Idris Francis Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Dear Tim, How fortunate you are to have three that work well. I had hoped for the same, but found otherwise. Accordingly I spend time documenting my analysis and experiences in the hope that they will be useful to others. I report what I find - the facts are as stated. Mine do not always work and they cycle from time to time for no apparent reason, And when they stall they reduce battery voltage to a level that can trigger slow throttle or signal lock out. All things, I would have though, that others might wish to know. As for "self publicity" - I have spend thousands of hours over twelve years exposting the lies and worse of the speed camera industry, not for publicity but to try to improve road safety, so I resent yiour comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Fred Keegan was the OP. I have to agree with Tim - admitedly I've only used one set of E-Flite retracts but I was completely satisfied - they function absolutely fine and are completely solid - no slop. Have you taken the matter up with the suppliers? Perhaps you have been unforntunate in getting a faulty set. All the comments I have come across speak very positively about these retratcts and I must say and everyone I've heard from has been completely staisfied. But any company can let out the odd "duff" product. Surely it would be better to take the matter up with them? BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Thanks. I accept of course that some users must be happy with these units, otherwise they would not still be in sale. I assume you all accept that I would have been only too pleased to have been one of those satisfied users, but the facts I stated are just that - facts. I didn't make them up. Some of the problems might be down to a lapse in quality control (something I was very familiar with in producing up to 10,000 industrial and wheelchair joysticks a month for many years). I hope you accept too that I know what I am talking about, as an electro-mechanical engineer for 52 years, and a RC flier for even longer, including fitting and using retracts since the late 1960s - though like many fliers with long gaps for various reasons.. In any case, these are self-contained units, with only basic connections to make and the plain fact is that, quite frequently one or other fails to operate, or cycles for no apparent reason. At other times seemingly because of a single click of metal on metal. On latter point I noted that at least one other flier on this web site has found the same, though in his case with more possible explanations given that it was connected to a complete system while mine are connected only to a Rx and battery. Nor do I have any motive, financlai or otherwise, in bringing up these issues - the failure of these units to work has already (it seems) wasted £125 and some 10 hours so far, with more to come and I would dearly like them to work properly. I am in touch about these details with the very helpful shop who recommended these units but as yet nothing has been decided about where to go next. Perhaps the next step should be for him or me to contact E flite. Especially if it seems that my experiences are very unusual. If anyone can help solve the problems I would be grateful of course - but the two responses so far amount in effect only to "mine work fine". Did no one else notice a less than snug fit of leg into trunnion and a distinctly sloppy fit of axle on leg and collet on axle? Does no one else realise that two locking screws in line are less effective than one? Did no one else find it impossible to use the leads as supplied, when retro-fitting in an existing wing? Does no one else find that sometimes one or both legs fail to move (and sometimes refuse to move until power is disconnected, and then reconnected only for them to work normally (which to me implies an electronic fault not a mechanical one)? Did no one else realise how appalling inefficient the lead screw mechanism is, and that it is because of it that a separate battery becomes virtually essential? If anyone disagrees with any part of my assessment - intended as construcitve comment rather than criticism - and can explain why (rather than just "mine work fine" I would be interested to know. In response to Tim, no, I didn't start this thread, I signed up only this afternoon when a friend referred me to this topic on E Flite retracts, knowing I am having problems. It might belp ifI clarify my position in general terms. It is through debate, argument, circulation of information etc that progress is made. Whether in politics, finance, or more importantly, model flying, everyone is entitled to his view - even when he is wrong - and everyone should be free to make his contribution because this is how understanding and ideas improve and progress is made. On that basis, if anyone can correct anything I have written - feel free. One possible option, it seems to me, if these problems are not solved, is to cut away the motor and the electronics and replace the lead screw with a push rod screwed and loctited into the thread follower, to be able to take advantage of the precise locking but with the far greater efficiency of a geared servo compared to the lead screw. Again the arithmetic is simple: Maximum torque imposed by two wheels about to enter the wheel wells is (in my case) 4.4 ounces by 6" x 2 = 52.8 ounce inches. That's 3.8 kg cm, or about 22% of the stall torque of the retract servo on question. However as the servo at this point is moving at an accute angle to the linkage even the worst case is significantly better than this. The main difficulty will be matching up the travel accurately to match the locking positions, but again because of the acute angle of servo travel it will be that much easier. And no problem with noise or a voltage spike triggering a down / up cycle, or need for a separate battery. . dealer from whom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bott - Moderator Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Idris if I've read this correctly, (there's a lot of words) then I would question the quality of your 1200 battery. If it dips below the voltage that you are comfortable flying with, when only 1A is being drawn, then I'd throw it in the bin. I think it's entirely possible that the spurious operation is down to momentary voltage dropouts when a servo or something else demands a little current. Denegrating a product on a single example without giving the manufacturer a chance is a little premature in my book too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The other point is to STOP RUNNING YOUR RETRACTS OFF THE RX BATTERY! Honestly, it's just asking for trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It seems that I am far from alone in finding these problems, see the URLs below. A problem mentioned on one of those sites is one I have not experienced as I have not put them in the air - vibration breaking leads, and perhaps other things. **LINK** **LINK** **LINK** **LINK** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 In reply to the moderator: I have also used a 2000 eneloop pack, same problems. I happened to take readings on the 1,200 one so that is what I quoted. If I were the only one experiencing these problems, and if I had not carefully documeted my findings and my analysis, I might perhaps have been a little premature. But the many fliers experiencing the same problems, and others I had not yet seen (such as falling apart under vibration) confirms to me that I am not being unfair. ( skip this para if not interested in the background) I recall I first became involved in joysticks for electric wheelchairs, in the late in 1970s (by the early 1990s I had 95% of the US market and 60% ofm world-wide, with the world;s first contactless inductive joystick control which, because it had no wiping contacts, did not wear out) Anyway, in those days most wheelchairs used El Cheapo 24 volt commercial vehicle windscreen wiper motors - with maximum efficiencies of less than 30% driving even less efficient worm gears! The result was large heavy expensive batteries - needing more power to overcome their weight, expensive controller output stages etc. They eventually saw sense (those that didn't went ouf of business, as they deserved to do) and spent more money on decent motors,with proper gears, saving more on other things than the extra they spent. The same applies here - the basic design error of these retracts is that all gearing down is done by the 6% or so efficient lead screw. That is why the batteries have to be bigger, the leads need to be thicker, the voltage drops and voltage spikes are worse and tthe risk of a flat battery too great to take. Even a separate battery for the retracts is not the answer, because if that going flat will results in a landing with the gear not locked which, the lead screw assembly cannot survive. The engineer's answer, as opposed to the blacksmith's is therefore to use efficient gearing, not the brute force of more volts, amps and kg. I am long past having any real ambitions as a pilot - other than to do a few ordinary aerobatics and enjoy building the models. My other main interest in R/C remains rhe same as when I built my first Tx in a biscuit tin circa 1954 - the electronics, the systems, the challenges these represent. For that reason I am simply not interested in making a bad system work despite itself, by using more volts and biggger batteries. This inefficiency is why, as many others report elswehere, their retracts struggle to lift wheels when the energy needed to do so is 2% of the energy fed into the motors - that's not engineering, that incompetence. And as before, the system remains marginal when the battery voltage drops. For all these reasons I will engineer a better solution - not because I have to, not because I prefer to do it the right way for me. Each to his own of course - I fully accept that others are more interested in flying than tinkering and if more battery power gets them airborne, that's fine. Except of course for the reports that these retracts don' withsrtand vibration very long. This is another link to others having serious problems - link. Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 29/06/2012 06:27:33 Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 29/06/2012 06:29:43 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ashby - Moderator Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I've just removed a few off-topic posts here. Fred K was the OP, not sure where the confusion lies. Incidentally, Fred was a great builder and contributor to the forum, he sadly passed away last year. Back on topic, I've used at least a dozen sets of E-flite electric retracts in various (mostly review) models over the last few years. I had one prob with a 1.20 size unit that malfunctioned and was replaced by HH but, apart from, that, they've all been perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bott - Moderator Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Idris I know it's not about retracts but I'm interested to know how you implemement the throttle failsafe on low battery volts. This sounds like it could be a very useful electronic add on between receiver and throttle servo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The simple answer on low voltage throttle fail-safe is thati buy them off the shelf, at about £!2 and have done since the mid 1990s when I got back into RC! My FLC equipment being analogue, throttle fail safe on loss of signal was automatic, set by a preset pot. Never having flown without it (and to this day being both surprised and concerned by how many do fly without it) I was pleased to find throttle fail safes available when I started to use "digital" gear. I can only hope that as 2.4ghz provides it regardless, more will use it. Even more pleased to find that some, though not necessarily all, units incorporate slow throttle when the Rx battery voltage drops - presumably by comparing it with a Zener reference. It has saved two aircraft for me over the years after I installed the wrong, uncharged, batteries. An Astro Hog went to slow throttle and as soon as I realised why I came in to land. Unfortunately I was a but too high and a bit too close and the idle was rather fast so I had to go around rather than dump it. Unfortunately on the second approach the battery gave up - but the combination of the Hal autopilor and low(ish) engine RPM saw it fly away serenely across Beulieu Heath at about 50 feet in a dead straight line! It landed without damage several miles away in a garden and the house owner brought it back to the strip. On the other occasion but for the same reason, my Kyosho Mustang taxied out fine, but then refused to rev up for take-off. Thank goodness. A word of warning though at least one of these commercial units will slow the throttle if servo signal disappears - but only if it has been there to start with. In other words, not if the Tx is not switched on or fails before the Rx is switched on. Bad design of course. Another problem, mentioned earlier, is that if the undercarts drop the Rc battery voltage due to high currents, that could send the throttle to idle at an inconvenient momnent/ Back to undercarts - there is a connection and it les in the question of what one would want them to do on loss of signal. The choice is necessarily a compromise, and dependant on the type of model and the ground around. But we would all want to avoid the grear retracting when on the ground, especially with the engine running, if the signal is lost. As things stand, the arratic behaviour of the E Flite units sometimes means that switching off the Tx leaves one leg up and one down - presumably because each has a memory, and transients on loss of signal sets them differently. For all of these reasons, and because with any luck the HAL should keep the aircraft upright on loss of signal I decided to fit a throttle type failsafe to lower the gear. If of course I ever use them in anger. , Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bott - Moderator Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Thanks Idris, that all confirms what I already knew - that these untis would be a good idea. I'm no wiser though about where to get one? I don't know of any radio that does the job, low throttle if Rx volts are low, either. Cheers Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Another note of caution - voltage fail safe is useless if used with higher voltage batteries than the unit expects, because by the time a higher voltage battery drops that low it is failing very fast. See below. SMC failsafes shows all failsafes stocked by Sussex Model Centre, but no doubt widely available. Some can be set for 4 or 5 cells Some but not all specify that they are triggered by low battery volts, at least one that does not say so in fact does and my guess is that all do. Either the Fusion or GWS units, both of which I use, fails to slow the throttle unless primed by a control signal after switch-on. All £10 to £15. Edited By Chris Bott - Moderator on 29/06/2012 19:49:10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bott - Moderator Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Some of those do indeed appear to do exactly as you say. What I'm most surprised by is that I had never heard of these units. I concur that these would be a very useful addition to virtually any model. I'm sure this could indeed be incorporated in receiver software too. Does anyone know if any manufacturer does this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I too am surprised that you were not aware of them, but I am glad you raised the issue because I realised this about 2.4ghz equipment - I have one Tx and 2 Rxs, instaled but not yet flown. When I set the fail-safes on all channels - as far as I know available on all 2.4 ghz gear - I left out the throttle fail safe module I would normally have fitted, but your raising the point made me realise that I should still fit one, for the low Rx battery voltage fail safe. i have not yet tried it but logically the module, being capable of over-riding the normal signal from the Rx should be able to over-ride the fail-safe signal from the Rx on loss of Tx signal. You never know, your prompt could save me another model! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Interesting postings on the American web sites I mentioned earlier, particularly further developments at **LINK** several others report simllar problems and their experences trying to fit them. On it seems that the slightest distortion of the frame or lack of perfection in the moving parts causes current to jump from around 300mS to well over 1 amp, tripping the stall circuittry Back to the fail-safe throttle on low battery voltage. A simple pulse generator with adjustable "on" period would provide the pulse needed to send the throtte to slow, if and when comparison of battery voltage with a zener diode voltage selects it in preference to the Tx pulse. But as this is already available off the shelf as part of most if not all loss of signal fail safes, just not worth the bother for users On the other hand, as suggested, it would be a simple function to add to any modern Rx and I would have thought a good selling point. Any takers? . Idris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 sorry - wrong link for the new info, should be Link Edited By Chris Bott - Moderator on 01/07/2012 13:23:05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bott - Moderator Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Hi Idris I've edited that link for you as pasting it direct had messed up the page. Could you go back to posting links as you were before please. As for low Rx volts sending throttle low as a failsafe built in to the Rx - yes definitely it would be a great feature. It could be set pretty much the same way as we set fail safes now, I guess we'd also have to have some way of programming what type of battery is in use. You have certainly unearthed some issues with these retracts. Of course there could well be many many users who have them in use and don't write furum posts about how they work OK. Edited By Chris Bott - Moderator on 01/07/2012 13:31:43 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Thanks Chris Not sure what went wrong with the (2nd, corrected) link or what I did that was different from before. As with opinion polls and newspaper comment pages, complainers are always more active than others! Just off - at last - to the shed to do some more tests, as per my comment elsewhere, retracts that are very sensitive to distortion through screws being tight are not really suited to hitting tarmac ar 20mph under 14 lb models! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I have just posted this even longer comment at **LINK** in response to a reader who found problems with moving parts that are too tight a fit. This of course helps explain why some users have no problems but others do. Thanks for your most helptul post, confirming as it does - and more - my findings. What follows is intended to be my final assessment of these units: As before, the fundamental design error is the use of a leadscrew, notoriously inefficient at transmitting power because of high frictional losses inherent in rubbing the two threaded surfaces one on the other. Unless of course a ball-bearing lead screw were used, though unlikely to be available in this size or suitable for the forces involved if it were. Nor does the small size of the motor help efficiency. Having now removed the drive motor and electronics (using a cutting disc as I cannot find a Hex key to remove the screws) I can confirm that what appears to be just a motor driving the in-line lead screw does in fact have a tiny 3 stage gearbox built in to the end. I suspect that in those small sizes with a small number of teeth efficiency is not too good, It is at least arguable that were the overall gear ratio and the thread pitch both twice as great the inefficiency would be significantly less and available pull significantly greater. In my view the speed could be halved to improve force, and still be fast enough (though as doubling the ratio would also double the force, speed would not fall by that same factor of 2) This might go some way to reducting the several problems which arise from such low efficiency: 1/ The system struggles to overcome friction in the lead screw and (as you mention) in the locking pin etc. My own test on a complete unit, done by holding a finger lightly against the wheel when it is being raised, shows that available pull before stalling fluctuates a great deal - a graph would be a saw-tooth. This is because of the less than perfect fits and surface finishes moving one on another. In my case the margin for error - the difference between worst running current and electronic trip - was so small as to be unusable, the slightest touch would stop the wheel moving. 2/ 5 cells instead of 4 made marginal improvements but nothing like enough to make it reliable. 3/ One time in 6 or so, one leg or the other would refuse to unlock and extend. 4/ Unwanted cycling of the controls, presumably because of the electronic trip being activated, occurred quite frequently. At times merely the metal to metal contact of a screw touched against the mounting frame would cause one or other unit to cycle. 5/ On 4 cells the maximum current when the legs continued to move, for 2 units, was close to 1 Amp. When stalled 2 Amps with a buzzing sound until the trip activated after 2 seconds or so. On 5 cells it was 2.7 Amps. 6/ Because such currents would cause terminal voltage of normal Rx batteries to drop to dangerous levels - loss of decoding, delayed recovery, and slow throttle fail safe activating - I would not dream of operating them from the Rx battery even if I could make them work reliably - unless perhaps in the smallest size - and in my view and those of others I have read, using the Rx battery is just asking for trouble. Part 2 follows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Part 2 ------------------------------ Having removed the motor and cut off its lead screw I could operate the unit by hand. It immediately became obvious that the transverse locking pin was marginally tight in it slot, on one side. This caused it to tilt, making things worse. It was then also clear that the sharp corners in the frames between the locking slots and the translition slots were too tight. There is no need for the corner to be sharp, so careful work with a needle file freed the whole thing up. Before doing so, even without the undercart leg fitted, pulling the linkage free from the locks took significant force, afterwards no force to speak of. That the fit of these parts is so critical helps explain why some have problems and some do not - all depending on the clearances (which of course have to be minimal because of the 30 to 1 magnifaction seen at the wheel) Having removed the drive system and freed up the mechanism I decided that marginal operation and unwanted cycling were simply not acceptable, and the obvious solution would be a more efficient motor with conventional gears. Fortunately I had precisely such a mechanism immediately to hand - a servo! Initial tests showed that even with a 7" leg and 4 ounce wheel, a bog standard 60 degree Futaba ball race servo would handle the forces involved in one unit. A 17 kg cm 160 degree retract servo would of course do so with torque to spare. Because the aircraft in question is a TopFlite Thunderbolt 64" one, already built, it would have been very difficult to retro-fit the long linkages that would have to pass between the wheel wells and the upper skin to reach the centre servo bay, and bench tests showed that such long linkages need to be very stiff to prevent bowing that would prejudice secure locking at one end. And of course tricky to set up because the locking pins are not visible when installed in the wing. Plan B was therefore to cut off one of the unwanted end of one of the frames and bolt directly to it one of the two retract servos I had to hand, so that the output arm of the servo was on the centre line of the retract unit. (A single nut and bolt will suffice as long as the far end of the servo is then supported in the wing.) By a stroke of luck I had a steel rod with a threaded end that matches the transverse pin and installed it as a push rod about 2" in length between the locking pin and the servo arm. These being proportional servos it was easy to match the travel to that of the locking positions before installing in the wing. I had to cut away enough wing skin to allow the servo to fit, but not that much and not difficult to rework. I could have used the frame and servo to reinforce the strucure but on this wing it does not seem to be necessary. I now have - at considerable overall expense in parts, time and frustration - undercarts which work every time, do not jam up, which lock precisely in place at either end and which have considerably more servo power available than they need - so much so that the servo does not noticeably slow down when lifting the leg. This incidentally confirms a point I made earlier, that the efficiency of the standard unit is of the order of single figure percentage points - because the servo arrangement is so much more efficient it wll not result in excessive drain from the Rx battery. As for future retract models - at least one of the small cheap units, working on much the same principle as the mechanics of the E Flites, are entirely satisfactory in models up to say 56" span. At least that same unit can have grub screws fitted to adjust minutely the play at each end. I cannot envisage paying E Flite prices for units that I then have to convert to servo operation after fine-tuning the fit of the parts - I did so on this one occasion because it was the easiest way out of where I had found myself. I have taken a few photographs that I could put on my web site if anyone wishes. If on the other hand E Flite decide to offer just the mechanisms without the drive system - as Robart do as an alternative to their pneumatic retracts - and at a significantly lower price, then they would be an attractive option. Especially if the frames were arranged to accept servos bolted on. All of this and previous postings are of course only my opinion, others are free to disagree, and I have no commercial reasons whateever for making these observations. Sorry if anyone thinks this long-winded, but I tried to make it complete in itself and as helpful as possible. I will put the same on the few other web sites where I have seen this subject raised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Powell 2 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Idris Thank you for your reports on these legs. I recently purchased a pair to install in a TopFlite Spitfire, replacing a pair of 20 year plus old servo operated BVM retracts with plastic trunnions which were not really up to the job. I have not so far installed them, but prompted by your posts and links I have measured the current draw of mine and by modifying/adjusting them in the ways you suggest I have halved the current draw. The removal of the sharp points in the transition from the locking to the curved track was particularly effective. I also lubricated the pivot pin with motor oil and the leadscrew and guide tracks with moly grease. It is curious that the allen grub screws holding the legs in place are only half as long as they should be. I replaced these. I do however take minor issue with two of your points. I believe the fact that the brass pivot bearings are not flush with the outer plates is intentional. It prevents the trunnions from actually contacting the outer plates, so the surface finish of these parts need not be mirror smooth. Even when screwed down tight there seems to be sufficient clearance on both my legs. Also, while I am not disputing your '6% efficiency' figure, I would draw your attention that such leadscrew operated legs are (or were) common in many full size aircraft. The DH88 Comet racer comes to mind (admittedly De Havilland's first try at a retractable undercarriage, and manually operated by winding a handle) and also the Douglas DC3. Overall though, I am constantly disappointed by the quality of so many model aircraft accessories. We should not have to fiddle with these fairly expensive legs to get them to work reliably. It is not just Horizon - every single screw on a recently purchased OS 46 AX was, I found, little more than hand tight, even before running the engine. And they are hardly inexpensive. Best wishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Thanks, Mark, sorry I missed your comment until now, I must have failed to tick the "notify2 box. On reflection, I am sure that you are right, that the brass inserts are slightly proud of the alloy frames t provide clearance between the frames and the moving trunnion Clearly what I should have done was to fit shims to create the missing clearance, not smooth down the brass. I agree about the 1/2 length locking screws - daft! (The all-metal joytsticks I designed for my 1970 Flight Link RC gear found a new life in industry and electric wheelchairs and are still in volume production - including for RS Components since 1977 - after 42 years - and they rely on knurled-cup point (essential) grub screws to lock components to pot shafts!) Since I last wrote here I have Googled "Ball race lead screws" and sure enough, found many examples. I would be very surprised indeed if - especially in a hand-operated retract system in a WW2 aircraft where speed can be the difference between life and death, de Havilland fitted lead screws lacking ball or roller bearings to achieve effiiency! They would of course eliminate that basic friction problem. I have since found yet more lproblems, but the summary is too long to file here so I have made it available at http://www.fightbackwithfacts.com/retract-undercarriage-and-connector-problems/. The same subjects have been discussed at Link One Link Two Link Three Link Four Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 08/08/2012 14:11:37 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Idris, this is the second time in one thread a moderator has had to edit your posts because you have pasted a long URL in. Please follow the instructions on how to insert links on this forum. If you carry on posting long URL's then next time the post will not be edited, it will be deleted. BEB Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 08/08/2012 14:15:06 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idris Francis Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Thanks and apologies - but in my defence, even the second time, I am unabe ti find here the instructions to which you refer! Please advise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.