Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Share ideas on building aircraft.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
Luscombe
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:57 am
Location: Planet Earth

Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by Luscombe » Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:48 am

I was thinking of replacing my tired old Continental A65 for something with a few more horses and some of them new-fangled electric luxuries like a starter. One of the options I am considering is the Aerovee engine.

Has anyone done this before? Any regrets?

Cheers

Shawn
---------- ADS -----------
  

rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2327
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by rigpiggy » Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:43 pm

---------- ADS -----------
  

Luscombe
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:57 am
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by Luscombe » Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:38 pm

Sorry, I should have clarified that my Luscombe is flying with an owner-maintenance C of A so STC's aren't necessary.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by AirFrame » Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:21 pm

Luscombe wrote:Sorry, I should have clarified that my Luscombe is flying with an owner-maintenance C of A so STC's aren't necessary.
Assuming you're in Canada: Owner maintenance is not a permit to make major airframe or powerplant changes. It is intended to allow owners to maintain their aircraft to the original type certificate in a more economical fashion. It's not like you can't find replacement parts for a Continental engine.
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7207
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by photofly » Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:15 pm

Owner maintenance is not a permit to make major airframe or powerplant changes.
Which bit of which CAR says that?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Taiser
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:17 pm
Location: YQT
Contact:

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by Taiser » Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:23 am

From COPA's owner maintenance category interpretation...

"Under the O-M Category, Aircraft Pilot/Owners are Eligible To:

maintain an airplane
refurbish all or part of an airplane
overhaul all or part of an airplane
install certified and uncertified parts
install or replace any instruments or avionics
modify an airplane
rebuild an airplane that is out of service
sign the maintenance release."

More info...

http://www.copanational.org/AircraftInCaOwnerMaint.cfm

On to the subject, I researched the Aero-vee a while back and talked to some guys that have them. Most issues revolve around cooling, specifically the heads tend to burn valves. Most guys I know will rebuild them every 500 hours or so, but many make it to 1000 hrs if well maintained. Beauty is that they are super easy and cheap to rebuild. All parts for a rebuild are only a couple of hundred bucks last time I checked. You buy it in kit form and put it together yourself. I think they go for about $7k and since you will put it together yourself, rebuilds are no brainers. The instructions for the build are really, really good and I haven't heard of any issues with putting one together. They do take some fiddling to get them running just right, then you will be looking at mounts, and a bunch of other conversion accessories..

I'm not sure what the parts would cost to put an A65 back together, but I'm sure it's quite a bit more but if you want a really solid engine I'd probably stay with the 65 myself it's a proven, very reliable engine.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by AirFrame » Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:58 am

photofly wrote:
Owner maintenance is not a permit to make major airframe or powerplant changes.
Which bit of which CAR says that?
Okay, i'll backpedal a bit here... I had a longer response started before but had to cut it short as I had to leave my computer to get to dinner. I should have said that it's "...not *simply* a permit..."

I was an RAA director for a few years around the time the O-M category was being developed, and had many discussions both within the RAA and with Transport reps regarding the O-M category. TC was willing to find a way to let owners of antique aircraft maintain their own planes, because the manufacturers didn't exist for a lot of these planes anymore... Nobody was making parts. Those people who did hold the paperwork necessary to make certified parts, were gouging the market to cover their costs.

And in reality, it seemed silly that we allow any tom, dick, or harry to buy a flying amateur-built aircraft and then do his/her own maintenance on it. Why couldn't the same be true for "simpler" certified, antique, aircraft?

However, one thing they constantly parroted was that they didn't want this to be a license to make major modifications. They didn't want people building new wings for their airplanes (as in completely different designs, not just rebuilding the existing wing), or taking out lycomings and putting in Corvette engines. That wasn't the point of the category. They wanted to give people who were having a hard time finding economical maintenance, a way to do it themselves.

I've spent an hour searching the regs for any paperwork that says what you can, and cannot, do. I've come to the conclusion that such a clear, concise explanation either doesn't exist, or is so well buried in obfuscation that no sane person would ever find it. It's been extremely frustrating, because the regs by and large don't say much at all about what you can do to any O-M aircraft. The closest i've found is a gazette entry that talks about the O-M category. It does mention "modifying", but does not go into a lot of detail. It does say that modifications to structure, engine, airworthiness would all need to be approved by Transport Canada.

In the case of the Aero-Vee in the Luscombe, to get that approval, you'll need to show why it's safe to make the change... So you'll need a report (that I believe you could prepare yourself) that shows that you believe the new engine has a proven record, that you believe it's weight won't affect the C-of-G in any untoward way, that the fuel system is capable of supplying enough fuel fast enough to feed the engine, etc. Transport will review the report and can either approve or deny the change. If approved they will re-issue your paperwork showing the new engine, and someone will come out to inspect the installation.

Another aspect to this that came apparent to me only recently after discussions with COPA... The reason O-M aircraft can't fly into the US, is because the US considers them to be a greater risk because they are not maintained by qualified personnel (ie., an AME). This is of course in direct conflict with allowing Canadian Amateur-built aircraft into the US, as a growing number are owned and maintained by non-builders. The FAA is apparently very concerned about that state of affairs, but is turning a blind eye to it only as long as Canada doesn't push for any change to the O-M prohibition.

Some US FSDO's issued one-time permits for O-M aircraft to enter the US, but the FAA has since directed them to rescind any such permits and not issue any more... So if anyone makes the move to O-M, they're landlocked in Canada.
---------- ADS -----------
  

fleet16b
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:49 am
Location: aerodrome of democracy

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by fleet16b » Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:57 am

AirFrame wrote:
Luscombe wrote:Sorry, I should have clarified that my Luscombe is flying with an owner-maintenance C of A so STC's aren't necessary.
Assuming you're in Canada: Owner maintenance is not a permit to make major airframe or powerplant changes. It is intended to allow owners to maintain their aircraft to the original type certificate in a more economical fashion. It's not like you can't find replacement parts for a Continental engine.
Wrong !!

I know several owners who went to O/M specifically so that they could re-engine their aircraft and c/out structural mods.
In each this was allowed with no issues .

The O/M category, like the Rec Pilot Permit, was developed with very good intentions but was not thought thru very well.
There are some areas that require improvement for sure.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by fleet16b on Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by AirFrame » Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:03 am

It may have been allowed, but it's not what TC had intended when this program started, and they are concerned about the number of people using O-M to make these mods. Hopefully, it will prove out in the long run that these mods are safe, and there won't be any issues. But it won't take many accidents in modified O-M aircraft before the program gets shut down.
---------- ADS -----------
  

fleet16b
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:49 am
Location: aerodrome of democracy

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by fleet16b » Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:12 am

To clarify I have seen several owners go to O/M to re-engine their aircraft with both egnines of larger horse pwr that were not originally intended for the airframe and also install altogether different engines.
The original intention of O/M is one thing but it seems to be used as an outlet for owners to pretty much mod their aircraft in the same way as Amateur Builts but without having to build 51%.
---------- ADS -----------
  

fleet16b
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:49 am
Location: aerodrome of democracy

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by fleet16b » Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:19 am

AirFrame wrote:It may have been allowed, but it's not what TC had intended when this program started, and they are concerned about the number of people using O-M to make these mods. Hopefully, it will prove out in the long run that these mods are safe, and there won't be any issues. But it won't take many accidents in modified O-M aircraft before the program gets shut down.
That arguement was used originally with Amateur Built and the Rec Permit also.
Time has showing that in both cases there was no issue.
O/M has been around long enough that it has proven its worth .
We have seen no more issue than any other category.

As for T/C intentions. Some of these mod I speak of were done within the first year of the O/M program
so T/C set the mark right from the start.

Explain to me how modifying an O/M ex certified aircraft is really any different to modifying in an Amateur Built Aircaft.
There isnt really. Both are done by the owner who assumes responsibility for the work performed
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by AirFrame » Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:45 pm

As for T/C intentions. Some of these mod I speak of were done within the first year of the O/M program so T/C set the mark right from the start.
Transport knows that they set the bar too low when they wrote the regs. People in talks with Transport now tell me that they're really not happy with how the O-M program turned out, but aren't really sure how best to proceed. As you say, so far, it's been fine. So they've taken a "wait and see" approach, and for now decided to let it run its course and see what happens. I hope you're right that in the long run it continues to be no more dangerous than any other category.
Explain to me how modifying an O/M ex certified aircraft is really any different to modifying in an Amateur Built Aircraft.
There isn't really. Both are done by the owner who assumes responsibility for the work performed
On the surface, it may appear that there isn't much difference. But the reality is different. Look at what changes people want to make to their O-M aircraft vs. what people do to A-B aircraft.

Most A-B aircraft flying today are quite new, compared to the planes going into O-M. Typically, significant modifications on an A-B aren't needed after the plane is finished and flying... In general, all owners do is maintenance of existing systems and structures. People add speed fairings, wheelpants, new paint, new avionics, but these are largely cosmetic changes. You don't generally see engine upgrades, but when you do it's generally the case where the airframe was designed for a larger engine initially but the builder only put a smaller engine in for cost reasons.

The O-M category has people putting 450-500HP Corvette engines in Seabees. Cessna 150 wings on Champs. 150HP engines in Luscombes. Can't do any of that in the Certified category, but hey, there's this O-M category that has an unintended loophole...

There were good reasons for the O-M category, but unfortunately they made the regs too loose at the start and people ran with it. Private owners *should* be allowed to maintain aircraft the same way A-B owners do. They *should* be allowed to replace a panel full of steam gauges with a modern, uncertified, EFIS display. They *should* be allowed to find ways to fabricate alternative, even improved, replacement parts when hard- or impossible-to-find parts fail. But it shouldn't be a license to head into full-on experimental mode.

In the case of the O-M Luscombe that started this thread, an Aero-Vee would be an acceptable change... If the owner can show TC "acceptable data" that convinces them that the change will be acceptable structurally and aerodynamically. What TC considers "acceptable" may be an interesting discussion, but it should probably be discussed with Transport Canada directly, because they'll be the ones making the decision.
---------- ADS -----------
  

fleet16b
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:49 am
Location: aerodrome of democracy

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by fleet16b » Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:05 am

Right from the start of O/M , people intended to use it to modify their extisting aircraft.
I can recall a major pwr upgrade to an aircraft very early on in the first year that was sanctioned by T/C
The O/M category has been around at least 10 yrs(?) (in it's loose form.)
How long is a "wait and see " period ?
I think it has proved itself at this point there have been no extraordinary issues or incidents in O/M compared to
any other categories.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Taiser
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:17 pm
Location: YQT
Contact:

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by Taiser » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:43 pm

fleet16b wrote:Right from the start of O/M , people intended to use it to modify their extisting aircraft.
I can recall a major pwr upgrade to an aircraft very early on in the first year that was sanctioned by T/C
The O/M category has been around at least 10 yrs(?) (in it's loose form.)
How long is a "wait and see " period ?
I think it has proved itself at this point there have been no extraordinary issues or incidents in O/M compared to
any other categories.
Agree 100%, TC is a nightmare to deal with at the best of times and can you imagine if they repeal the O-M category? Do you think they will just let you grind off the stamps you hammered into your plane and let you go back to certified just because they repealed it?? HA!!! If you follow their current rules for re-certification of an O-M plane, they will make you strip the plane down to nothing for inspection!!! They won't care what the cost is, even though it's their ^&*( up! Probably cheaper to scrap it in most cases. Don't give the bastards any ideas! I don't know the stats, but on a per plane basis I bet the O-M category doesn't have any more cases of accidents (equipment related) than the amateur class.

I agree that private owners of certified planes should be allowed to do MUCH more with their airplanes than currently allowed. Even though AME's (and I know I use to be one) would like you to think so, your little Cessna or piper is NOT that complicated of a machine! I'm not saying rebuilding a motor mind you, but average maintenance and even part of the annual should be able to be done by the owner IMHO. :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by AirFrame » Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:52 pm

fleet16b wrote:How long is a "wait and see" period? I think it has proved itself at this point there have been no extraordinary issues or incidents in O/M compared to any other categories.
Well, usually you wait until the data you've collected is "statistically significant". I don't know one way or another how the data runs right now. Who would know if the slightly older airplane that crashed a few weeks ago was O-M? The news just said "Cessna".

Does anyone have any data on how many O-M aircraft there are, relative to A-B or Certified?
---------- ADS -----------
  

fleet16b
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:49 am
Location: aerodrome of democracy

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by fleet16b » Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:50 pm

Well Airframe
If you are looking at news reports as stats then what can I say? Maybe you should dig a little deeper
Try reading the Incident Reports as released by T/C
Those reports state the type of aircraft/ category involved.
There are no significant O/M issues and I have been reading them for over twenty years.
IMHO , the O/M category and the Rec Permit are two of the more realistic programs
that T/C has implemented in years. Time has proven them both to be safe programs.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by AirFrame » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:39 pm

fleet16b wrote:There are no significant O/M issues and I have been reading them for over twenty years.
Try reading the Incident Reports as released by T/C.
That would be difficult... Discussions regarding the concept of an O-M category started in 1993, but the O-M category only became law in 2002. And T/C doesn't release incident reports. The TSB does.
fleet16b wrote:If you are looking at news reports as stats then what can I say? Maybe you should dig a little deeper
Good idea! Here's the breakdown of Privately owned O-M aircraft, by year, since the first appearance of an O-M aircraft in Transport Canada's historical records... 11 years ago. Numbers were taken from May of each year, as May 2002 is the first year an O-M aircraft showed in the records. I've included the Total number of Privately owned aircraft for perspective. The last column is the percentage of the total private aircraft fleet.

Code: Select all

Year	O-M	Total 	O-M %
			
2002	150	22060	0.68%
2003	206	22360	0.92%
2004	255	22803	1.12%
2005	320	23329	1.37%
2006	365	24014	1.52%
2007	401	24620	1.63%
2008	433	25412	1.70%
2009	466	26068	1.79%
2010	496	26645	1.86%
2011	530	27285	1.94%
2012	559	27991	2.00%
Note that O-M aircraft, while growing steadily, have only reached 2% of the Private aircraft population. To put this in perspective, here is 2012's breakdown. Note that there are about twice as many Advanced ultralights, and about ten times as many Basic Ultralights, as there are O-M aircraft. The only *less* represented aircraft category than O-M is "Experimental" (not to be confused with Amateur-built). Oh, and the "Normal" category, from which the O-M aircraft are drawn, is about 57% of the total aircraft population.

Code: Select all

16032  Normal
  799  Restricted
 3913  Amateur Built
 5496  Basic Ultra-light
 1156  Advanced Ultra-light
   36  Experimental
  559  Owner Maintained
27991  Totals
I would like to see accident data for the same periods, that separates O-M and Normal category aircraft. Unfortunately the TSB doesn't seem to have that breakdown on their website. I've emailed a contact I have at the TSB to see if they can give me some data.
---------- ADS -----------
  

lownslow
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1173
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by lownslow » Fri May 17, 2013 8:52 pm

Don't know if you've decided on a new engine for the Luscombe yet but to the best of my knowledge nobody has successfully run a VW of any sort in that class of airplane (certified 30's two-seater). I would have thought in all the years people COULD have done it, you would have heard of it by now if successful.

Why mess with a good thing? Overhaul the A65 and keep the weight of a battery on the ground, where it belongs.

LnS.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Luscombe
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:57 am
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by Luscombe » Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:12 am

Thanks for the info guys, I really didn't think I was going to create all that much discussion on the OM category. I suppose when the time comes to overhaul, I might just go for the C85 instead. It'll give me electrics, increased horsepower (albeit it marginally). I know this will require a new firewall which is available from Univair in the states to accommodate the generator in the back of the engine.

I would imagine this would be easier in the long run.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
x-wind
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:23 pm
Location: Around

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by x-wind » Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:26 pm

Hey Luscombe,

Curious about where your at with the idea of a new engine for your Luscombe. I do not own a Luscombe but do fancy one quite a bit & have come quite close to pulling the trigger on acquiring one. The engine I often contemplate as being an ideal engine for the Luscombe in the owner maintenance category is a 912is Rotax.

If you go to the compare button is shows the fuel economy difference between comparable engines.

http://www.flyrotax.com/enginesImpressu ... ption.aspx
---------- ADS -----------
  

Spandau
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:05 am

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by Spandau » Sun Dec 01, 2013 12:34 am

From the COPA guide:

"Owners of O-M aircraft are required to comply with CAR 571.12 and report major repairs and modifications to the aircraft to Transport Canada. Where the change involves the engine, the owner has to report to TC and have the flight authority re-issued. The information on the Special C of A specifies the engine and must correspond with the aircraft."

I would think that hanging an engine on an airplane that's radically different from what's on the Type Certificate would definitely be seen as more of an experimental application than a maintenance one, and you'll likely have a very tough time of selling them on that. I got approval to use a prop that wasn't on my Type Certificate but it was a very minor thing (a very similar model was) and the prop was approved on a similar airplane with the very same engine.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
x-wind
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:23 pm
Location: Around

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by x-wind » Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:10 pm

Good point, I've been thinking about this. In the grande scheme of the airplane I would not call a Rotax radically different from a Continental O-200 (which is approved on the Luscombe). I've called TC certification & maintenance (who are forwarding my question to the appropriate person) to pose the question today: "I'm going to convert or already have converted a Luscombe into the O-M category. I would like to change the engine & propeller to a similar horsepower but unapproved configuration. What will be the process to have my Special Certificate of Airworthiness reissued?"

To comply with CARS 571.12 you've to fill out a seemingly short & simple form found here: http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/images/ca-cars/repair.gif

I'm curious if a simple description of the work accomplished, for an unapproved engine type change, in this form will suffice towards getting the SCofA reissued in the O-M category. Will advise as to the response I get back from TC.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Spandau
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:05 am

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by Spandau » Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:19 am

Keep us apprised of how you make out - and I'm sure COPA would be interested as well. Maybe "radically different" was too strong a term, but I was thinking "radical" as opposed to say swapping an O-200 for a C90, or a C85 for an A65. If the original engine type was exceedingly rare or famously temperamental (like an Aeronca E113 two-cylinder time bomb, for example) you could make a very strong case for the engine change. But best of luck. Luscombes are wonderful little airplanes. My experience with O-M aircraft is that generally they are maintained and restored to a higher standard than Standard category aircraft.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
x-wind
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:23 pm
Location: Around

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by x-wind » Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:44 pm

I spoke with two airworthiness representatives in the Prairie Region. They fundamentally told me the same thing. They believe the regulations give transport Canada power to with-hold the reissue of the SCofA if "acceptable data" requirement isn't met for a the "major modification or major repair." They both admit this will be a subjective process. One of the two reps. said I should follow up with the Transport Canada's 'carriage' (sp) process to get an answer from authority in Ottawa because my points against this process were valid.


My points against the two representatives arguments for the "approval" of "a major modification or major repair":

1) CARs 571.06 specifically says major "modifications & major repairs" are exempt for O-M classification. The way the regulation is ACTUALLY written has "repairs & modifications" requiring "acceptable data" for O-M. But not "major repairs or major modifications." Sure this seems counter intuitive at first thought but it is what it written & they need to change the regulation if they want "acceptable data" as a requirement for "major modifications or major repairs" for the O-M category.

2) My point argued in (1) is addressed indirectly here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... e-6011.htm
This document is interesting & I was told the author may be my judge on the other end of the 'carriage' process. Anywho, the document says, in reference to "acceptable data" that "...This technical data does not need to be approved by Transport Canada." which neither of the two airworthiness representatives we're able to acknowledge.

I'll get back to you when I write to Transport through this 'carriage' system & then again with there response, apparently they've to answer within 20 days.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Homebuilders”