What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Mike Seager FP pattern diagram in KNOTS

az_gila

Well Known Member
Just to add to previous postings of Mike Seagers neat handout on pattern speeds/power settings for Fixed Pitch RVs.

I took the previously posted diagram and turned mph to kts to match my RV-6A instrumentation.

ohU.jpg


As soon as I've fixed my tank leak I'm certain this method will vastly improve my patterns. :)
 
Last edited:
While I am sure this method gives a great result, I am a bit surprised that no consideration looks to be given, to fitting in with other traffic.

In my area, I and other instructors tend to try and find a solution using "normal" speeds unless it is really unsuitable for the AC.

We try to promote 90knots on downwind, 80 on base, 70 on final until over the fence when we adopt to the individual AC. For IFR we try to stay at 100knots or above until minimums... all in an effort to have a smooth and predictable behavior around our airfields :)

I'm surprised that you think the 90/80/70 "normal speeds" would affect the pattern that much unless it is crowded with multiple planes. The speeds listed by Mike Seager are basically less than 5 kts different from your "standards" and would only affect the time in a compact pattern by seconds. If other traffic is forcing a "bomber style pattern" then yes, adjust speeds to fit.

Flying my Tiger I have had instructors use the 90/80/70 numbers and 1/3, 2/3 full flap for the three pattern legs and found that puts a lot of work on the pilot if he/she is making a tight pattern. You end up chasing airspeed and trim with little time for things to settle on the base leg.

The Grumman owners group (AYA) have a pilot check out program and they taught a two speed and half-full flaps technique quite similar to the Mike Seager pattern presented. It's less work for the pilot and allows more concentration on the runway and getting to a stabilized final approach.

With less than 20 landings in my O-360 FP RV-6A I've had trouble slowing down and getting a nice level downwind leg. I'm sure following the numbers in the figure will give me a much better pattern for my next flight after my tank leaks are sealed.
 
Last edited:
I know this is an RV forum, but I just can't help posting this fun video. There I was at 1,500' AGL (my usual pattern altitude), abeam the numbers when tower requested a short approach. I only have 20 degrees of flaps, too!

Going Down
 
Hmmmm, seems to be about 100kts out :D

We have to do nasty overhead joins, so when it is quiet, I normally enter the overhead at 2000' around 190kts with 23/23 set, back off to 12/23 crosswind descending to 1000', by end of downwind it is back at 100kts ready for base and leave the prop at 2300 to touchdown.

Love that MT 3 blade prop - works a treat......

I'll get my coat :rolleyes:
 
Exactly! At our airport a normal approach is not always possible. "Keep your speed up - you have two F16's behind you on a 5 mile final" or "extend your downwind for traffic" or "make a short approach" or "beware of wake turbulence from 737 landing ahead of you". Makes every landing interesting.
 
Exactly! At our airport a normal approach is not always possible. "Keep your speed up - you have two F16's behind you on a 5 mile final" or "extend your downwind for traffic" or "make a short approach" or "beware of wake turbulence from 737 landing ahead of you". Makes every landing interesting.

The picture and link was for a 'small' non-towered airport. Friends who have checked out with Mike Seager talk about the local small airports he uses.

For all of the local AZ towered airports I've landed at - including mixing with the F-16s at TUS - I can't remember when the tower actually requested all three legs of a standard pattern. It's a different case, in general just follow what the tower requests. :D

Square diagrams don't actually come out that way in practice. Not saying this is good, but here is one example of my pattern at our airpark. A longer final on a no-wind day. For scale the two major N-S roads are 1 mile apart. It certainly doesn't look square. :)

ohj.jpg


With reference to my previous posting on doing too much 'stuff' on the base leg, the time from the start of the base leg turn to being lined up on the runway is a mere 42 seconds.

PS Dynon and savvyanalysis.com does a great data logging job.
 
Rectangular traffic pattern? Why do you people still fly that way ;(
I don't any more. There was a knock-down-drag-out discussion a couple years ago on the Lancair forum about that very thing. The rectangular pattern / do what people expect / 3 degree glide slope / we've always done it that way faction lost in the end. The 1,500' pattern / rounded base / steep approach faction won me over simply because I can still make the runway if the engine quits on final.
 
I know this is an RV forum, but I just can't help posting this fun video. There I was at 1,500' AGL (my usual pattern altitude), abeam the numbers when tower requested a short approach. I only have 20 degrees of flaps, too!

Going Down

OK wait. Cool video, but are you showing your youth? I think my 1st memory was by Beck. (Jeff, that is.) But the original was even farther back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnyJ1D3yb7w

And thanks for the nudge; I never knew that Larry Raspberry played with Don Nix.

Charlie
 
Engine quitting in the pattern

I don't any more. There was a knock-down-drag-out discussion a couple years ago on the Lancair forum about that very thing. The rectangular pattern / do what people expect / 3 degree glide slope / we've always done it that way faction lost in the end. The 1,500' pattern / rounded base / steep approach faction won me over simply because I can still make the runway if the engine quits on final.

Reaching the runway if the fan stops is an interesting question.

I calculated my glide ratio from the furthest point on the base leg (at 700 ft) to the runway end - and this particular flight had a longer final with no winds. The glide ratio needed was 7:1.

The flaps would need to be retracted, but this was for the worse case pattern position. Would a FP RV-6A make it?

Downwind at 1000 ft is a 4:1 angle to the runway.
 
Reaching the runway if the fan stops is an interesting question.

I calculated my glide ratio from the furthest point on the base leg (at 700 ft) to the runway end - and this particular flight had a longer final with no winds. The glide ratio needed was 7:1.

The flaps would need to be retracted, but this was for the worse case pattern position. Would a FP RV-6A make it?

Downwind at 1000 ft is a 4:1 angle to the runway.

I think the glide angle needed to make the runway threshold from any given point will be totally dependent on the size pattern being flown which further emphasizes the fact that flying to strict speed values at very specific points in a landing pattern doesn't always work.
 
I think the glide angle needed to make the runway threshold from any given point will be totally dependent on the size pattern being flown which further emphasizes the fact that flying to strict speed values at very specific points in a landing pattern doesn't always work.

I agree, and the numbers I gave were for a typical no-wind pattern I would use at a non-towered smaller airport. In this case 3,500 ft from runway to downwind on a 1000 ft TPA.

Would I make it to the runway from the distances I mentioned if the engine quit?
 
Just an example: You returning to my home airfield on a typical Saturday afternoon.

There will be three C172 from the local flight school, doing TGL, using 90/80/70 and a pattern that is larger than needed (we just have to accept that the students need the extra time). There will be one or two AC doing IFR procedures, coming in at 100kt and usually going missed at minimums. And then there is you and another one like you on the ground waiting to line up.

There is an active twr and it will try to fit you in behind one of the cessnas on downwind and if an IFR-plane comes in the twr will usually tell planes on the downwing to extend until cleared by twr.

I am just saying that any "standard" being taught in my area needs to be able to handle the above scenario.

Yes, adjust to fit and do what the tower requests.

However every example above would give a larger pattern with more time on each leg.

I would still use the Mike Seager numbers in the OP if possible to slow down from my cruise speed to the pattern speed appropriate to the tower requests.

The major difference - both in my Tiger and my RV - is that I dispensed with the three-speed/three-flap "standard teaching" and just use two speeds (if possible) and just 1/2 or full flaps as appropriate. At some time you have to slow down :) and 87 kts and then 74 kts seem to be good numbers to aim for.

My landings got better, and easier, in the Tiger, both at towered and non-towered airports, when I switched to this method after the Grumman owners group training. Both planes are fixed pitch so the prop braking of a CS is not available and a bit more advanced planning is needed.

NOTE - this whole thread is about FIXED PITCH aircraft.
 
Last edited:
I think the glide angle needed to make the runway threshold from any given point will be totally dependent on the size pattern being flown which further emphasizes the fact that flying to strict speed values at very specific points in a landing pattern doesn't always work.

I thought about your post a bit more, and think the speed values at specific pattern points are not really the problem you mention.

Your comment is more based on what size pattern should be flown, and yes, a tight, close-in pattern is safer if the fan stops.


Note that the original diagram is not mine, but Mike Seager's handout of his preferences simply changed from mph to knots. Mike is the original Vans check out guy isn't he?
 
Last edited:
speeds for a 9A

I wonder how these speeds should be adjusted for a 160 hp Fixed Pitch 9A? OR if they even should?
I have been using similar speeds in the pattern..but try to get a bit slower on final..or it seems I use up an awful lot of runway.. but then, Im still learning this bird!
 
49clipper

No offense, but;

If I flew that approach, I would never get it stopped on my field or most any other grass strips I visit (Grass -2000') (guess its fine for BIG Long runways)
I use 1.3 Vso (72mph) for all landings, wherever. (Except of course places like Lambert Field STL, where they stuff a 737 in tight behind you. Has worked well for the last 10 years in the RV-6.
Jim AP/IA/CFI
RV-6

No flames please, just stating my situation/opinion.
 
Each Homebuilt Is Unique

Just to reiterate an earlier post: Use "Standard" gouge from abeam to final as advisory only - although it should be good to within a few knots. Use Phase 1 and beyond to determine what your particular aircraft "likes". And don't forget to account for winds.

My -8A likes 70 - 72 Kts IAS in the pattern on the AFS 4500 EFIS. But at Inyokern (IYK) near the Sierra Crest pattern winds between 20-25 kts are common. I'll increase power to maintain 75 - 78 kts but below 80 to keep a handle on energy management.
 
Note that the original diagram is not mine, but Mike Seager's handout of his preferences simply changed from mph to knots. Mike is the original Vans check out guy isn't he?

Yes, but go back and read my original post.
I said it is a good procedure to use when initially transitioning to a new (to the pilot) airplane.
I think Mike purposely uses airports that don't require mixing it up with much other traffic, so it works well.
My point is that pilots should strive to move beyond that and get to where they can easily adjust their approach based on what they see.... not flying a rote approach based on what numbers the instruments (ASI) say.
 
I have to go along with Jim here. If you use 74 kts on final, you'll have difficulty getting stopped on my runway. I use 60 kts, full flaps on final and the aircraft is still fully controllable. Not "mushy" at all.

Again, they are not my numbers, just the numbers used by Mike Seager, who has probably checked out more new RV pilots than anyone else. :)

One of the first things I noticed about landing my RV-6A over the Tiger was that the RV seems to have much less 'float' or 'roll' down the runway. Similar approach speeds, but I can turn off at similar locations with less, or no, brakes. Perhaps this is helped by the much lighter weight of the RV?

Your runway sounds like it needs "Short Field" techniques and numbers rather than what a POH would call "standard" numbers.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but go back and read my original post.
I said it is a good procedure to use when initially transitioning to a new (to the pilot) airplane.
I think Mike purposely uses airports that don't require mixing it up with much other traffic, so it works well.
My point is that pilots should strive to move beyond that and get to where they can easily adjust their approach based on what they see.... not flying a rote approach based on what numbers the instruments (ASI) say.

I would agree, and have said so earlier. The speeds are good "aiming points" but need to be adjusted as needed. The two-speed/two-flap techniques also a change from what other instructors teach.


However that does not seem to be what you said in your earlier #12 post in this thread. Do you mix up your comments with posts in other threads?
 
However that does not seem to be what you said in your earlier #12 post in this thread. Do you mix up your comments with posts in other threads?

Not in my opinion.....

You seem to agree that the ability to adjust is important.
The reason it is important is because the path to the runway threshold is a variable.
If it is a variable, the actual power off (or engine out) glide ratio required to get to the runway will also be a variable.
 
That *is* a smokin' version.

We may have to take this off line. (Though music really is a Recreational Vehicle).
 
I wonder how these speeds should be adjusted for a 160 hp Fixed Pitch 9A? OR if they even should?
I have been using similar speeds in the pattern..but try to get a bit slower on final..or it seems I use up an awful lot of runway.. but then, Im still learning this bird!
Subtract 10mph from the numbers shown on the chart above for a -9/9A. That's what Mike's chart for the 9 show. If You try to land a 9 at the speeds recommended for the short wing RVs, you'll be in for some interesting landings.

Again, they are not my numbers, just the numbers used by Mike Seager, who has probably checked out more new RV pilots than anyone else. :)
.

I've made this observation before, Gil: my landings got WAY better when I slowed down substantially below the speeds Mike gave me (the 9 version chart speeds). There is just too much energy that the long 9 gear legs can use to bounce at more than 1.3-1.35 Vso. Having said that, I would guess he teaches using the higher speeds to teach some energy management, to provide greater margin over stall, and to decrease the likelihood of high sink rates, all for the benefit of new RV pilots. I would further guess he expects we'll decrease those speeds as we get more experience.
 
Last edited:
I've made this observation before, Gil: my landings got WAY better when I slowed down substantially below the speeds Mike gave me (the 9 version chart speeds). There is just too much energy that the long 9 gear legs can use to bounce at more than 1.3-1.35 Vso. Having said that, I would guess he teaches using the higher speeds to teach some energy management, to provide greater margin over stall, and to decrease the likelihood of high sink rates, all for the benefit of new RV pilots. I would further guess he expects we'll decrease those speeds as we get more experience.

The speeds that Mike teaches are good RV novice starting points that should keep most people safe as the head off on their own to start test flying their new RV.
As already discussed, (and as you have found) there is room to make adjustments once a pilots skills have developed.
 
While this "standard" might be good for those new to a particular airframe, the technique that I have found works best is as follows:

Assess your energy state at pattern entry,
Adjust energy state to a achieve your desired T speed,
Land.

There are way too many variables in landing facilities to try box yourself into a "one size fits all" approach in my experience. My home strip is a 500' pattern and a 180 approach with plenty of time to get speeds in check before pattern entry, while my often visited VGT is vastly different with a roller coaster plunge over mountains to the west resulting in a base to final approach initiated at 230 knots 2 miles from runway centerline.

Standards are great, but you better be able to adapt on the fly.
 
I wonder how these speeds should be adjusted for a 160 hp Fixed Pitch 9A? OR if they even should?
I have been using similar speeds in the pattern..but try to get a bit slower on final..or it seems I use up an awful lot of runway.. but then, Im still learning this bird!
The fixed-pitch -9s do tend to float! Here's what works for mine. I get full flaps in early (on crosswind entry, or on the 45) and fly the pattern at 75 kts till I'm abeam the numbers. It takes about 1700-1750 rpm to maintain pattern altitude. This approach reduces the workload because you've done all your fiddling with flaps early on and can concentrate better on holding TPA and maintaining that speed.

Then I reduce throttle to maybe 1500 rpm abeam the numbers, but I'm not really looking at the tach--just enough power reduction to give me a noticeable sink rate, maintaining about 70-75 kts, with the goal of being about 400-500 ft agl when I turn from base to final.

I'm usually a little high on final, which I prefer, at which point I'm pulling power (sometimes to nearly idle) and trimming for a speed of 65 kts over the fence.

Ten feet off the deck and I'm a glider...go to idle and holder 'er off as long as possible. If I do it right I'm touching down at 43-45 kts.
 
Hi Doug,

Next time you fly, configure your flaps on the 45 as you said, then have your right seater pull the power all the way back and hold it.

Report back on your results.
 
I know this started out as a suggested pattern for FP RVs (of which I have one), but...

It?s interesting reading the comments about ?being able to reach the runway from anywhere in the pattern??

I was trained in the military in the last century and, during the piston engine phase of training, the emphasis was on making the runway from anywhere in the circuit. I still adhere to that dictum a bit when it comes to flying light aircraft, but I?m not longer anal about it.

And part of it comes from the realization that my time in the circuit is a miniscule portion of my time aloft. Like many here, I have crossed the continent several times ? in my case, north of the 49th parallel. Those crossings have included hours flying over miles of boreal forest, prairie, and mountainous terrain. And, except for the prairies, real, suitable, ?fly-the-airplane-out-again? landing sites were few and far between.

So, the question becomes: ?If my time in the circuit averages out to 5-7 minutes of every trip, why would I suddenly become focused on ensuring gliding distance from the runway in case of an emergency when it was not a consideration the other ninety percent of the time??

Given that most folks keep the downwind leg within ? mile ? 1 mile from the runway, the only problematic area would be extending the downwind and losing the ability to make the runway. However, given that the subsequent exposure to the possibility of an emergency would be minuscule, the risk become negligible?

Someone noted using 1500? AGL so that a landing can be made from anywhere during the turn in case the fan should quit. Now, consider that you?ve just arrived from a 2 hour trip from somewhere. Weather en route was 2000 foot ceiling and excellent visibility. You had a great couple of hours flying a thousand feet about ground. Would you now climb another 500 feet to get to an altitude that will let you ?reach the button in case the engine fails?

Are we unnecessarily magnifying the possibility of ?engine failure in the circuit? and the subsequent modification of our circuits to encompass what appears to be an extremely unlikely event?
 
I think I'm the one that brought up making the runway from anywhere in the pattern.

My understanding of the reasoning (which I agree with) is that (unless you're scud running or flying a Cub-class a/c), that's the closest to the ground you'll be, with the fewest options, and the least amount of time to sort them, for the entire flight. My personal preference, whenever possible, is to not start my decent until I can glide to the runway.

I've flown from central MS down to New Orleans a number of times, and whenever I called approach (typically 30mi or more away from town), they would always immediately say 'descend to 1000 ft, ...etcetc'. That meant either 15 minutes over open water, or 30-40 minutes flying around the edge of the lake, over a cypress swamp, either option at 1000 feet AGL. Not a fun time. At 5k-8k', there were some viable options within reach, but at 1k', none at all.

Why not stack the deck in your favor, if you can get your hands on the cards?
 
Someone noted using 1500? AGL so that a landing can be made from anywhere during the turn in case the fan should quit.
That was me. My usual flight profile is flying from point A to point B at altitude. Before launching off, I always jot down the information on the destination airport - runways, frequencies...and pattern altitude. I understand that 1,500' is not for everybody, but in my Lancair it just seems work better, regardless of the slim chances of my engine quitting in the pattern. I've spent 3 years learning how to land my plane - both at 1,000' and 1,500' pattern altitudes and all kinds of speeds. A couple more years and I might have it down pat ;)
 
Hi Doug,

Next time you fly, configure your flaps on the 45 as you said, then have your right seater pull the power all the way back and hold it.

Report back on your results.

I slapped my right seater's hand, put the power back in and made a perfect landing. :)
 
I slapped my right seater's hand, put the power back in and made a perfect landing. :)

Your right seater obviously can't follow directions. :)

The suggestion was intended to be light hearted, but I wasn't kidding about pondering the effects. I guess I've had more than my share, but I've had engines either lose power or quit more than once, and two were at low altitude.

There was a Bonanza driver in the area several years ago who had an engine failure while high enough that he had to spiral down to the nearest airport. Set up on final, put his gear down, and landed waaay short of the runway. I wonder if his standard technique was to carry power all the way into the flair.
 
That was me. My usual flight profile is flying from point A to point B at altitude. Before launching off, I always jot down the information on the destination airport - runways, frequencies...and pattern altitude. I understand that 1,500' is not for everybody, but in my Lancair it just seems work better, regardless of the slim chances of my engine quitting in the pattern. I've spent 3 years learning how to land my plane - both at 1,000' and 1,500' pattern altitudes and all kinds of speeds. A couple more years and I might have it down pat ;)

Nothing like having everyone in the pattern setting their own altitude. Must make it fun watching for traffic.
 
Nothing like having everyone in the pattern setting their own altitude. Must make it fun watching for traffic.

True. But let us know the next time you see cabin twin, or anything burning kerosene, fly a normal pattern at an uncontrolled field. :)
 
I know this is an RV forum, but I just can't help posting this fun video. There I was at 1,500' AGL (my usual pattern altitude), abeam the numbers when tower requested a short approach. I only have 20 degrees of flaps, too!

Going Down
at the home drone, we have a recommended noise abatement alt of 1300 agl for pistons on the south rwy so that's standard, and the C/S RV6A at idle, full flaps and a little top rudder will make that pattern and land at the threshold. My 182 partner was surprised.
 
Nothing like having everyone in the pattern setting their own altitude. Must make it fun watching for traffic.
It seems to me that before entering the pattern, one should have a good idea where everybody is.
 
Last edited:
1000' vs 1500'

Probably opening myself a can of worms here, but I seem to recall that 1000' pattern altitude was for piston driven aircraft while 1500' was for turbine powered aircraft. Granted 1500' might be more comfortable in case the fan quits turning, but mixing it up with the faster turbines could be quite interesting--especially at a non-towered airport.
 
Most fields, even uncontrolled, have a published pattern altitude. Makes sense to use it when you can. It's one of the things I check before going into any field, just like I check the reported barometer. They are rarely 1000' agl on the number.

I flew with Mike for about an hour to get checked out for my first flight. We had a brief discussion about air speeds since the 7 was fixed pitch and my 6 CS.
Those numbers are for the fixed pitch 7 and roughly apply to any RV. As mentioned, his simple procedures are to get newbies, who should place limits on their flying at first, like length of field, etc.... They are not intended to be fast and hard rules, but you have to start somewhere.
I think Mikes experience speaks for itself in regard to the effectiveness of his transistion training.
He knows what he is doing.
 
Most fields, even uncontrolled, have a published pattern altitude. Makes sense to use it when you can. It's one of the things I check before going into any field, just like I check the reported barometer. They are rarely 1000' agl on the number.

I flew with Mike for about an hour to get checked out for my first flight. We had a brief discussion about air speeds since the 7 was fixed pitch and my 6 CS.
Those numbers are for the fixed pitch 7 and roughly apply to any RV. As mentioned, his simple procedures are to get newbies, who should place limits on their flying at first, like length of field, etc.... They are not intended to be fast and hard rules, but you have to start somewhere.
I think Mikes experience speaks for itself in regard to the effectiveness of his transistion training.
He knows what he is doing.

One of my big take-aways from his chart was the use of only 1/2 and Full flaps in the pattern rather than the traditional 1/3, 2/3, Full that is usually taught.

This seems to have got lost in all of the other discussions. :)

It is a good work load reducer and is consistent with training from experienced Grumman instructors.
 
I came to my 1st RV-4 from a Globe Swift. In a Swift, you get either flaps up, or flaps down, just like the gear. Works fine.

The 1st -4 had manual flaps, and IIRC, I occasionally used partial flaps, but usually just pulled all in when I activated them. With the current electric flaps -4, I almost never use partial flaps in landing configuration. I fully extend just prior to turning base. But I also fly a very tight downwind, and a very short final, usually slipping to the threshold.

Partial flaps on takeoff is a good thing, though. I like the elevator ride. :)

Charlie
 
I know this started out as a suggested pattern for FP RVs (of which I have one), but...

It?s interesting reading the comments about ?being able to reach the runway from anywhere in the pattern??

I was trained in the military in the last century and, during the piston engine phase of training, the emphasis was on making the runway from anywhere in the circuit. I still adhere to that dictum a bit when it comes to flying light aircraft, but I?m not longer anal about it.

And part of it comes from the realization that my time in the circuit is a miniscule portion of my time aloft. Like many here, I have crossed the continent several times ? in my case, north of the 49th parallel. Those crossings have included hours flying over miles of boreal forest, prairie, and mountainous terrain. And, except for the prairies, real, suitable, ?fly-the-airplane-out-again? landing sites were few and far between.

So, the question becomes: ?If my time in the circuit averages out to 5-7 minutes of every trip, why would I suddenly become focused on ensuring gliding distance from the runway in case of an emergency when it was not a consideration the other ninety percent of the time??

Given that most folks keep the downwind leg within ? mile ? 1 mile from the runway, the only problematic area would be extending the downwind and losing the ability to make the runway. However, given that the subsequent exposure to the possibility of an emergency would be minuscule, the risk become negligible?

Someone noted using 1500? AGL so that a landing can be made from anywhere during the turn in case the fan should quit. Now, consider that you?ve just arrived from a 2 hour trip from somewhere. Weather en route was 2000 foot ceiling and excellent visibility. You had a great couple of hours flying a thousand feet about ground. Would you now climb another 500 feet to get to an altitude that will let you ?reach the button in case the engine fails?

Are we unnecessarily magnifying the possibility of ?engine failure in the circuit? and the subsequent modification of our circuits to encompass what appears to be an extremely unlikely event?

EXACTLY!!!
 
I wonder how these speeds should be adjusted for a 160 hp Fixed Pitch 9A? OR if they even should?
I have been using similar speeds in the pattern..but try to get a bit slower on final..or it seems I use up an awful lot of runway.. but then, Im still learning this bird!
Granted I have a touch less than 100 hrs on my -9A, but I find using the chirps of the Dynon AoA from base and down final gives me an approach speed in the region of 55KIAS until over the fence, then power goes to idle. Usually down and stopped in under 1000' if I get it right, without using much brake on a 2* uphill runway.
 
There is only one correct traffic pattern technique to use depending on what primer was used in the build.
 
Back
Top