|
 WORLD WIDE WEB — Less than 24 hours after a press release announced that Curt von Delius had shattered the Tripoli Rocketry Association's M-class altitude record, TRA Contest and Records Chair Tom Rouse has confirmed that the application for record status has been denied.
Early yesterday afternoon, a press release by AeroTech Consumer Rocketry brought Von Delius' outstanding flight performance to the attention of hobby rocketry enthusiasts worldwide. The flight, which took place at the Mudroc launch on Nevada's Black Rock Desert on June 20th, mated a 75mm Kosdon by AeroTech™ Animal-Compatible™ M1450W together with a light-weight 3.18" carbon-fiber airframe weighing just 76 ounces without the motor. The record application was rejected by Rouse because of the use of a barometric altimeter equipped with a Motorola MPX4100A sensor, a unit that is only capable of accurately measuring altitudes below 34,000 feet mean sea level. "As TRA's chair person for contests I have cautioned people over the years regarding use of altimeters that are not capable of operating at the altitudes desired," Rouse said in response to the press release. The application, which stated a claim of 44,000 feet above ground level based on the data collected from a blacksky ALTACC electronic deployment device, neglected to mention any additional altitude recording devices such as Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) systems, which were later stated to have been onboard. The application was witnessed by three hobby rocketry enthusiasts who were present for the launch and mentioned nothing about substantiating evidence from other devices. According to Rouse, after nearly two weeks passed, it was brought to his attention that a GPS system was on board. "Rumor has it, that there was a GPS onboard that had a readout of 40,000 +- [feet] at max altitude," Rouse posted in the comments section of the press release on Rocketry Planet. "Black Rock is 4,000 feet, so the rockets performance didn't split the waters of the Red Sea. The existing record is 35,300 feet for an M motor, so if this flight went to 36,000 feet, it barely beat the existing record." Acording to Tripoli altitude competition rules, the existing record must be beaten by 2%, which would mean by 706 feet for this particular record, or a total of 36006 feet minimum verifiable, to claim the record. "There is a movement to have me accept the missing GPS data almost two weeks later," Rouse added. "This data was not substantiated at the launch by people. I can not accept this in good conscience. People must follow the rules and launch rockets with the proper altimeters and have those results supported at the launch by witnesses." In the absence of reliable data acquisition, the original record of 35,300 feet set by Jim Wilkerson in September of 2005 remains intact. "People need to understand that it's competition," Rouse said. "And rules become even more important to follow."
07-02-2008 08:47 PM
#1
|
|
Freeform rockets advocate
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1086
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
I for one am very glad to see a controversial ruling by a Tripoli official that places the rules, they wrote themselves, above expediency or fun. Tom is to be commended.
If the rules need changing, this would be a good time to review them. If more devices need to be approved, this is a good time for that as well. If the existing device that was used and flown were somehow post flight calibrated to show greater accuracy than the "manufacturer's stated range", THAT would be worth noting as THAT data was properly logged on the day of the flight. There seems to be no rule on how much you spend to verify a record is accurate.
I think all TRA rules need a good going through by a good ole bunch of "Pink Book lawyers". Plenty are broken.
Just Jerry
|
 |
|
|
07-02-2008 10:16 PM
#2
|
|
Altitude Junkie
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 21
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
I am also glad to see Mr Rouse's decision. I think that the way Mr Von Delius went about this record was not in the spirit of the competition.
Ethan
|
|
|
|
|
07-02-2008 11:00 PM
#3
|
|
If pigs had fins...
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2711
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote: I am also glad to see Mr Rouse's decision. I think that the way Mr Von Delius went about this record was not in the spirit of the competition.
Ethan - can you elaborate? What aspect of this was not in the spirit of the competition. |
|
|
|
|
07-02-2008 11:36 PM
#4
|
|
Warp-9 Certified
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 25
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
There are statements in this news article that are erroneous, and Tom's attitude seems unnecessarily harsh and less than objective. I have been informed that others will be commenting further in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
07-02-2008 11:38 PM
#5
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3165
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Tell me what statements are erroneous and I will look into them, and if true, post corrections. I do not want to publish incorrect data. All of the content was either taken directly from previous posts by Tom or from email conversations, plus research done using Google.
|
 |
|
|
07-03-2008 02:03 AM
#6
|
|
Altitude Junkie
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 21
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Ok...didn't mean to stir up a storm, but...
What I mean was I didn't agree with how he did it. I could be wrong, this is simply my opinion. He submitted the AltAcc data and then waited two weeks to submit the data from the GPS instrumentation. It all sounds a bit fishy to me...as thought he knew the data was erroneous.
Maybe I've got my facts mixed up or haven't heard the full story...this is simply how I've interpreted it.
Ethan
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 02:06 AM
#7
|
|
Freeform rockets advocate
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1086
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote: There are statements in this news article that are erroneous, and Tom's attitude seems unnecessarily harsh and less than objective. I have been informed that others will be commenting further in the near future.
Now here's a bit of a role reversal! I am kinda taking the side of Tom Rouse and you are taking the other side! As I live and breathe . . . .
I do not fault the rocket owner for applying for whatever record he -may- qualify for, and as a rules geek I strongly suggest he revise the quality, through testing, of the data he already submitted.
I believe as the rules are written Tom is right the GPS data, if any, is moot now.
That said, he should refly it, use a boattail for god's sake, use a tower to reduce drag, wax the rocket body, and at least set the mass for optimum weight!!
Just Jerry |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 09:02 AM
#8
|
|
Rana sapiens
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2814
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Jerry,
Take a good look at the photo--the tower is absolutely bitchin.
As to mass, once you get into really strong burning high impulse motors, its nigh impossible to build light enough. You know you're going supersonic so its generally pedal to the metal.
In the FWIW, here is the Rocksim take on a similar flight using an m1450 file I cobbled together at release. There may be more accurate versions available by now:
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 10:17 AM
#9
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3165
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Well, I am still looking for the errors to be pointed out in the article but am still empty handed. I find it much more productive to say "your article is erroneous because of a, b and c" but find "your article is erroneous" all by itself to be, well, not very helpful. I wonder why the actual rocket flier hasn't shown up and said anything, instead of letting others fight his fight?
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 10:20 AM
#10
|
|
If pigs had fins...
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2711
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote: Well, I am still looking for the errors to be pointed out in the article but am still empty handed. I find it much more productive to say "your article is erroneous because of a, b and c" but find "your article is erroneous" all by itself to be, well, not very helpful.
Always more effective to present your specific issues when complaining about something needing changes.
Quote:
I wonder why the actual rocket flier hasn't shown up and said anything, instead of letting others fight his fight?
Some rocket folks are just not forum folks. I don't see this as a problem or an indication of anything else. |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 10:21 AM
#11
|
|
Certified Level One
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 18
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Tom has taken a logical approach to the situation. The rules existed before the flight. If someone wants to try for a record, they should follow the stated rules.
For those that want TRA to modify the rules, I suggest that you join TRA and discuss the changes on the members forum.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 10:27 AM
#12
|
|
Warp-9 Certified
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 25
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote: Tell me what statements are erroneous and I will look into them, and if true, post corrections. I do not want to publish incorrect data. All of the content was either taken directly from previous posts by Tom or from email conversations, plus research done using Google.
For one thing, the 40K+ ft GPS data was corrected to the launch elevation, and not as Tom implies. The affected parties will comment in more detail after a final decision is rendered (which has not yet occurred). There is a lot more information about this flight which they will hopefully elaborate on. |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 10:27 AM
#13
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3165
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote: Some rocket folks are just not forum folks. I don't see this as a problem or an indication of anything else. I don't either, but others could easily interpret it as a vested interest for the more vocal. |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 10:30 AM
#14
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3165
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote: For one thing, the 40K+ ft GPS data was corrected to the launch elevation, and not as Tom implies. The affected parties will comment in more detail after a final decision is rendered (which has not yet occurred). There is a lot more information about this flight which they will hopefully elaborate on. But even if the GPS data was showing 50K+ feet, if Tom's not accepting it, does it really matter?
I specifically asked Tom was the decision final before I published this article. I wouldn't have published it if he said that it wasn't, but he said it was final. |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 10:35 AM
#15
|
|
Rivet Counter
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 38
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote: For those that want TRA to modify the rules, I suggest that you join TRA and discuss the changes on the members forum.
LOL! Given the current ongoing cert rules flamefest, that's a good'un!
BTW- you owe me a new keyboard.  |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 10:56 AM
#16
|
|
Certified Level Three
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 485
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote: LOL! Given the current ongoing cert rules flamefest, that's a good'un!
I was thinking about suggesting a minimum of three altimeters so we far more closely mimic NASA.
you know this is all Kevin Trojanowski's fault for accidentally publishing the document. Although I really think he read it, carefully considered the TRA list mentality, and with a malicious giggle.... |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 01:48 PM
#17
|
|
Certified Level One
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 14
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
First off, THANKS JERRY for your positive comments toward the subject.
This whole mess is getting me pretty ticked off.
First off- Erroneous comments? WHAT!
I recieved the paperwork for the altitude as signed by Mike Brest, Steve Wigfield and Richard Hagen. The altitude claimed was 45,000 +-. (I'm on vacation and out of town, so I don't have the paperwork with me, so ALL comments here are from memory)
There was absolutely NO MENTION of any back-up devices or GPS on any paperwork I recieved.
When I investigated the ALTACC's ability to operate at this altitude and then denied it, there was a- "Oh, yeah, there was a GPS onboard but it registered about 40K" We didn't submit that info. Sorry. We'll send it in a week or so".
You know what? Curt still has NOT sent anything to me. Instead, it was sent to Ken Biba, who reviewed it. They claim that the data that he reviewed claimed +-40K AGL. I dunno since I HAVE NOTHING and its three weeks after the fact. Sheez guys.
Now, on to the subject of fairness.
1-The rules say that an altimiter must be used and data verified at the site. Neither was done. That alone validates the denial.
2- IF the people at the sight knew there was GPS on board and neglected to submit the GPS data, and instead, submit the HIGHER incorrect ALTACC altitude, and ignore the lower altitude, what would you think? Yeah, right. Nice guys HUH? Lets trust anything else they submit.
3- Its competition guys! Stop the whining and have Curt fly again. Follow the rules. Period.
TRA has a current M record holder that worked hard to achieve his record and I'm not about to take that away because a group of guys from a club whine after a fellow members attempt is denied. Even if the GPS data is correct (I don't know, I don't have anything) it would be denied because it was not part of the original record submittal and instead submitted three weeks later. To someone else!
4- Precident. If this is allowed, whats next? Will people start to send in record information weeks later claiming better results? Whats up with these people even asking to have this done?
Gary-
You were a victim of an unfortunate circumstance. You had no idea that the information was incorrect. If the rocket had indeed flew to 45K, WOW, thats huge for a 75mm motor. That record would have been shattering and inpressive.
Your insistence along with the others to aknowlwdge this needs to stop.
Can you imagine the discussions that would pop up if it was?
Kosdons propellant is super. Curt is exceptional. Fly again and let it be.
Harsh? I have tried to explain rationally for over almost two weeks and people won't let it go. Yeah, I'm a little fed up.
Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 02:03 PM
#18
|
|
Certified Certifiable
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 126
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Tom-
From the outside looking in, I think you're handling it the right way.
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 02:15 PM
#19
|
|
Freeform rockets advocate
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1086
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote: First off, THANKS JERRY for your positive comments toward the subject.
When I investigated the ALTACC's ability to operate at this altitude and then denied it, there was a- "Oh, yeah, there was a GPS onboard
I dunno since I HAVE NOTHING and its three weeks after the fact. Sheez guys.
Now, on to the subject of fairness.
1-The rules say that an altimiter must be used and data verified at the site. Neither was done. That alone validates the denial.
3- Its competition guys! Stop the whining and have Curt fly again. Follow the rules. Period.
Gary-
Your insistence along with the others to aknowlwdge this needs to stop.
Am I in reverse world? Thanks Tom. Just calling it as I see it, you just happen to agree this time. 
Any of several basis for denial of a record was met. It is actually that simple. A record attempt is supposed to be hard to do and hard to verify. This one was impossible.
Do not become frustrated. Aim high.
Gary, plant your flag on a new hill. This one has been invaded by the forces of truth and justice.
I for one consider this episode indicative of good ethics at Tripoli, along with several other examples, like a magazine that if nothing else is not a money pit and fraud, and actually comes out regularly.
Now if only we can convince Tripoli itself to de-regulate and un-tether rocketry, we could grow this pig of an industry.
Just Jerry |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 04:39 PM
#20
|
|
Certified Ferrocene Free.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 63
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 04:42 PM
#21
|
|
Certified Level Two
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 37
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote: Harsh? I have tried to explain rationally for over almost two weeks and people won't let it go. Yeah, I'm a little fed up.
Sorry.
Being a NAR member I am merely an outsider looking in but I am going to have to side with TRA here. Any more discussion is just silly at this point. TRA is taking the right stance. The rocketeers knew what the rules were going into this thing therefore the rules will be followed. I've worked on competition rockets before and you better believe I knew the rules like the back of my hand before I ever started. Not following the rules will devalue every altitude record TRA has on the books.
Besides, if you get denied the first time it just gives you the excuse to go do this crazy flight again. I mean, whatta drag. Aw shucks, I gotta go fly this great big M again to 40k+.
Tom, it looks to me like you are doing the right thing so screw the critics and enjoy the rest of your vacation. Have a beer or something.
-DAllen |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 05:56 PM
#22
|
|
If pigs had fins...
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2711
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote:
Tom, it looks to me like you are doing the right thing so screw the critics and enjoy the rest of your vacation. Have a beer or something.
-DAllen
Are you sure you're not Art Upton in disguise? (Reference to the famous build threads which concluded each step with... had a beer!) |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 06:10 PM
#23
|
|
If pigs had fins...
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2711
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote:
Weird video - 5 mins of my life lost for about 30 seconds of entertainment. I did however have to stop and look at the base girls on the towel just to be sure it everything was spelled correctly. |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 06:11 PM
#24
|
|
Certified Level Two
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 88
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Tom and TRA are correct.....
Submitting "data" after the fact is crap. Honestly, if you broke the record once, you should be able to do it again. I have worked on cars that have broken Bonneville speed records....but it had to be the average of two runs that broke the record, not just a fluke run. It was decided then and there, and that's that.
Plus if I were going for a record, I'd do it in style, in front of everyone, like at LDRS or Balls.
Rules are rules, and I have been burnt before too, just for the record (not in rocketry, but in my other endevours!)
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 06:13 PM
#25
|
|
Certified Level Two
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 88
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Beer is a pre-requisite, is it not? (crack/spew/mmmm!)
And Mr. Cesaroni, I laughed my ass off! Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 07:21 PM
#26
|
|
Certified Level Two
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Can I get my .02 cents worth of glory?
Perhaps Aero Tech hardware isn't strong enough to handle the frankie slow propellant??
That's why Curt had to use "The best quality" casings in the industry.
AMW.
By the way, I believe Curt "WILL" be re doing his flight, as I have just sent him another AMW 75-7600 casing.
Paul
President, Animal Motor Works Inc. |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 09:21 PM
#27
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3165
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 10:35 PM
#28
|
|
New Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 4
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
First I ask how many of you posting were at mud rock? Curt stated before the launch that GPS was in the actual rocket, before all present. Curt's rocket was the premier event.
Tom are you a NASA scientist or just butt hurt because Curt didn't use your hardware to set a new record.
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 10:48 PM
#29
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3165
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote: First I ask how many of you posting were at mud rock? Curt stated before the launch that GPS was in the actual rocket, before all present. Curt's rocket was the premier event. I wasn't at Mudroc, so I'll ask: Curt told everyone present that GPS was in the rocket, so why didn't he put that information in his record application?
Quote: Tom are you a NASA scientist or just butt hurt because Curt didn't use your hardware to set a new record. I don't see any smiley faces, so I guess this was a dig. Anyway, the fact remains that Curt couldn't use Rouse-Tech hardware in his record attempt — Rouse-Tech doesn't make AMW compatible hardware. So I guess Tom is a NASA Scientist!  Way to go Tom!
Anyway, since this was your first post, welcome to Rocketry Planet. I hope this isn't your last post, because every now and then people will register just to make a quick jab and then vanish. I hope you stick around. |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 10:54 PM
#30
|
|
Certified Level Three
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 485
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
You know for something that has no more real weight than bragging rights, people are getting real ornery about this.
Lighten up folks.
...or don't.  |
|
|
|
|
07-03-2008 11:58 PM
#31
|
|
New Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 4
|
It was a dig, is Tom the judge and jury. Why is he posting for all the world to see. Is he the chair? Then why is he coming to conclusions while on vacation? 
Oh buy the way Curt will break the record again for the M-class to prove a point. |
|
|
|
|
07-04-2008 12:17 AM
#32
|
|
NAR/TRA L3
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 350
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote: Anyway, the fact remains that Curt couldn't use Rouse-Tech hardware in his record attempt — Rouse-Tech doesn't make AMW compatible hardware.
Rouse-Tech announces AMW-compatible hardware
Friday, August 31, 2007
http://www.rocketryplanet....k=view&id=2033&Itemid=28
|
|
|
|
|
07-04-2008 12:25 AM
#33
|
|
New Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 4
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
So is Tom a NASA scientist?
|
|
|
|
|
07-04-2008 12:48 AM
#34
|
|
Rana sapiens
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2814
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
I don't see that any conclusions that couldn't have been made at the time of receipt. There is no after the fact, "well, but...".
That Curt announced to the world GPS was on board, doesn't mean a damn thing in my book. What rocket intended to fly to 40K feet wouldn't have GPS these days? Maybe it was just bad luck, but the rules (which if anyone ought to be familiar with it would be Curt ), states the requirement for 5 percent altimetry accuracy at altitude. The form also has a box for "other" along with the accompanying direction to submit a description of the methodology used. it also says 30 days within the time of the flight, and nothing about the right of appeal--so yea, I believe Tom is within his rights to act as judge and jury.
In fact the altimeter chosen was incapable of measuring a record setting flight in this impulse class with the requisite accuracy. A needless oversite, particularly if GPS was aboard. But still that. I had a friend fly what should have been a record at Balls a few years back, but lost the nosecone. I doubt anyone would have noticed its absence, but he chose not to file.
To me that's the epitome of good sportsmanship: being able to take your lumps and move on, not try to find a backdoor after the fact fix (or let others do this for you). ADDENDUM: apparently Curt has moved on, see post below. Kudos.
I personally applaud Tom for his decision.
On a related note, both the forms and rules are both looking a bit long in tooth--maybe it's time to bring these up to date to reflect the changes in technology (as when was the last time anyone used optical tracking?), including GPS.
There have also a couple of inquiries (here or on the original thread) re a list of certified altimeters and corresponding altitude ranges. This would be a great start to avoiding this issue in the future. I'm aware of at least one case, where an otherwise fine altimeter is disallowed for record use because of thermal issues, but am not sure this is common knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
07-04-2008 12:53 AM
#35
|
|
Certified Level Two
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Major oversight on my part!! I took it for granted it had to be Frank Slow, because;
"Frank never made a White Propellant"... How does KBA come into play??
I know I have all the formulas, and the tweaks that were done to improve them!
Perhaps I should publish them??
Gary, how do you call it KBA???
I legally made Kosdon Based propellant for him, and myself as Kosdon East. I also made most of his hardware. And got 90% or the motors certified.
Frank Kosdon "Never designed", nor made a 3" hardware set, I made all the hardware, and he bought it from me.
Garys classified White propellant, doesn't have enough ISP, unless he's making "special loads"??
The combination, should be called Aero tech propellant in AMW hardware.
What part does Kosdon play in this?
The question beggs; why didn't gary use his own hardware??? Maybe too many casing failures?
I wonder if Gary is paying Frank his royalties, as the agreement stated??
I will now get off the soap box, but I still can't understand why "gary" is trying to steal the spotlight away from Curt???
If anyone should be blowing a horn it should be Curt.
But he has quietly ordered another case, and will have better documentation, when he tries again.
Hats off to you CURT!!
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
07-04-2008 01:46 AM
#36
|
|
Rana sapiens
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2814
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote:
Last anyone had to say definitive on the accompanying thread re KBA by Rouse was from Tim Thomas of GLR who said that Tom decided not to pursue this line. Maybe Tom can elaborate if he chooses. |
|
|
|
|
07-04-2008 10:19 AM
#37
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3165
|
Re: TRA Records Chair rejects M-class altitude record
Quote:
How much is a 7600 case? Where do I place an order? They don't exist. |
|
|
|
|
07-04-2008 10:19 AM
#38
|
|
Space Cowboy
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 87
|
| |
