Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by Peter Blo » Fri, 01 Jan 1999 04:00:00



Well, it was just this morning I posted some questions about what to
expect..... But when the wind died early this afternoon, I just couldn't
wait. So here is the story:

Building it was very easy, the parts were wonderfully scored by laser, with
the exception of two sheets where the laser only cut half way thru. The
completed bird looked so good I could not help but sand the surfaces and
ecges to make it feel as good as it looked.

I left the glider unfinished. To begin with, I did not add weight, and I
locked the canard wing in place by pushing the plug of balsa forward. I
took it out to a small hillock and hand tossed it. It stalled... so I added
nose weight by inserting a 2.5 inch***thru the thick chunk of balsa in
the nose. Then it flew perfectly, with a slighty curve to the left, but
flat and soft as can be in terms of glide characteristics.

Then the problems started. It set up on the launch pad, and I counted down
to "blast-off" and BANG, the Estes D12-3 Cato'ed, looks like the nozzle,
and then the empty motor casing, just blasted out the back end. The glider
popped up about 20 feet, keeled over and landed nose first. The solid nose
area broke into pieces, the front end split open, and one whole wing  broke
of in a ragged  break.

It looked bad, but it actually only took 30 minutes to put it all back to
gether with medium super glue. I retested it by hand tossing. Then back out
to the launch pad.

This time, the problems were worse, and not exclusively related to my bad
luck with the first motor. Upon launch, the glider lifted off perfectly,
but then started to arc upward and around toward the ground. By upward, I
mean in the direction of the top surface of the glider. It reached maybe 40
or 50 feet, and started heding downward. I am not sure I could accurately
tell you when the thrust burn ended, maybe near the zenith. Anyway, down it
came, fast....... very fast..... nose straight down. Finally, only 8-10
feet from the ground, the ejection charge went off, but this actually
ejected the motor, which was fastened in as advised with tape. the ejection
may have actually accelerated theglider into it final death  dive. Anyway,
moments later, it hit  the ground at high speed, and broke into a bunch of
parts.... which i carefully collected. Believe it or not, I am considering
patching it together. The wonders of super glue....!!!!!!!

Soooooo, what is the scoop? Why does it arc over like that....? It is
undoubtedly stable in the glide mode, since the hand toss test was
successful. but something is giving it lift at the front end. Everything
went to gether so well, the pieces were so perfectly cut and designed, and
I am a woodworker by trade, so I really don't believe that I screwed up the
construction.

This thing looked great, and I was so looking forward to watching it circle
majestically.
Any advice would be appreciated. I would buy another and start over if I
felt confident that I wasn't going to arc the thing over again. At the very
least, perhaps the patched-together remnants will teach me something.

************
************
Please visit my new web site, where there is lots of information and
photographs about my translucent turned-wood lampshades. And a whole
section of the site is devoted to my wife Kathy's music and photography.
Here is the link: http://www.FoundCollection.com/
open to feedback to help us make this site even better!

 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by doug holverso » Fri, 01 Jan 1999 04:00:00


----------

Quote:

>Well, it was just this morning I posted some questions about what to
>expect..... But when the wind died early this afternoon, I just couldn't
>wait. So here is the story:

>Building it was very easy, the parts were wonderfully scored by laser, with
>the exception of two sheets where the laser only cut half way thru. The
>completed bird looked so good I could not help but sand the surfaces and
>ecges to make it feel as good as it looked.

>I left the glider unfinished. To begin with, I did not add weight, and I
>locked the canard wing in place by pushing the plug of balsa forward. I
>took it out to a small hillock and hand tossed it. It stalled... so I added
>nose weight by inserting a 2.5 inch***thru the thick chunk of balsa in
>the nose. Then it flew perfectly, with a slighty curve to the left, but
>flat and soft as can be in terms of glide characteristics.

>Then the problems started. It set up on the launch pad, and I counted down
>to "blast-off" and BANG, the Estes D12-3 Cato'ed, looks like the nozzle,
>and then the empty motor casing, just blasted out the back end. The glider
>popped up about 20 feet, keeled over and landed nose first. The solid nose
>area broke into pieces, the front end split open, and one whole wing  broke
>of in a ragged  break.

>It looked bad, but it actually only took 30 minutes to put it all back to
>gether with medium super glue. I retested it by hand tossing. Then back out
>to the launch pad.

>This time, the problems were worse, and not exclusively related to my bad
>luck with the first motor. Upon launch, the glider lifted off perfectly,
>but then started to arc upward and around toward the ground. By upward, I
>mean in the direction of the top surface of the glider. It reached maybe 40
>or 50 feet, and started heding downward. I am not sure I could accurately
>tell you when the thrust burn ended, maybe near the zenith. Anyway, down it
>came, fast....... very fast..... nose straight down. Finally, only 8-10
>feet from the ground, the ejection charge went off, but this actually
>ejected the motor, which was fastened in as advised with tape. the ejection
>may have actually accelerated theglider into it final death  dive. Anyway,
>moments later, it hit  the ground at high speed, and broke into a bunch of
>parts.... which i carefully collected. Believe it or not, I am considering
>patching it together. The wonders of super glue....!!!!!!!

>Soooooo, what is the scoop? Why does it arc over like that....? It is
>undoubtedly stable in the glide mode, since the hand toss test was
>successful. but something is giving it lift at the front end. Everything
>went to gether so well, the pieces were so perfectly cut and designed, and
>I am a woodworker by trade, so I really don't believe that I screwed up the
>construction.

>This thing looked great, and I was so looking forward to watching it circle
>majestically.
>Any advice would be appreciated. I would buy another and start over if I
>felt confident that I wasn't going to arc the thing over again. At the very
>least, perhaps the patched-together remnants will teach me something.

I have a regular Ecee (no Thunder), and it's the best flying Edmonds kit I
have (out of four). It boost straight and everything. Did you have the
canard and piston***ed right?

-DGH-

PS: Please email me if anybody knows anything about consumer rights and time
limitations concerning two years of snafus and over billing and bad 'net
service by phone companies.

 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by Peter Blo » Sat, 02 Jan 1999 04:00:00


I should have made this clear, since this obviously would have caused the
problem if I neglected it -- I DID have the canard hinge loose. In other
words, I had the piston/plug pushed back into the tube, so that the canard
could move freely. After the crash landing, the canard was forward, not
sure if this was caused by the impact or by the ejection charge. As I noted
before, the engine itself ejected.

And as for other Edmonds gliders, I have a fleet of the smallest Delties,
all of which have worked perfectly.  And one Ivee, which took a while to
get  tuned right, but now works well. I also have a Vaughn Buzzard, which I
think I have launched 20 times or more, with everything from A - C engines.
I don't suggest C engines, it went totally out of sight, and we just waited
for it to come back into view. It is a real crowd pleaser, glides very fast
thru the air but still maintains a long glide path.

I intend to try the regular Ecee next.

Quote:

>I have a regular Ecee (no Thunder), and it's the best flying Edmonds kit I
>have (out of four). It boost straight and everything. Did you have the
>canard and piston***ed right?

>-DGH-

>PS: Please email me if anybody knows anything about consumer rights and time
>limitations concerning two years of snafus and over billing and bad 'net
>service by phone companies.

************
************
Please visit my new web site, where there is lots of information and
photographs about my translucent turned-wood lampshades. And a whole
section of the site is devoted to my wife Kathy's music and photography.
Here is the link: http://www.FoundCollection.com/
open to feedback to help us make this site even better!
 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by Chris Taylo » Sat, 02 Jan 1999 04:00:00


You sanded the surfaces

That is what you did wrong

You increased Positive Lift WITHOUT increasing negative lift IE something to
push back

The plane was designed to fly without sanding But you sanded it increasing
the wings lift and causing it to arc

you will have to increase the negative angle ot the canard in boost to
counter the extra lift produced by the now sanded winges and foreplanes

Chris
http//www.nerys.com/rocketry/

Quote:

>Well, it was just this morning I posted some questions about what to
>expect..... But when the wind died early this afternoon, I just couldn't
>wait. So here is the story:

>Building it was very easy, the parts were wonderfully scored by laser, with
>the exception of two sheets where the laser only cut half way thru. The
>completed bird looked so good I could not help but sand the surfaces and
>ecges to make it feel as good as it looked.

>I left the glider unfinished. To begin with, I did not add weight, and I
>locked the canard wing in place by pushing the plug of balsa forward. I
>took it out to a small hillock and hand tossed it. It stalled... so I added
>nose weight by inserting a 2.5 inch***thru the thick chunk of balsa in
>the nose. Then it flew perfectly, with a slighty curve to the left, but
>flat and soft as can be in terms of glide characteristics.

>Then the problems started. It set up on the launch pad, and I counted down
>to "blast-off" and BANG, the Estes D12-3 Cato'ed, looks like the nozzle,
>and then the empty motor casing, just blasted out the back end. The glider
>popped up about 20 feet, keeled over and landed nose first. The solid nose
>area broke into pieces, the front end split open, and one whole wing  broke
>of in a ragged  break.

>It looked bad, but it actually only took 30 minutes to put it all back to
>gether with medium super glue. I retested it by hand tossing. Then back out
>to the launch pad.

>This time, the problems were worse, and not exclusively related to my bad
>luck with the first motor. Upon launch, the glider lifted off perfectly,
>but then started to arc upward and around toward the ground. By upward, I
>mean in the direction of the top surface of the glider. It reached maybe 40
>or 50 feet, and started heding downward. I am not sure I could accurately
>tell you when the thrust burn ended, maybe near the zenith. Anyway, down it
>came, fast....... very fast..... nose straight down. Finally, only 8-10
>feet from the ground, the ejection charge went off, but this actually
>ejected the motor, which was fastened in as advised with tape. the ejection
>may have actually accelerated theglider into it final death  dive. Anyway,
>moments later, it hit  the ground at high speed, and broke into a bunch of
>parts.... which i carefully collected. Believe it or not, I am considering
>patching it together. The wonders of super glue....!!!!!!!

>Soooooo, what is the scoop? Why does it arc over like that....? It is
>undoubtedly stable in the glide mode, since the hand toss test was
>successful. but something is giving it lift at the front end. Everything
>went to gether so well, the pieces were so perfectly cut and designed, and
>I am a woodworker by trade, so I really don't believe that I screwed up the
>construction.

>This thing looked great, and I was so looking forward to watching it circle
>majestically.
>Any advice would be appreciated. I would buy another and start over if I
>felt confident that I wasn't going to arc the thing over again. At the very
>least, perhaps the patched-together remnants will teach me something.

>************
>************
>Please visit my new web site, where there is lots of information and
>photographs about my translucent turned-wood lampshades. And a whole
>section of the site is devoted to my wife Kathy's music and photography.
>Here is the link: http://www.FoundCollection.com/
>open to feedback to help us make this site even better!

 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by Peter Blo » Sat, 02 Jan 1999 04:00:00


I did sand the surfaces, but not to create an airfoil shape, which
certainly would have created extra lift. I sanded all surfaces equally, to
make smoother. Can it be that this did, as you say, increase lift?


Quote:

>You sanded the surfaces

>That is what you did wrong

>You increased Positive Lift WITHOUT increasing negative lift IE something to
>push back

>The plane was designed to fly without sanding But you sanded it increasing
>the wings lift and causing it to arc

>you will have to increase the negative angle ot the canard in boost to
>counter the extra lift produced by the now sanded winges and foreplanes

>Chris
>http//www.nerys.com/rocketry/

************
************
Please visit my new web site, where there is lots of information and
photographs about my translucent turned-wood lampshades. And a whole
section of the site is devoted to my wife Kathy's music and photography.
Here is the link: http://www.srnet.com/woodshades .........we are always
open to feedback to help us make this site even better!
 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by AstronMi » Sat, 02 Jan 1999 04:00:00


It seems a pitch up moment was induced in boost.  If you sanded any real
asymmetrical airfoil into the wings, this may be at fault.  Or you could have
had the boost CG just a tad aft....a marginally stable glider will tend to arc
in boost with an aft CG.

You also mentioned the canard hinge a bit loose.  Was there much or any
deflection on it??  Bear in mind, a few degrees will surely give you fits in a
powered boost.  I left the elevator of a stock Novus kit 'not quite flat' and
shot it.  It arced badly and hit hard, and this was on about 3* or so
deflection.....you could barely see it.

Rob will straighten you out real fast when he sees this....  8^)

AstronMike

Novus Aerospace

 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by Chris Taylo » Sat, 02 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Hmm Not sure I assumed you maed airfoils

(assumption IS the mother of all F#$K ups :-)

I dont know

his kits should work Stock and you added nose weight which should only have
helped ?

I guess you will have to wait till rob responds

Sorry i could not help more

Chris
http://www.nerys.com/rocketry/

Quote:

>I did sand the surfaces, but not to create an airfoil shape, which
>certainly would have created extra lift. I sanded all surfaces equally, to
>make smoother. Can it be that this did, as you say, increase lift?



>>You sanded the surfaces

>>That is what you did wrong

>>You increased Positive Lift WITHOUT increasing negative lift IE something
to
>>push back

>>The plane was designed to fly without sanding But you sanded it increasing
>>the wings lift and causing it to arc

>>you will have to increase the negative angle ot the canard in boost to
>>counter the extra lift produced by the now sanded winges and foreplanes

>>Chris
>>http//www.nerys.com/rocketry/

>************
>************
>Please visit my new web site, where there is lots of information and
>photographs about my translucent turned-wood lampshades. And a whole
>section of the site is devoted to my wife Kathy's music and photography.
>Here is the link: http://www.srnet.com/woodshades .........we are always
>open to feedback to help us make this site even better!

 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by Jack Herm » Sun, 03 Jan 1999 04:00:00



I have never flown boost gliders before but I have flown free flight
aircraft many times. For those of you that don't know, it's an RC
aircraft without the RC part. Yes it's kinda dangerous.

Anyway, a perfect non-powered glide can mean disaster for powered
flight. The slightest glide characteristic is greatly enhanced during
powered flight. Therefore you need to have the glider, in glide mode,
perform as gently and smoothly as exceptable.

Hope this helps a little. Good luck.

Jack.

TRA #6868

Quote:
>Well, it was just this morning I posted some questions about what to
>expect..... But when the wind died early this afternoon, I just couldn't
>wait. So here is the story:

>Building it was very easy, the parts were wonderfully scored by laser, with
>the exception of two sheets where the laser only cut half way thru. The
>completed bird looked so good I could not help but sand the surfaces and
>ecges to make it feel as good as it looked.

>I left the glider unfinished. To begin with, I did not add weight, and I
>locked the canard wing in place by pushing the plug of balsa forward. I
>took it out to a small hillock and hand tossed it. It stalled... so I added
>nose weight by inserting a 2.5 inch***thru the thick chunk of balsa in
>the nose. Then it flew perfectly, with a slighty curve to the left, but
>flat and soft as can be in terms of glide characteristics.

>Then the problems started. It set up on the launch pad, and I counted down
>to "blast-off" and BANG, the Estes D12-3 Cato'ed, looks like the nozzle,
>and then the empty motor casing, just blasted out the back end. The glider
>popped up about 20 feet, keeled over and landed nose first. The solid nose
>area broke into pieces, the front end split open, and one whole wing  broke
>of in a ragged  break.

>It looked bad, but it actually only took 30 minutes to put it all back to
>gether with medium super glue. I retested it by hand tossing. Then back out
>to the launch pad.

>This time, the problems were worse, and not exclusively related to my bad
>luck with the first motor. Upon launch, the glider lifted off perfectly,
>but then started to arc upward and around toward the ground. By upward, I
>mean in the direction of the top surface of the glider. It reached maybe 40
>or 50 feet, and started heding downward. I am not sure I could accurately
>tell you when the thrust burn ended, maybe near the zenith. Anyway, down it
>came, fast....... very fast..... nose straight down. Finally, only 8-10
>feet from the ground, the ejection charge went off, but this actually
>ejected the motor, which was fastened in as advised with tape. the ejection
>may have actually accelerated theglider into it final death  dive. Anyway,
>moments later, it hit  the ground at high speed, and broke into a bunch of
>parts.... which i carefully collected. Believe it or not, I am considering
>patching it together. The wonders of super glue....!!!!!!!

>Soooooo, what is the scoop? Why does it arc over like that....? It is
>undoubtedly stable in the glide mode, since the hand toss test was
>successful. but something is giving it lift at the front end. Everything
>went to gether so well, the pieces were so perfectly cut and designed, and
>I am a woodworker by trade, so I really don't believe that I screwed up the
>construction.

>This thing looked great, and I was so looking forward to watching it circle
>majestically.
>Any advice would be appreciated. I would buy another and start over if I
>felt confident that I wasn't going to arc the thing over again. At the very
>least, perhaps the patched-together remnants will teach me something.

>************
>************
>Please visit my new web site, where there is lots of information and
>photographs about my translucent turned-wood lampshades. And a whole
>section of the site is devoted to my wife Kathy's music and photography.
>Here is the link: http://www.FoundCollection.com/
>open to feedback to help us make this site even better!

 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by AstronMi » Sun, 03 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
>I did sand the surfaces, but not to create an airfoil shape,

And....> I sanded all surfaces equally, to

Quote:
>make smoother. Can it be that this did, as you say, increase lift?

If so, no, this didnt create any real lift...especially in a forward CG boost
mode.  Rob doesnt recommend any 'foiling due to variability in glide trim, cant
blame him for that.

But Id say one of my other points was/is the problem.

AstronMike

Novus Aerospace

 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by AstronMi » Sun, 03 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
>Anyway, a perfect non-powered glide can mean disaster for powered
>flight. The slightest glide characteristic is greatly enhanced during
>powered flight.

This is definitely true, but a free flight non powered aircraft isnt going to
have any changes in CG in its flight.  If you take a perfectly trimmed glider
that glides level at its terminal velocity, and then throw it hard straight
out, what will it do??  Loop up, due to increased lift and pitch up moment
(wing vs stab).

However, for our rocket powered *boost* gliders, we typically have the powered
boost phase of flight with a more forward CG so its rocket stable, as in 'its
going where its pointed'.  If you took that well balanced glider, and attached
a rocket motor at its glide CG (so the overall CG doesnt change), it would go
all over the place.

Since Peter eliminated the 'foiling situation, I will say its either the canard
not being quite proper or the boost CG was a tad aft.  Did he mention adding wt
to a wing?  If he did do this on one of the large rear wings, this would drive
the CG aft of where Rob may recommend it,and therefore be 'it'.  Perhaps he can
elaborate more on this.

In any event, Im sure its one simple little thing. But we have to define the
problem before we get to solve it.

*Im not an Aerospace Engineer but I play one on RMR*

AstronMike

Novus Aerospace

 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by Bob Kapl » Mon, 04 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Quote:



> I have never flown boost gliders before but I have flown free flight
> aircraft many times. For those of you that don't know, it's an RC
> aircraft without the RC part. Yes it's kinda dangerous.

Say what? Free Flight is an order of magnitude safer than RC or control
line. Ask the AMA or SFA for their insurance incident rates for the three
activities.

        Bob Kaplow      NAR # 18L       TRA # "Ctrl-Alt-Del"

Kaplow Klips:   http://members.aol.com/myhprcato/KaplowKlips.html
NIRA:           http://www.nira.chicago.il.us  NAR:    http://www.nar.org

 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by RobEdmon » Mon, 04 Jan 1999 04:00:00


I don't know, I can't explain that one.  It is possible that either the
reassembly or some fracture or other bending or twisting damage from the cato
crash gave you some kind of misalignment that you couldn't see.   Or it is
possible that something in the way you sanded it modified its characteristics
somehow.    I do know that small modifications to areas like the moveable
elevator can have more effect that you would expect.   Still, one of the test
models was blown completely apart by a cato, but still worked fine, so I don't
think they're overly sensitive, making this even tougher to explain.   People
should keep in mind how I test these things, though.  I start with one or more
prototypes, which spur various types of modifications that are incorporated
into the production layout.  Once the production design is finalized, I then
only fly them built exactly as they appear in the instructions.  If I take
several random samples form the first run and they all boost the same and glide
the same, I'm usualy as confident as I need to be.  I never test with any form
of sanding, painting, wing weight or other mods, because then I'd have to test
dozens of models to cover the combinations, and even then, there's little
chance that I'd modify it exactly the same way as any given builder.  So I'm
hoping that what happened was a byproduct of the initial cato crash, and not
the product of warped wood or varying density.  If it is the latter, that will
require some additional effort somewhere in the system to make the wood more
consistent in the future.   For right now, try to describe the incident to me
as best you can, and I'll try to get you another one when the new ones are
ready.
RE
 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by RobEdmon » Mon, 04 Jan 1999 04:00:00


I want to thank, by the way, both Mr. Bloch and Mr. Goldenbaum for the only two
flight reports I 've seen so far on that model.   It is very important for me
to learn about any field phenomena that I don't anticipate in design or flight
test.
RE
 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by AstronMi » Mon, 04 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
> It is very important for me
>to learn about any field phenomena that I don't anticipate in design or
>flight
>test.

Same goes for my stuff too.  That is the main reason why Ive suspended sending
anything else out.....no real feedback in sufficient quantity to tell me if I
am 'kitting this stuph rite'.

We do need those launch reports folks.  Both good *and* bad so we can define
and then solve any quirks arising (such as the initial topic of this thread).

AstronMike

Novus Aerospace

 
 
 

Launch report: E-Cee Thunder Edmunds Glider (disaster)

Post by Peter Blo » Mon, 04 Jan 1999 04:00:00


I agree with Rob that the most likely explanation for my problem is that
the first CATO and ensuing reconstruction led to some aerodynamic anomoly
that led to the arcing over on the second launch. This morning I glued the
whole mess back into an approximation of the original. all the pieces were
there, and seem aligned correctly. Obviously, I have added weight with all
the glue. With two major reconstructions now involved, obviously, there are
lots of possible problems.... but I will try it again anyway.

For the record, since you asked for an accurate rendition of what happened:
the glider boosted upward with a gradual arc upward and slightly to one
side. The engine ejected just befoer impact with the ground. I firmly fixed
the engine with masking tape, and the tape split at the line between the
tube and the engine, my perception is thqat the delay was more than the 3
seconds that it was supposed to be, but that perception is probably warped
by the drama of seeing the glider crash milli-seconds later. I did wonder
if one issue wit the motor ejection was that the exhaust hole in the motor
tube could only be half cleared when the piston went forward, and that this
restricted  exhaust might have been a reason the motor ejected. Obviously,
this ejection problem is secondary to the main problem -- the arcing
trajectory.

I do have a specific question Rob.... When I first assembled this, the mark
for Center of Gravity ended up on the inside of the fusilage. Could you
please tell me the measurement from the back of the motor tube to the
COG...... And for future reference, you might mention  in your instructions
what this mark is, and it's importance. In retrospect, this is perfectly
obvious, and it DID cross my mind (briefly) when I saw the mark as I cut
out the parts...... but in my enthusiastic rush to assemble this great
looking glider, I neglected to orient this part so that the mark was
visible.

Also (for your future reference), missing from your instructions was any
thought about inducing the glider to circle, which would be important for
most people.... And no mention was made of whether hand-tossing was a good
step before launch, to ensure correct glide characteristics. Is the COG
marking adequate by itself to make sure that the glider is prepped
correctly.  

On the other hands.... I really think your gliders are terrific in design,
and the instructions are very clear and well illustrated. Your testing
procedures seem perfectly reasonable to me, you can't be expected to try
out every wacky variation that wackos like me are thinking of trying.

************
************
Please visit my new web site, where there is lots of information and
photographs about my translucent turned-wood lampshades. And a whole
section of the site is devoted to my wife Kathy's music and photography.
Here is the link: http://www.srnet.com/woodshades .........we are always
open to feedback to help us make this site even better!