to be light to fly well. And cheap to fly economically. What happened?
You see, if it really was all that easy to create the ideal, super-safe airplane that exists only in the imaginations of the uninitiated, it would have been done by now. There would be money in it. And people would still crash it, and sue the manufacturer because it really wasn't crash-proof.
Nope, not avoiding the question, I just figure that its really not a good idea to post personal information about ones self on the internet. I have found that no matter how innocently the information is presented there are people out there who find a way to exploit it As I said, once before in a moment of weakness I answered the question...I also make it a point not to ask others about their personal information. You would probably be surprised at how much information is available about yourself.
I don't think a Hummel-Bird is going to set any speed records flying to Oshkosh and I don't think it has the range to make it without one or two refuelings, so how early do you plan to leave for Oshkosh? You certainly don't want to enter the "pattern" at Oshkosh when your fuel is marginal. Talking about individual preferences, some of us like to actually fly an airplane that has room for some clothing, and maybe the ability to sleep inside, especially in inclement weather. Individual choices encompass many different accomodations.....I'm sure you are familiar with the Turtle and the Hare scenario. That being said, there are airplanes like the Pegazair which will both make STOL landings....in fact extremely short and extremely slow STOL landings yet employ floating slats which allow cruise speeds well above 100 mph depending on engine choice. In fact I think some of them cruise just as fast as a Hummel-bird. So, opting for an airplane that provides the best of both worlds is an option to those that take the time to look.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mWuhT3mjO8
As for the pancake breakfast banter...a friend of mine built an O-320 powered RV-6. Beautiful airplane. His major complaint is that every time he flys it he goes so far so fast that he can't really enjoy local flying and if he is with any of his friends in spam cans, he has to wait for them. There is a lot to be said for enjoying flying at a slower pace when 90% of ones flying is local. How long do you think it will take for you to get from the airport in Louisville to the pancake breakfasts at warp speed ? Then there is the whole issue of survivability....and how high up that is on your scale of important things. Every pilot is taught to continually scan for possible landing sites. With your Hummel-Birds small wheels, minimal landing gear, only 2 cylinders, compact size,and higher stall/landing speeds, the chances of surviving an inflight problem are pretty slim. I have had two friends who have died in homebuilt airplane crashes, and three other friends who have been involved in engine outs and crashes. One of them had two engine outs in two separate airplanes. One of them they couldn't even open his casket. So, pardon me if I'm a little late getting to the pancake breakfasts, I have other priorities.
Yep, if you are going fast enough you can most likely get away with cross-control, no big news flash there. The thing we are talking about here is at the other end of an airplanes mph scale. As long as you have a safe margin you may be fine, but as this usually takes place during an attempt to land, the plane that stays controllable longer (slower) is the plane with a better chance to survive.
What you don't seem willing to admit is that there is a difference between being able to make a mistake and expect to get thru it and not get thru it. As an example, at the minimum landing speed of a Hummel-bird, a cross-control would probably be deadly. At that same speed and for sometime afterward, the Storch would be much more controllable and provide a better chance for survival. I put a much heavier value on that than being first in the pancake line.
Again you dwell on the flat turn as being the point of this thread. It is not the point.....it was merely a demonstration of the real point which controllabilty even when you make a mistake at slow/landing speeds. It is verified by videos of the airplane, recommendations by the designer of the airplane, and aviation journalist/pilots. I would think that the man who designed the airplane, flies it regularly, exhibits it, demonstrates it, and puts his life on the line in it just might have a better idea than you do about the capabilities of the airplane. Then that is backed up by independent experts with far more experience than you have who make their living reviewing and comparing airplanes. Perhaps if you had taken the time to read the information I presented earlier you might realize that these people actually have flown the airplane in question. So, it really isn't "just my opinion", its the documented opinion of experienced pilots.
At this point I think if someone can't grasp or refuses to grasp the idea that remarkable controllability is what the thead is really about and that execution of a flat turn was simply a way for the designer to demonstrate that control, then nothing else I say will ever get that point across to them. I have reiterated this theme throughout this thread, provided supporting data, and it appears that people don't read it. My original intent was to post this at the end of the year with the comments from the aviation journalists. It was simply meant as an opportunity for some doubters to read what people actually involved with the airplane, people who actually flew it, respected aviation people, to impart their knowledge to HBA. It has reached the point like many threads where some want to make the thread about me rather than try to learn from the experts I posted. The idea was to provide some food for thought and make it a year end thing...then start the new year off by putting all that to rest. In other words, here some data to digest, hope it provides food for thought. Then Happy New Year. Didn't quite work though as I allowed myself to get drawn into continuing rappor. So at this point I'm going to step aside. I presented what I thought was objectively informational . I have nothing further to add here but others are welcome to voice whatever they feel is relevant.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,598
:roll:
Touche' have not seen an explanation why ability to fly at slow speeds is beneficial. Stating a plane with lower stall speed is safer just because it has a lower stall speed assumes facts not in evidence.
Controllability vs stability. An airplane can be designed with so much stability that it is difficult to control, or a plane can be designed to be extraordinarily controllable in exchange for stability. Choose only one. Mission/purpose dictates stability and control.
It's not a design feature. All airplanes have the ability to maintain a safe margin above stall speed when cross controlled. Have you never seen a "Flying Farmer" airshow act? A Cub or equivalent is flown around in a small area while executing exaggerated slips and skids - it doesn't stall and fall out of the sky. Slow airplanes are obviously best for this act because they provide the desired illusion.
So basically they did a variation of the "flying farmer" airshow act. Skid the airplane in a turn to give the illusion it is making a "flat turn" (a non-aeronautical term).
I'd like to see this extraordinary plane make a maximum performance short field landing with a 20kt crosswind. Bet it can't do it because of ......(drumroll) inadequate controllability but they don't demonstrate the things it can't do,
One of the cool things about aviation is there is something for everyone. Want to fly slow, you can find it. Want to go fast, got that too. Want to tumble through the air, yup. Want to fly straight and level between point A & B, it's available. One plane that can do all that? Nope, gotta make choices.
I got put in timeout for doing that on a facebook group........lol
Happy New year
Dan Thomas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 6,977
Yup. Slow airplanes have low wing loadings. That makes flight in turbulence really uncomfortable, and actually dangerous if it's bad enough. Such turbulence would be a minor inconvenience in an airplane with a higher wing loading. And, as you say, crosswinds keep such airplanes on the ground; they'll just blow away uncontrollably. Crosswind components get pretty big with STOL airplanes.
The Fieseler Storch has a wing loading of 9.9 pounds per square foot, a little higher than my Jodel's 8 and a bit. That Jodel jumps around real good in the wind. The Storch has 240 HP and a maximum speed of 109 MPH, so it's safe to assume a cruise of maybe 95. 240 HP will burn about 11 or 12 GPH, giving a fuel mileage of about 8 MPG. Definitely not the economical machine for a long cross-country, and it carries two people. Seat mileage gets even worse. That airplane has been made obsolete by helicopters like the Robinson R-44, which carry four people, cruise at 130 MPH, and gets at least as good fuel mileage as the Storch. It can land in far smaller places that the Storch, too. It's no wonder no manufacturer is producing Storchs or anything like them. The Storch was an airplane for a very specific role at a time when helicopters weren't available.
You think that admitting whether or not you are a pilot on a forum about homebuilt airplanes is "posting personal information'? This evasion is laughable.
I no longer question if you are a pilot. It is obvious from what you state here that you have never flown a plane, and are posting here from a position of extreme ignorance and refusing to listen to reason.
Once again, you make assumptions based on ignorance. If you'd bothered reading the threads, with the leading edge tanks I'm putting in the Hummelbird, it will have more than enough range. I will have breakfast at home and lunch at noon in Oshkosh.
You don't seem to understand that different aircraft have different capabilities in different areas. The Pegazair can't be built for around $10k, it burns 3 times more fuel per hour, will have less range, sloppier controls, a lower roll rate, and be more difficult to share a hangar with than the Hummelbird. It's not a plane I'm interested in, no matter how much your uninformed opinion thinks otherwise.
You don't understand that those of us who buy or build or fly planes HAVE ALREADY LOOKED AT THE OPTIONS. We already know that low stall speed planes exist. You're not educating anyone here. These planes you think you are introducing to us have already been looked at and, in most cases, eliminated from consideration because they don't fit our mission. What your opinion is of planes does not change our mission. What your friends think of planes does not change our mission. Whatever you're trying to sell here isn't going to work, because YOU CAN'T CHANGE OUR MISSION. If a low stall speed plane fit our mission (and it does to some of us), that's what we'd be building or flying. There's a reason we don't, and it's not because we were waiting for a non-pilot to expain things to us. I do want a STOL plane some day, but not as my first plane. And definitely not because of anything you've posted here.
If you'd actually studied these things, you'd understand that it's mainly your reaction to a problem, and not the plane, that frequently determines the survivability. To someone looking at aviation from the outside without any actual experience or training, it would seem that once an emergency comes up, then it's up to the plane to save you, when that's exactly the attitude that would get a pilot killed.
Thanks for pointing out the features of the plane I've been building for three months and giving an uninformed estimate of my emergency handling capabilities. If I wanted a baseless opinion of a non-pilot, I would've asked a dog.
We know slow speed crashes are safer than high speed crashes. It's not a mystery to anyone here. But we also know the trade offs you make to have one, and many of us have chosen those risks as acceptable. There are many missions where the low and slow plane is more dangerous, over open water, IFR, etc.
You don't understand the basics of an approach. I'd be approaching at 1.2-1.3 Vso. I can make a few mistakes at that speed, even a bit uncoordinated, which is why that's the recommended approach speed you fly.
At the minimum landing speed of a Storch, a cross-control would also be deadly. Now, repeat after me: The Storch needs margin over that stall speed to fly uncoordinated, the same as every other plane. The Storch does not fit everyone's mission. The pilots on this board already know low stall speed planes exist.
Neither of your articles stated the speed at which the flat turn was done, the first doesn't mention altitude and the second article only mentions it was done at a sensible altitude. A 172 will happily do flat turns at 70mph. Every turn in the airshow video is a banked turn. You've not even offered a single example that the low and slow flat turn is safe.
What planes do the authors of these articles own? Who are the authors? What publication? If you're basing your opinion on these esteemed anonymous persons, but they choose to fly a Cessna or Pitts, what does that say about a low stall speed's importance?
No one has argued that the Storch can't do flat turns with a sufficient margin above stall speed, yet you have and continue to try to prove it. So forgive me if I thought that, just maybe, the flat turn in the title and to which you continually referred to over and over again was one of the points of this thread. The Storch will stall and spin if flown uncoordinated without sufficient margin above stall speed. This is exactly the same as EVERY OTHER PLANE. This is the documented opinion of everyone from the Wright Brothers to engineers to the people here with way more experience and knowledge than your two unknown journalists. This is the documented opinion of hundreds of books about the subject. A documented fatal crash of a Storch at a low speed conducting a "safe" flat turn was provided with reference. Planes with low stall speeds have existed from the start of aviation, but we've steadily built more planes with higher stall speeds for good reasons. It's not the most important thing by a long shot.
Low stall speed being the most important thing in any airplane ever is the opinion of a non-pilot based on uncited excerpts from a couple of articles read about one plane from unknown publications by unknown authors of unknown qualification. End of thread. Goodnight everybody, tip your waiter/waitress.
Since you can't teach a fish to tap dance, I'm out.
I tried to be polite and help, but score another "victory" for Dunning-Kruger.
Stick and Rudder which I believe is one of your favorite sources has this to say:
Not sure why you feel a stable airplane cannot also be a responsive and controllable airplane but here is what 4 different professional pilots had to say about the SS.
I can't answer that question, but then how often do inexperienced pilots go flying when 20kt (23 mph) crosswinds are predicted ? Anyway, none of the answers above are mine, they are the opinions of 4 separate professional pilots who make their living testing airplanes and writing about them. The tests were conducted on four different dates in 4 different places and all of them came up with essentially the same conclusion. So everyone out there who wishes to critcize them will have to find some other argument than than trying to argue my qualifications. Remember, nothing posted above was originated by me, I'm just the messenger.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,598
I'm amazed at the HBA depth of knowledge and willingness to share it at length in long, detailed, time consuming replies.
What I been trying to understand is why spend all that time posting sincere replies to what is infinite(malicious?) fantasy. How many pages on this "subject"?...must be around 30 or so. The science and experience presented in the first couple pages of the first thread disproved all the BS the OP has spewed since. Why not ignore it all and maybe it'll go away. It's bait.
Deleandee the buffaloes cracked me up. Thanks for that.
Turd I'm not surprised you got in time out. You're a known trouble maker and need to be tightly controlled. Time Out. LOL
Happy New Year yall.
Spencer
headed for the corner now.
What I been trying to understand is why spend all that time posting sincere replies to what is infinite(malicious?) fantasy. How many pages on this "subject"?...must be around 30 or so. The science and experience presented in the first couple pages of the first thread disproved all the BS the OP has spewed since. Why not ignore it all and maybe it'll go away. It's bait.
Deleandee the buffaloes cracked me up. Thanks for that.
Turd I'm not surprised you got in time out. You're a known trouble maker and need to be tightly controlled. Time Out. LOL
Happy New Year yall.
Spencer
headed for the corner now.
