ECI IOX-320 Stroker!

Did anyone see the ECI IOX-340 stroker at Sun N Fun?

They are claiming 185HP in a package thats lighter than a O-360.

It has a few nice features that I found interesting including:

tapered barrel fins
flow matched cylinders
Venturi intake seats
Magnesium oil sump
Magnesium cold induction plenum
4.125" stroke
9.0 compression

Sounds like a very interestion option to me.

Believe it or not, Lycoming actually has a certfied O-340, I doubt it's in production anymore, but it does exsist. I believe it was originally rated at 170HP. I'd be interested to see detailed pics.

yup your right

Yup the ECI rep said Lycoming did have a 340 years ago. I doubt it had a intake set like the ECI engine.

ECI web site says 100LL only.

this was a nice suprise at SNF! i talked to robbie about it, and this engine looks like a winner to me. less weight, and more power than the 360. i like it!

Eci Io 340

I have been looking at the ECI IO-360 as the engine of choice I am leaning toward, but with increased HP and decreased weight over the IO-360 this IO-340 engine sounds like a perfect match for what I am looking for. I love the idea of this engine until manufacturers start talking about 100LL being the only fuel this engine will run on. Why are these manufacturers sticking with requiring 100LL when the FAA has already laid plans for the elimination of this fuel in the near future?

I would like to ask this question as, frankly, I just don't get it. Can someone tell me why I can run a ground based engine at 9.5 to 1 or even 10 to 1 compressions using regular unleaded gasoline but an 8.5 to 1 or higher Lycone "Aviation" engine must have 100 octane low lead fuel? I have been running a six cylinder 260 hp with 9.5 to 1 compression cylinders in my Infinity I-30 on 87 octane regular gasoline for six years now with no visible ill effects. It is still a great running car that continually gets 26 mpg and has never shown any decrease in power when I press the gass pedal.

If anyone can educate me please give me some facts on this mystery of mechanical and chemical engineering that is obviously escaping my mind. I understand that everyone has their own biased opinions about everything under the sun but I would like to have some real "scientific" information to chew on. I truly fail to see why these two applications require different fuel. I also understand that higher compressions require higher octanes at a certain point. But, I was taught that you did not have to worry too much about octane problems, premature ignition, pinging, etc. until about the 10.5 to 1 ratio range on any hot rod engine I was around.

Please no bashing. I am not opposed to learning something the hard way but factual explanations sink into my thick skull much quicker and easier.

Thanks,
RVBYSDI
Steve

RVbySDI said:

I would like to ask this question as, frankly, I just don't get it. Can someone tell me why I can run a ground based engine at 9.5 to 1 or even 10 to 1 compressions using regular unleaded gasoline but an 8.5 to 1 or higher Lycone "Aviation" engine must have 100 octane low lead fuel? I have been running a six cylinder 260 hp with 9.5 to 1 compression cylinders in my Infinity I-30 on 87 octane regular gasoline for six years now with no visible ill effects. It is still a great running car that continually gets 26 mpg and has never shown any decrease in power when I press the gass pedal.

If anyone can educate me please give me some facts on this mystery of mechanical and chemical engineering that is obviously escaping my mind. I understand that everyone has their own biased opinions about everything under the sun but I would like to have some real "scientific" information to chew on. I truly fail to see why these two applications require different fuel. I also understand that higher compressions require higher octanes at a certain point. But, I was taught that you did not have to worry too much about octane problems, premature ignition, pinging, etc. until about the 10.5 to 1 ratio range on any hot rod engine I was around.

Click to expand...

Steve,
The propensity toward 'knock' is dependent on many factors some of which are listed here:
1.) Dwell time at pressure. Lower rpm engines will tend to knock at lower octane ratings (lugging your road engine up a hill in too high a gear at full throttle will knock more readily than climbing the same hill in a lower gear)
2.) Volume of fuel air mixture under pressure. Larger bore engines knock more readily than smaller bore engines.
3.) Combustion chamber shape. Hemispherical shaped heads will knock more readily than wedge shaped heads.
4.) Temperature of combustion chamber walls. Higher tends to encourage knock more than cooler.

There are others but you can readily see the huge difference between your road engine and the lycoming. In each of the 4 points mentioned, the poor lycoming is on the wrong side of the knock equation. Hence they need higher octane fuels to provide safe operating margins relative to knock.

-mike

Engine efficency is somewhat based on compression ratio. Also once 100LL is phased out, it will be replace with another form of avgas that is lead-free, but still runs in these engines. Most likely it will be 91/96, but could be higher.

osxuser said:

Engine efficency is somewhat based on compression ratio. Also once 100LL is phased out, it will be replace with another form of avgas that is lead-free, but still runs in these engines. Most likely it will be 91/96, but could be higher.

Click to expand...

I agree with this but just want to add emphasis about engine thermal efficiency. It is strongly related to compression ratio and is the reason that BSFC for diesels is better that the BSFC for otto cycle engines.

-mike

Thanks

Thanks Mike for the information. Your explanations make a lot of sense but raise more questions.

I originally saw the notice for the introduction of this ECI IO-340 and was very intrigued by it. Then I saw that they were requiring that it run on 100LL. This immediatly got me to thinking down those lines I had thought about for many years now concerning the engine choices for airplanes. I am undecided on what I will eventually end up doing with my RV9A as far as engines go. I do want an engine that will provide the best performance related to HP, weight, cost of purchase, cost of operation, ease of maintenance. I want a relatively light engine that will produce sufficient HP to get me in and out of High Density Altitude airports. I want one that will not cost a fortune to purchase or to operate and be low maintenance (as most of the automobile engines that I have owned have been in the last 20 years).

I really think that we in aviation need to get beyond the 1930's-1950's era of engines and move forward with the rest of the world in terms of this engine design. Mike, you mention an interesting point when you talk about large bore v. small bore engines. If small bore engines are not so prone to running low octane fuel such as mogas tends to be, then what fundamental problems are there in placing smaller bore engines with appropriate configurations to produce adequate HP in our airplanes? Why are we locked into using these large bore 4 cylinder air cooled engines? Why not a smaller bore 6 cylinder, or 8 cylinder engine that would produce the same HP and stay relatively within the same weight requirements necessary? Why are air cooled engines "better" than water cooled for aviation (Has anyone noticed how many water cooled high performance airplanes were built during WWII that we revere even today)? What happened to the idea that water cooled engines would work well in the flight environment?

Is the answer more related to mechanical fundamentals such as power output capabilities, weight of the engine or complexity of the design? Or, is it more a result of some psychological attitude toward staying with something we think of as proven and safe (After all, don't we rationalize that we don't want to die behind some unproven technology)?

With respect to weight, could we not utilize new or existing metalurgic techniques to lighten the load (Why not aluminum blocks? Are there other heat tolerant strong metal alloys that would work?). Does that leave the complexity of such an engine as the show stopper? Some would argue that Eggenfelner's Subaru engines are more complex than the typical Lyclone installation, yet, so far, these engines seem to be performing quite well in the planes flying them. Why are they able to use a small boxer 2.5 L engine to produce the needed HP to fly our babies? Something seems to be working with them.

If the answer lies with a fear of death, injury or of the unknown then why are we doing this highly risky endeavor of flying anyway? After all, the rest of the world (especially since 9/11) thinks we are crazy for wanting to fly these "death traps", let alone build them ourselves and then fly in them (You only have to look at the insurance industry to see this. Has anyone looked at the small print on their life insurance policies?). Are we still so lock step entrenched in going down the road most traveled that we cringe at doing something different from what others are telling us is the prudent solution? We are convinced that the only solution to powering our birds is to stay with the "standard" aviation large bore Lyclone engines?

As of yet I do not know what I will do about choosing an engine. I like the Eggenfelner Subaru, if it weren't for the price. I like the IO-360 or this new IO-340 except for the specific fuel requirements that I may have to live with, oh yeah, and the price. I have considered the 290 as I think that would give adequate HP for my needs but there is the weight of the engine compared to the HP output issue with them and the lack of fuel injection (does anyone know of a fuel injected 290 out there?). I have not been opposed to the IO-320. However, comparing the weight, and the price, for the IO-320 to the IO-360 the difference in both is negligable so why not opt for the IO-360?

Hmmmmm, I am seeing a pattern in my perusal of this subject that is bringing up a non-technical question that I also seem to always be asking. Why do all of these engines cost 2 or 3 times more than an engine costs for any other internal combustion application?

Well I see that I am prattling on and on. I am sure the only individual interested in this dissertation is writing it so I will put an end to this. Should there be, however, anyone interested in commenting on my writings I would greatly welcome your opinions and/or thoughts.

Thanks,
RVBYSDI
Steve
RV9A slow build

RVbySDI said:

...I am sure the only individual interested in this dissertation is writing it so I will put an end to this. Should there be, however, anyone interested in commenting on my writings I would greatly welcome your opinions and/or thoughts.

Click to expand...

hmmm...i think you'll find there are plenty of interested individuals from what you've written here. i'm right there with ya on choosing an engine. i lean this way one day, and the other the next. i am very interested in the -340 engine, and i'm also very interested in the Egg H-6. i have a production slot reserved with Egg, but have not made any sort of committment to it, other than a small insignificant refundable deposit. i also really like the innodyn turbine, but even though i have high hopes for this alternative, it may be too good to be reality.

watchin' and waitin' with ya!

RVbySDI said:

If small bore engines are not so prone to running low octane fuel such as mogas tends to be, then what fundamental problems are there in placing smaller bore engines with appropriate configurations to produce adequate HP in our airplanes?

Click to expand...

Propeller RPM is the main factor. A small-bore engine with more cylinders has to spin faster to produce the power we need. Since we are limited in how fast we can turn a propeller, that puts the small-bore at a disadvantage, as it would need a redrive.

Why are air cooled engines "better" than water cooled for aviation

Click to expand...

Air cooling is lighter, cheaper, simpler, and more reliable than liquid cooling. By far, the lightest and most reliable radiators, hoses, water pumps, and coolant are the ones we don't install. It can't break or weigh down the plane if it's never installed in the first place.

(Has anyone noticed how many water cooled high performance airplanes were built during WWII that we revere even today)? What happened to the idea that water cooled engines would work well in the flight environment?

Click to expand...

We started to use more horizontally opposed engines rather than radials. Liquid cooled engines allowed us to have nice slim pointy noses on our airplanes, but at a cost. The horizontally opposed engine is a good compromise since it is a lot narrower than a radial, but still allows us to use air cooling.

Some would argue that Eggenfelner's Subaru engines are more complex than the typical Lyclone installation, yet, so far, these engines seem to be performing quite well in the planes flying them.

Click to expand...

There is no absolutely no question that a Subaru installation is more complex than a typical Lycoming installation. That isn't necessarily a bad thing; I don't mind a little complexity as long as it doesn't break all the time.

Why are they able to use a small boxer 2.5 L engine to produce the needed HP to fly our babies? Something seems to be working with them.

Click to expand...

They use a redrive. It does work, for some of them. Is it better? I don't think so. Is it at least as good? We'll see... but I still don't think so.

We are convinced that the only solution to powering our birds is to stay with the "standard" aviation large bore Lyclone engines?

Click to expand...

If you took an engineer that had never seen an airplane before and asked him to design a 180hp aircraft engine without being prejudiced towards any particular design, he would likely come up with something that looks an awful lot like an 0-360, with probably some sort of two-stroke diesel not far behind. Everything about an aircraft engine is a compromise. The current aircraft engines are a result of all those compromises being tested and experimented with for the past few decades.

Hmmmmm, I am seeing a pattern in my perusal of this subject that is bringing up a non-technical question that I also seem to always be asking. Why do all of these engines cost 2 or 3 times more than an engine costs for any other internal combustion application?

Click to expand...

Economies of scale. If there were a market for a million recip engines a year, then you would have cheap aircraft engines. If you have a machine that costs a million bucks just to make pistons and you only sell one piston a year, how much are you going to have to sell that piston for to make money? What if you sold 10 million a year? That's the difference between your car engine and an airplane engine. Boat engines come in somewhere in between, and so does their price.

good info

Joey,
Thanks for the informative replies. I agree for the most part with everything you have said here. However, I do think that it should be possible to build a powerful lightweight engine that does not cost 1/4 to 1/3 of the overall cost of the entire airplane. I am wrestling with all of the afore mentioned ideas when trying to decide what to do for an engine in my RV9A. As of today, I still do not have an answer. Reading these forums helps a great deal in allowing me an opportunity to learn about what others are doing and thinking about their engine choices.

Hopefully I will come up with a compromise that will end up working best for me eventually.

RVBYSDI
Steve

Engine prices

Hi Steve,
I sold Agwagons and Agtrucks for a Cessna dealer in the mid seventies. By 1980 the prices had escalated from $35,000 or so to $100,000 and a Cessna Rep told us that ONE THIRD of the cost of the airplanes was product liability insurance!! I suspect the same is true for the engines,
Pierre

ps Buy a used 0-360 and rebuild it yourself to save a bundle.......trust me, if you can build the plane, you can build the engine. Another option is to buy a runout takeout and fly it for several years to around 2500 hours or more and overhaul it ONLY if it needs it. Many Lycs run almost to 3000 hours. My next door buddy has a Skyhawk with over 2800 hours and still runs strong and has high compression and low oil consumption too.

RVbySDI said:

I do think that it should be possible to build a powerful lightweight engine that does not cost 1/4 to 1/3 of the overall cost of the entire airplane.

Click to expand...

With the growing popularity of experimentals, we might be headed that direction. We already have a lot more options than we did even 5-10 years ago. I personally think you could do pretty well with finding a run-out 150hp O-320 and overhauling it yourself, perhaps with someone looking over your shoulder. This could be done fairly inexpensively and would run like a top on car gas.

On preview: Yeah, what pierre said. The last O-320 I pulled for overhaul had 3400 hours on it.

Pierre and Joey,

I have been thinking about the idea of building an engine for a while. However I am interested in fuel injection instead of carburated engines. I would like to find an IO-3XX that perhaps I could rebuild. As I stated I am just not sure yet what I will be able to end up doing.

Thanks for the comments.
RVBYSDI
Steve

Do you any specific performance goals in mind? The factory RV-9a pulls off 180mph at 6gph with a carbed o-320... That's pretty freakin good in my book.

That kind of performance makes you wonder if the extra cash and weight of fuel injection and/or electronic ignition in this case would even be worth it.

Not trying to talk you out of it, of course. Just thinking out loud.

Joey said:

Do you any specific performance goals in mind? The factory RV-9a pulls off 180mph at 6gph with a carbed o-320... That's pretty freakin good in my book.

That kind of performance makes you wonder if the extra cash and weight of fuel injection and/or electronic ignition in this case would even be worth it.

Not trying to talk you out of it, of course. Just thinking out loud.

Click to expand...

I agree that the RV9A should perform exceptionally no matter what engine is placed in it. However, my desires for what type-size engine to use are based on my ideas concerning utilizing efficient design and economics more than for extracting the most speed out of the airframe. I do not buy into the notion that using carbs and mags is a better fit for an airplane engine. True these are simpler systems. But they are not totally without their problems. If we wanted to always "stay with what works" we wouldn't be flying anyway. We would still be sitting on a horse riding to work and shoveling manure to avoid stepping in it. I fervantly believe in striving to improve things. I absolutely do not believe that carbed, magneto driven Lycosaurs are the best engine alternative to choose from just because that is the way it has always been done.

Ok, my desires for an engine:

1.) I do not want a carburetor on anything newer than a 1965 Ford Mustang because I think that component of engine operation can be more efficiently managed by fuel injection. It has been unrefutably proven over the past 50 or 60 years that fuel injection is a much more efficient means of providing fuel to an engine. I do not want to have to deal with carb icing for one but I also think fuel injection is much more efficient.

2.) Another aspect of the engine setup I desire is electronic ignition. Again, mainly for effieciency and managability of the engine. I believe in new technology, even if it takes the aviation industry 50 years to accept it.

3.) Of course weight is a primary concern. I have been going back and forth on whether it is worth putting a CS prop on the airframe or going with a FP cruise prop. I don't think this airplane "needs" a CS prop to perform and since the CS does weigh more I am leaning toward the FP. Just haven't made up my mind yet.

The weight issue has me looking at the differences between the IO-320 and the IO-360 (and now the IO-340). I have been informed there is a 12-15 lb. difference between the IO-320 and the IO-360. I am concerned about an aft CG if I go through with my plans to modify the baggage compartment as Norman Hunger has done to carry two sets of golf clubs (click here to see his mods). If I make the modification, the weight difference of the IO-360 would help with CG when the baggage area is loaded down.

4.) Fuel used is also important to me. Not only is 100LL getting more and more expensive to the point that I wonder how I will afford to put fuel in my airplane but it will also be going away in the near future. I do not want to have to concern myself with figuring out what to do as a replacement. I like auto fuel. I think it is a perfectly good fuel. I think Ethanol is a perfectly good fuel source also. In fact with its high octane level (120-130) I think it could be a good replacement for 100LL even. It does take more of it than gasoline to get the same mileage but it does burn cleaner. I think it can work well in our engines when they are designed for it. Because of these things I do not want an engine that is "forbidden" from using anything except 100LL.

5.) Another issue is price. Although I don't like the price of any engine package if I buy new, the difference between the IO-320 and IO-360 in price is negligable. The difference between the O v IO versions of these engines is not enough to keep me away either when I consider the conveniences I can gain by using FI.

6.) My plans for flying this airplane include flying into the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, etc. Given the additional 20 HP the IO-360 will provide if I go with the 180 hp version over the 160 hp IO-320, I lean toward the IO-360 for having the extra hp for getting out of high density altitude mountain airports.

So those are the major determiners for what engine I desire. The IO-340 sounds very interesting because it is lighter than an IO-360 while providing equal to or perhaps more hp. However, the requirement for using 100LL only has me concerned. I still don't know yet what I will end up doing. One of these days I will have to make a choice and commit to something. For now I will continue to evaluate all the options including auto conversions.

RVBYSDI
Steve

Re: ethanol, can someone who is a fuel expert verify - I have recently heard that corn based ethanol requires .9 to 1 gallon of fossil fuel to manufacture a single gallon. Why then, would we look to corn based ethanol as an alternative to our gas price/supply issues?

We shouldn't, it is happening beacuse of government interference, "fueled" by enviornmental wackos.

Mike

And an effective corngrowers lobby

Ethanol

Take a look here:

http://www.ethanol.org/PressRelease71905bhtm.htm

From the limited research I have done, the net loss position on ethanol is a political calculation more than a scientific one. The main assumption is that corn is grown simply for ethanol production and that the total cost to plant, cultivate, spray, fertilize, harvest and transport the corn makes it a net looser. This assumes that corn is only grown to produce ethanol which is a false premise. See here for what you can get from a bu. of corn:

http://www.iowacorn.org/cornuse/cornuse_10.html

As a member of a farm family, I have a biased view but I do not believe the net loss assumption. There will be a slight up tick in total corn production as ethanol use goes up but there is a large industry that depends on corn production that will continue even if you throw away the mash used to produce ethanol.

That and big companies, i.e. Cargill, trying to develop new markets for a product that they overproduce, and we the taxpayers pay their farmers to overproduce it! Crazy!!!

rgbewley said:

That and big companies, i.e. Cargill, trying to develop new markets for a product that they overproduce, and we the taxpayers pay their farmers to overproduce it! Crazy!!!

Click to expand...

Oh come on now. I grew up in a farming community. I know a large number of farmers. Not one of them would I think of as wealthy. Or, when it comes to politics very powerful either.

You city dwellers who have had little or no exposure to farming should not be so quick to jump to conclusions about political conspiracies by some "farm lobby". I am sure there are plenty of big boys in the farming world but farming is not like the oil business. How many family owned and family run oil wells do you know about? There is, however, a large population of our country who own and operate family farms who could benefit from an increase in the sales of their products. They have struggled with commodity prices for farm goods for decades. This could be beneficial for the smaller family farm out there as well as the few big boy farm producers.

This sounds like an awful lot of bashing for the sake of bashing. Fearmonging and conspiracy theories are not very constructive. They serve little positive purpose. It seems to me that in your eyes you see any change as something to avoid at all costs regardless of the situation. In particular, this change as something that will ruin your flying fun. I am pretty sure that if it weren't for changes in all of our lives we would not be enjoying life as we know it now. I am sure we would not even be conversing had the change in the working world not shifted from manual processing of information to computerized processing of information.

Our world does need a paradigm shift in terms of how we use energy. This includes the use of alternative methods for motivating ourselves around be it on wheels or wings. If there are more efficient methods of doing so why would we want to fight that?

Why don't we all use that 100LL as long as we can but also learn how to do something new that will not only benefit ourselves but the rest of the world too. Or, is it just a matter of "looking out for #1" that is all important? "By God, don't even think about taking away my lead laced hydrocarbon chemical compounds. I am an American and that gives me the right to do what I choose. After all, we are not like those Chinese over there on the other side of the world poluting themselves to death with their poisonous dust all for the sake of getting what they can from the world without a care in the world for what they are doing to it."

RVBYSDI
Steve

1) I'm one generation off the farm.

2) Look no further than the bloated size of the Dept of Ag to see how successful the ag lobby is. Yah, so its Cargill, ADM, etc, and not the small farmer that I'm paying for.

I say lets free the whole market and let price drive the market for both ethanol and oil. That's just a pipedream, but one that would leave me the tax payer a lot more cash for airplanes and flying.

keen9a said:

1) I say lets free the whole market and let price drive the market for both ethanol and oil. That's just a pipedream, but one that would leave me the tax payer a lot more cash for airplanes and flying.

Click to expand...

Well, I am not going to claim to have any expertise in this area but it does seem to me that the oil industry was driven solely by price for a large portion of its early existance. I do remember my childhood and how poluted everything was due in part to the tailpipe emissions from all of those internal combustion engines spewing out toxic fumes. I look at what is happening in China now without any "environmental wackos" restricting use of dangerous chemicals and I see America 50 years ago.

If price alone dictated our world you would care less if your airplane spewed dangerous toxic fumes as long as it was economical to operate. As much as I dislike these prices (and believe me I do), I still see the need for some level headed people having a say on how we use these chemicals. Without them we would have long ago been living with poisonous air floating over our homes and hangers causing all kinds of misery. We would have undrinkable water and land so poluted it would not grow any crops. It is much cheaper to disregard those things than it is to use our machines responsibly. That would be the world if dictated by price alone.

Our culture lives in the present. "The past is the past. We can worry about the future when it comes!" We are a short sighted lot who need a little prodding to do things responsibly. I am afraid that might have to come from some government regulations sometimes.

I am not so absolutely sure it would "leave me the taxpayer a lot more cash for airplanes and flying". We might find our money needed for more serious things like medical bills and paying for expensive food and water because of the rotten environment we would be living in.

RVBYSDI
Steve

Oh my. Well, as this is an RV site and not econ 101, I'll pass on the environmentalism other than to say, yes environmental rules are necessary. Rules are different that spending my hard earned money on someone else. I can't imagine how farm and oil subsidies have any positive effect on the environment, and I'm quite sure that if we closed the ag dept. and returned the cost to taxpayers, I would have more cash for flying.

keen9a said:

Oh my. Well, as this is an RV site and not econ 101, I'll pass on the environmentalism other than to say, yes environmental rules are necessary. Rules are different that spending my hard earned money on someone else. I can't imagine how farm and oil subsidies have any positive effect on the environment, and I'm quite sure that if we closed the ag dept. and returned the cost to taxpayers, I would have more cash for flying.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you are right and perhaps this is a discussion for another forum. This thread was originally started to discuss the ECI IO-340. I am afraid I have somewhat highjacked that topic for which I appologize to everyone. I would welcome any additional information on this engine and will refrain from deviating from the topic next time around.

RVBYSDI
Steve

Dept of Ag.

Just how much power do you think that less than 3% of the nations population have? That is what the American farmers are. The Dept. of ag is the dept that gives your kids lunch at a very low or (free) price. Poor me. Its the dept of ag that checks to make sure you don't get screwed at the gas pumps by checking the gas meters. The list goes on but all you hear about is how the rich farmer just keeps on getting more of your tax money. There are a few farmers that are able to take advantage of the system but very few and they are clamping down on them.
The main goal of the US government is to make sure that you have cheep food, and the way to do that is to sub farmers. If you paid a fair price for your food and cloths you would not have enough money left to bur any 100LL So lets not cuss the farmer with your mouth full. thats all.

From one who knows. Have farmed for 55 years

Do fiesty aircraft debates break out on agricultural web sites? Humm..

Jekyll

Back on track

I made a phone call today and found out ECI is offering an O-340 carbed version to go along with the IO-340. Also there are two sumps in the line up. One with cooling fins (which I doubt will do too much since there is little airflow there) and one without. I guess the sump with the fins is an inch taller than the plain one which may cause a problem in certain applications. The suggested TBO is 2000 hours.

HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJACKEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!


CAW
RV8 tail and wing on the way