flat reamers

A forum to discuss the arcane art of making uilleann pipes, reeds, and set maintenance.

Moderators: the plod, dropkick

ttoberer
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:11 pm
Location: omaha, nebraska

flat reamers

Post by ttoberer » Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:08 pm

hi everyone! I wanted to ask some of the more experienced makers on the forum if any use flat stock reamers. I know they are generally frowned upon, but they are much easier to make. I am trying to get back into this hobby, but new tooling is always needed and turning reamers is such a long, finicky, somtimes disheartening procedure. Davy, I remember reading somwhere that you use flatstock reamers and have obviously had success with it, can you give us any tips? my first reamers are milled from A-2 steel, I may seek to revive some older tooling if I can ever come up with a workable design. thanks in advance, Tim

User avatar
Sam
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:21 pm

Post by Sam » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:30 pm

We had a "full and frank discussion" about this on the other forum. Have a search for it!

Me and Peter use flatstock, D bit and fluted round reamers. I must say that for tone of finished instrument it's really hard to call, the best sounding flat chanters I've ever heard have been made on Peter's breathtakingly thin flatstock flat reamers. For "same every time" reaming you can't beat D bit or fluted reamers. For tuning a bore you can't beat having LOTS of reamers hanging around.

If you're using flat stock use thick enough stuff for it to need thinning where you ream the throat, so the reamer is effectively square for a few inches.

I made some out of 4 or 5mm stock (sorry can't remember) for rough reaming on the lathe, though aiming at the correct profile for throat-to-bell concert chanter and flat chanter (no complex taper - leaving that to the finishing reamers). They ream like lightening. I reamed some prototype B regs with one which were so good that it has become the "B reg reamer". And so I can't aggressively sharpen it on the grinder - damn!

I can't imagine reaming a concert chanter or definitely never a bass regulator without a D or fluted reamer. But someone out there probably does it!

billh
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:12 am
Location: skerries-by-the-sea
Contact:

Post by billh » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:04 pm

Hi Tim, Sam...

Sam certainly has gotten good results with flat stock reamers. I don't have much firsthand experience with them - I never really saw the advantage to making them. If you have no access to a metal lathe then the pros and cons may look different from your perspective, but with a metal lathe I haven't found D reamers to be that difficult to make. They can be tedious, in that the more accurate you strive to be, the longer it will take, but surely that is a given for all reamer styles.

That disclaimer said, I'll point out one thing that needs to be borne in mind when making flat reamers, independent of any pros and cons to their effectiveness in actual use. That is that the profile of the flat reamer, as drawn on the flat stock, is not the same as the profile of the bore that it will cut. This is because the reamer will cut on the diagonal, and if you work out the math you will see that the increase in width along the diagonal, relative to the nominal "width" to which you cut your flat stock, gets proportionally larger as you approach the narrow end of the reamer. If as Sam suggests you use thick stock and end up with a square section reamer at the top, the actual bored diameter will be sqrt(2) times the width of the stock, whereas at the wider end of the reamer it will approach the stock width. This is true even if you "relieve" the edge of the reamer so that only two diagonal edges are in contact with the bore.

The end result will be a bore that is somewhat more concave than your "2-d" reamer shape would suggest. That is, a perfectly triangular flat reamer will not cut a perfect cone, but will instead cut a somewhat flaring shape. You can of course correct for this effect using the Pythagorean Theorem but the problem becomes more difficult if as Sam suggests you are thinning the flat stock at the throat end.

For my part, if you ever decide to try making D reamers again I'd be happy to make long-distance suggestions.

Best regards,

Bill

ttoberer
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:11 pm
Location: omaha, nebraska

Post by ttoberer » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:01 pm

thanks for the advice. im guessing the other forum you mean is the chiff and fipple? ill look there. ive started making a set of smallpipes just to get back my old chops but, uilleann is hopefully not far off. im working on getting a dividing head which will hopefully make d reamers a little less intimidating and give me more options on how to finish them. also, I have long thought about making a set of tuning reamers. brad angus talks about a set he uses to fine tune or "cook" his chanters. he descrbes "forging them out of scrap"not exactly sure what he uses, but sounds like it may be a good way to do it. turning them would also work but would be more time consuming. i may try both ways. Tim

billh
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:12 am
Location: skerries-by-the-sea
Contact:

Post by billh » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:49 am

Hi Tim,

To what use would you envision putting your dividing head? I don't see much use for it in making D reamers, offhand...

A micro-mill is helpful for cutting the reamer from round section to D section - it can be done with a wet grinder or a hacksaw but either method is tedious compared to even the smallest mill. (You are likely to have insurmountable reamer support/flexing problems if you attempt to mill it in the lathe).

If you are thinking of using 'tuning reamers' you'll need to assemble an extensive and accurate set of bore gauges (which is a good idea anyway). It makes much more sense IMO to work "to a known pattern", at least until you have loads of experience, rather than experimentally carving out loads of little lumps from the bores of sacrificial chanters. While it's a reasonable way to work for an experienced maker (i.e. applying tuning reamers in stages, based on the chanter's subsequent changes in tuning and response), and *may* be the way some (but not all) of the old makers did it, it presumes an intimate knowledge of how to apply the tuning reamers in order to achieve a desired result. That information is not something you can get from books, or the internet, and I am not sure that one lifetime is long enough to obtain it if you are working in isolation. Furthermore I doubt that even those living makers who lay claim to such a method would be able to describe the process in words.

One of the key advantages of D reamers over commercially manufactured multi-flute reamers is the fact that you can make exactly what you want, within the limits of your own skill, and are not constrained to a straight conical profile. (The same could be said of flat reamers, subject to the various pros and cons of their manufacture and application).

best regards,

Bill

ttoberer
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:11 pm
Location: omaha, nebraska

Post by ttoberer » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:21 am

bill, thanks for your concern. I guess I was thinking more of using the dividing head in this case for layout. it would seem dificult to mill away half the reamer without some sort of dividing attachment. as you know going over this point would ruin all the accuracy we slave for in turning these things. I am currently trying to make a riser block to mount a cheap chinese spin index to my lathe as a sort of dividing tailstock. this may sound a little strange, but is a cheap solution I came up with to add dividing capabilities to the lathe. I have a simple toolpost drilling milling attachment I made. this setup would hold the workpeice in place for milling with the toolpost and also allow a cutter to be fed with the leadscrew, if a live center was placed in the headstock. not that I want to attempt to mill a reamer with this fixture as it wont be that ridgid, but for routing out key slots and drilling toneholes it should be very useful as well as layout. as for the tuning reamers Im not pretending to have the knowledge to bore tune a rough chanter and I plan on working closely from known dimensions, but having a set of spoon augers or tuning reamers would greatly expand the potential to experiment with new designs and try to fix my own troubled chanters. thanks for all the help, you are a real pillar of support on this forum! Tim

ttoberer
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:11 pm
Location: omaha, nebraska

Post by ttoberer » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:31 am

i forgot to add, I have a set of bore gages I made out of styrene plastic about 50 to 75, in increments of .05 in. in the small sizes. these little trapezoids slot into a groove i filed in the end of a long brass rod. they seem to work well as long as the stay on straight. this is one of the most tedious tools I have ever made, but hopefully worth it! obviously this is one of the most important jobs an uilleann pipemaker does. is there anything commercially made that does a good job of measuring pipe bores accurately? I have thought of using a small hole gauge attached to a long rod, then you cold just adjust the probe for the size you wanted. not sure how well that would work. Tim

User avatar
John Mulhern
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:15 pm
Location: Riverside, Calif.
Contact:

Post by John Mulhern » Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:58 am

If ya do try using small hole gages, I'd definitely only use the full ball contact type. Those half ball ones are intended to measure slots in metal also & seem kinda sharp...a bit scary around wood.
I've only used s.h. gages for measuring an old Hardie GHB chanter bore, which was composed of two straight tapers, and inside which they could reach the start & end points. They did an accurate job, limited only by their short reach (approx 3 inches). Adding a long extension shank might work...dunno. It'd have to be a nice fit over the knurled gage handle, and with the more slender taper of an UP bore, the extension's handle couldn't be very thick. Factor in a set screw or two, and things would be getting tight. Also factor in that the gage's handles are different diameters, so at leat 2 extensions would need to be made. I suppose a stop with a thumbscrew lock could be adapted to butt against the bell end. Ebay always has nice old Brown & Sharpe or Starrett full ball gages reasonably priced, but it may be less work in the long run to just make some dedicated plastic gages. Probably safer to the wood, too.

billh
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:12 am
Location: skerries-by-the-sea
Contact:

Post by billh » Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:13 am

ttoberer wrote: I guess I was thinking more of using the dividing head in this case for layout. it would seem dificult to mill away half the reamer without some sort of dividing attachment. as you know going over this point would ruin all the accuracy we slave for in turning these things.
I still don't see the need for layout of that sort when making a D reamer... in practice you don't want to get that close to the "50%" line when milling the reamer, you want to allow plenty of extra for finishing the flat after milling, and for resharpening. Having a D reamer that's slightly more than 50% thickness produces a slight negative rake but this is harmless and actually helpful for many pipemaking timbers such as ebony.

If you try and scribe a light line at the centerline, using a dividing head, you probably won't be able to see it anyway, when the reamer is clamped to the milling table, and if the line is deeper than that, it will interfere with your cutting edges - you want to keep that part of the reamer as unscratched as possible. Besides, obtaining an indexing head for a 180 degree division seems like overkill to me. You're likely to get more error due to height adjustment of your scribing tool!

I clamp the reamer to the milling bed and use shims to "level" the unmilled reamer so that it is not significantly bent and so that its axis is level with the milling bed. For the purposes of "stock removal" which is all that is required here, that gives sufficient accuracy. If/when in doubt you can measure the reamer thickness as you go, to ensure that you have a comfortable margin before the halfway mark.
I am currently trying to make a riser block to mount a cheap chinese spin index to my lathe as a sort of dividing tailstock. this may sound a little strange, but is a cheap solution I came up with to add dividing capabilities to the lathe. I have a simple toolpost drilling milling attachment I made. this setup would hold the workpeice in place for milling with the toolpost and also allow a cutter to be fed with the leadscrew, if a live center was placed in the headstock.
I don't see why you'd want a live center in this case, as the work would not be spinning.
not that I want to attempt to mill a reamer with this fixture as it wont be that ridgid, but for routing out key slots and drilling toneholes it should be very useful as well as layout.
For key slots a simple homemade arrangement for securing the chuck should work just as well or better. I don't use an indexing head for key slots, I just secure the chuck.

If money is a consideration I'd suggest saving the pennies for a micro-mill and making do with something simpler instead of even a Chinese-made indexing attachment.
as for the tuning reamers Im not pretending to have the knowledge to bore tune a rough chanter and I plan on working closely from known dimensions, but having a set of spoon augers or tuning reamers would greatly expand the potential to experiment with new designs and try to fix my own troubled chanters. thanks for all the help, you are a real pillar of support on this forum! Tim
You're welcome! And I agree about the spoon augers/tuning reamers adding a lot of versatility - provided your bore measurement gear is up to the task.

My own experience has been that the styrene probes are of limited accuracy. For one thing, they don't have much stiffness, and they are not very useful for obtaining "minor axis" data. I also am of the opinion, having used several types and compared my own data to published data from "multi-end" probe techniques, that removable plastic probe ends are less reliable in most people's hands than separate gauges cut to length. Every probe technique has its pitfalls of course - cylindrically ended probes can give only minor axis, for instance, thus separate oval-ended probes are a desirable addition to the kit.

Given the relatively small sizes of some of the bore perturbations that seem to be of interest, I think we should be aiming for a measurement accuracy/reproducibility of at least 0.03mm diameter and +/- 0.5mm insertion depth, and I have a hunch that even this is a bit rough, it would be advantageous to obtain 0.01mm diametrical accuracy although this seems to be quite difficult. (Since wood moves this much with humidity changes, it means that noting down the temperature and relative humidity when one takes measurements is also a good idea).

That may sound like crazy overkill to some readers, but I think that if you are trying to do any "experimental" bore work with spoon augers, and are hoping to get good reproducibility, such accuracy is in fact helpful. It doesn't mean that good results can't be obtained without measurement, but it makes good resuilts easier to reproduce and communicate to others.

Best regards,

Bill

edited to fix typo in suggested accuracy figures
Last edited by billh on Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sam
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:21 pm

Post by Sam » Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:16 am

I agree with Bill, esp that I wouldn't like to try to copy exactly an existing bore using flat reamers. To be honest this is something I'd do very rarely in any case.

It is possible to make D bit reamers on a ML8 woodturning lathe with a compound slide, I've done it. It takes a long time to get real accuracy to an existing chart though, the last 0.1mm or so being taken off with abrasive paper! Grinding the waste away is a MASSIVE pain in the arse too. If you can afford and have space for a milling machine get one.

Tuning eg a reg with reamers is not really difficult to explain. If you want it sharper ream it more. If you want the top notes sharper ream more out above them. If you want to sharpen the D on a bari reg take some out meat above it. It gets a bit more complicated with a chanter though. Found out recently through experiment - with a given reed the second octave can be flattened by over-reaming the chanter.

The multi flute reams we have were made in house. I think they have a complex taper - they were made originally as flute reamers and now find a use up the bottom of concert chanters. Except the 3 bladed one.

I think the main advantages with a flatstock reamer is that they ream very fast and are easy to sharpen and are very easy to make. The way Bill works with step boring means that ragging out the rough with a flat reamer is not really an advantage for him.

Many ways to skin the old cat there!

billh
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:12 am
Location: skerries-by-the-sea
Contact:

Tooling

Post by billh » Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:55 am

Sam wrote: Many ways to skin the old cat there!
Yep!

What you said makes a lot of sense Sam, especially the observation about the correspondances between regulator rushing and bore tuning. As you also infer, the second octave is the most obvious thing that complicates matters. Also, when one gets more nitpicky, tuning changes tend to result in changes in tone and responsiveness too, so the balancing act gets complicated fast.

I forgot to say, regarding gauges, that I use small hole gauges to measure the bottoms of concert pitch chanters and bass regulators, since I haven't made Delrin gauges larger than 12mm so far. I made a Delrin extension handlw with a press-fit socket that works OK too, so Tim's idea is workable. The small hole gauges I have, fortunately, don't present any sharp edges so they seem safe enough if handled with care - they are also the best thing, in my experience, for measuring tonehole diameters. If you were in a museum setting and the curator gave you the evil eye you could put a latex or vinyl sleeve over the end of the gauges, since in use you measure the outside of the gauges with a caliper or micrometer.

Which reminds me of another thing - if you go down the "measurement road", you'll soon discover the limitations of calipers, especially digital ones... they do drift, and even when frequently re-zeroed the manufacturer's stated accuracy is usually +/- 0.02mm or 0.03mm. For the cheaper ones I suspect that is optimistic - I've been told that the 200-300 euro ones are better but I haven't forked out the money to find out.

What I use instead, for measuring the diameters of my delrin probe ends, and for taking readings from the small hole gauges, is a factory calibrated micrometer with a ratchet. Mine has a vernier and so is good to 0.001mm (a thousandth of a mm), but 0.01mm would be fine if reproducible. The ratchet is important when measuring delrin probes and small hole gauges because both are flexible - the ratchet ensures that the same contact pressure is brought to bear each time a measurement is taken, greatly improving consistency. I think I paid 150 euro or so for mine, but it produced an immediate visible improvement in the reproducibility and "smoothness" of my measurements.

Best regards,

Bill

Davy Stephenson

Post by Davy Stephenson » Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:14 am

I would like to add.

If you make any given flat reamer from high speed steel or gauge plate, also know as flat stock, you will have an advantage over ones made from mild steel, the former are much more resistant to twisting, which is very important because, once a reamer has twisted out of line the true measurements will start to vary, and reamers made from these materials need to be tempered or hardened to the required toughness, in order of getting the very best from them.

For any given cone use a series of these in order of removing the waste material from within without heating up the timber, if this occurs the timber will dry out faster on the inside quicker than he outside and you will have lots of trouble controlling any fine measurements you have set into the instrument, as billh says step drilling is a way to remove most of the waste, but not neededf you have good reamers.

when I say use a series of diferent tapers I mean, you can use any of your reamers that you would for any other chanter, C#, B, Bb etc, these all have a differing rates of taper, you need to remove timber from the bore at different areas of the bore, top middle and bottom, this will be the case if you use three with different rates, the rate need only be very small and you will only ever need a dozen for the job in hand and one last reamer to set the final sizes, and a total of six for any given bore.

If you are going to great lengths and reaming right down to thousands of an inch then you are wasting your time, why, because an hour after you have done the reaming, any type of timber is going to move much more than that and will continue to do so at differing times of year throughout the seasons, it is totally unregulatory, unless you have every chanter back every season to re-whipe the bore with your reamers, all you can do is work as close to the finished sizes as you can.

If timber is properly seasoned this will limit the amount it moves, but as most timber experts will tell you, woods like ebony, blackwood, lignum and many similar high resin content timbers are never fully seasoned in larger sizes, the very nature of the timber limits the amount of moisture, oils that will be lost in a given period, and is very hard to judge just how much it will shrink move in the life of an instrument, this is why any chanter shouldbe a year in the making, turning out the blank, drilling it to let air inside, let it settle, ream the bore let it settle, turn and finish it etc.

If you have never used flat reamers before I would advise you at least try, because the route of multi tapered reamers are not only notoriously expensive, hard to re-sharpen and less effective overall at controling any fine settings you need, and if you are relying on them for depth settings to any given part of a cone or bore, once you re-sharpen them, you have lost those settings for good.

Flat reamers can be made by anyone, with a file or angle grinder if you have one, go experiment until you get good at it.

ttoberer
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:11 pm
Location: omaha, nebraska

Post by ttoberer » Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:41 pm

wow, lots of good info to digest here. bill, let me clarify about the use of the live center. this would be located in the headstock and the work would be held in place by a three jaw chuck mounted on the index which in this case would be the tailstock. with this setup the spindle could move and the lead screw would be engaged which would allow the milling cutter on the toolpost to be fed by the lead screw. quite a mouthful there. this just creates more options for doing things. I have thought for a long time that somone needs to design the ultimate bagpipemakers lathe. im sure it would be some sort of ornamental lathe with a large thru hole in the spindle.fully outfitted for wood and metal turning. I have a logan that I am still trying to outfit for the job. anyway, back to skinning the cat. one advantage I can see with flat reamers is that as you sharpen them the dimensions would fairly effectively be preserved, although knowing exactly what thay are seems much more difficult. so it seems they may be best suited for rough reaming and small tuning reamers as well as for regs..... I just thought of an intersting experiment Id like to do. step bore a chanter, turn it down and drill all the toneholes. then ream it till it is smooth, but well under the dimensions, then test all the notes with a proven reed. then slowly ream and test it again, over and over, recording all the notes it produces until it is well over reamed. you could also swap a bunch of reeds as you go and record the results of the chanter with all the different reeds.im sure it has been done and im sure the results could be predicted, but it would be a very useful experiment to see the results of. it would be similar to using a large rush in an over reamed chanter but it would have to be a tapered rush to get the same results. it would also have to be peeled off evenly. Tim

billh
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:12 am
Location: skerries-by-the-sea
Contact:

Post by billh » Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:25 pm

ttoberer wrote:... bill, let me clarify about the use of the live center. this would be located in the headstock and the work would be held in place by a three jaw chuck mounted on the index which in this case would be the tailstock. with this setup the spindle could move and the lead screw would be engaged which would allow the milling cutter on the toolpost to be fed by the lead screw...
I guess I still don't really see the utility. You can operate the lead screw manually without spinning the headstock, at least on all the lathes I've seen. On most you can disengage the headstock from the screwcutting gears too, which means you could even have power feed without a tailstock chuck. Maybe your Logan doesn't allow this, but really I don't think power feed would be a good idea for the stuff we're doing, better to have manual control. Even in your arrangement, a live center would not be necessary, an ordinary 60 degree center would be fine as the headstock normally turns quite slowly when the lathe is set up with power to the lead screw (for instance, when cutting screw threads). But maybe I'm missing something here...
... one advantage I can see with flat reamers is that as you sharpen them the dimensions would fairly effectively be preserved, although knowing exactly what thay are seems much more difficult.
Actually I don't agree - if the flat reamer is a straight taper, it's true that the rate of taper stays the same after sharpening, but for anything more sophisticated, the shape and dimensions will change with each sharpening. A D-reamer that is not milled all the way to the halfway mark, as I recommend, will cut the same profile after repeated sharpenings. This, along with ease of resharpening, is one of the main advantages of the D reamer.

With response to what Davy said, I would observe that the "rates of taper" for different flat pitches are not necessarily different at all - you might get that impression from simple throat-and-bell measurements but more detailed measurements tell a different story.

I disagree about working to thousandths of an inch as being a "waste of time". I am convinced that a careful worker can achieve this level of accuracy; you do of course want to finish a chanter over a period of time as Davy suggests, and use very well-seasoned wood. It is possible to create a chanter that is moving in moisture equilibrium with its environment. While it's true that the chanter will continue to "breathe" with the seasons, such a chanter made of ebony will in theory move no more than 1.5 thousandths of an inch at a ~4mm throat when going from 35% relative humidity to 80% relative humidity, which seems like a reasonable limit for indoor conditions in most climates. (You can calculate this, for instance, with the online [url=http://www.woodbin.com/calcs/shrinkulator.htm]"Shrinkulator"[/url] plus the observation that shrinkage rates for fully-seasoned timber stored indoors are between 25% and 50% of the published 'green to dry' shrinkage rates given in most tables. I used the larger figure of 50% in my calculations above.)

That thousandth or so is likely to make a noticeable difference in chanter behavior, but it is a predictable, consistent effect and I think that it is well worth the effort to control chanter dimensions within that tolerance or better at some "target" humidity. This does infer also that some part of what we tend to think of as "reed changes" with humidity may in fact be chanter changes.

regards

Bill

Davy Stephenson

Post by Davy Stephenson » Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:26 pm

I also do not agree with Billh on the D reamer senario, some of the best chanters around today were made from flat reamers technology, lets say its down to preferences of tooling, which ever type you use one can get the same results, if one has never tried them used them, there is no maybe's or might be's, you will never know until you try them.

Sharpening a flat reamer is childs play, the taper will stay exactly the same as before, what happens is the reamer after sharpening will cut exactly the same profile as before, the only difference is the reamer will travel a thousandth of an inch further in than before, finding the crtitical area is also childs play,you simply measure from corner to corner with a decent set of digital calipers or a micrometer.

If you sharpen a multi fluted reamer that is not equalateral you can never measure it, it must be sent off to be ground or milled, the same goes for finding the critical areas upon that reamer.

Flat reamers can very accurately produce what ever bore profile you require, as sharpening goes, it is much easier to control this with flat reamers, if you make a mistake you can sharpen back to retreive a taper you had before, this is impossible with a multi fluted reamer, because once you alter one flute, all the rest must be equalled, which is not possible even with a metal lathe, the same goes for a D bit, its next to impossible to retreive the half circle once the material is removed.

The best way to check the true moisture content of any given piece of timber is by using a moisture meter, if you want real time readings you must have one of these.

By all means work to a thousandth of an inch, then try measuring the area concerned after 24 hours, you will have a different reading, then again after another 24 hours another, and this will be different with every type or genus of timber used.

One needs to build every instrument as close to all the others as possible, with a series of settings, that is the best you can do, the timber controls the ultimate journey from then onwards.

At the end of the day, its what the instrument sounds and behaves like when its played, a thousandth of an inch will not change things as dramatically as Billh is saying, because the reed will wander way before the cone of an instrument will.

It is not rocket science and should not be portayed as such.
Last edited by Davy Stephenson on Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests