Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B777 Engine Start-ups  
User currently offlineKrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8850 times:

I was under the impression that all Triple 7s start up both engines at the same time. I was recently told that this is not true on the B77W where each engine is started one at a time. I would assume that the more powerful GE 90-115B has a lot to do with this as they would require more power and air to start up verses the older GE90s, Trent 800s and PW 4000s. Does the B77L also require individual engine start up? Is there any difference in the bleed system on the older 777s and the newer generation 777s?

Thanks,

KrisYYZ

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3205 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8805 times:

I could have something to do with the size of the APU being able to start up both at once. It could also be due to an individual airline's procedure. At UA, standard 777 procedure is to start up both engines at the same time.

Like you mentioned though, the GE90-110B and GE90-115B might require a substantially greater amount of induction air than the Trents, PW's, or smaller GE90's, thus eclipsing the capability of the given APU.

On the 742, for example, the APU only provided enough air to start a single engine at a time, meaning a fairly long time to get all 4 spinning. The 744 though, has an APU that can start two at time.


User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8673 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 1):
On the 742, for example, the APU only provided enough air to start a single engine at a time, meaning a fairly long time to get all 4 spinning. The 744 though, has an APU that can start two at time.

The APU on the 744 provides enough bleed to start all 4 at the time with an AUTOSTART( with autostart off this would never be done as it would require far to much simulataneous monitoring for all four by the crew during start up) . This of course is not done as it puts a larger strain on the APU. Some airline SOP's state one at the time, and others in pairs. just depends from the airline and engines.

UA who operate the PW4056 on their 744's will start one at the time, and all their 744's have AUTOSTART.

PhilSquares will give you a far better answer then me though!

Leo  Smile



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineBoeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1026 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8572 times:

When I was still based in LA, we had a couple of mechanics that would start both engines at the same time on a 767. It would do it with a good APU and a nice on shore wind to cool down the temp. I know it's not SOP but it will do it with out overtemping the engines at 23 ASL in LAX

David



Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8553 times:



Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 2):
The APU on the 744 provides enough bleed to start all 4 at the time with an AUTOSTART( with autostart off this would never be done as it would require far to much simulataneous monitoring for all four by the crew during start up)

The 744 will do just fine starting all 4 engines simultaneously, with or with out Auto Start. However, for those airlines who did not order autostart, for example SQ, it would be an accident waiting to happen.

Most carriers adopted the classic's SOP when possible and as a result, I can't think of any operator that starts more than one engine at a time. Normal start sequence is accomplished one engine at a time, and either 4, 1,2,3 or 1,2,3,4.


User currently offlineFlyMIA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7148 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8499 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
I can't think of any operator that starts more than one engine at a time. Normal start sequence is accomplished one engine at a time, and either 4, 1,2,3 or 1,2,3,4.

When watching a cockpit video of a LH 744 crew they started 2 engines at a time on their 744. Captain said to the FO start engines 3 and 4, and after those two engines where up he said 2 and 1 and you could see both engines being run up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz8UORc-1B4



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8454 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
The 744 will do just fine starting all 4 engines simultaneously, with or with out Auto Start. However, for those airlines who did not order autostart, for example SQ, it would be an accident waiting to happen.

Most carriers adopted the classic's SOP when possible and as a result, I can't think of any operator that starts more than one engine at a time. Normal start sequence is accomplished one engine at a time, and either 4, 1,2,3 or 1,2,3,4.

Thanks once again for the quick answer!

It's great to have you here  Smile

Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 5):
When watching a cockpit video of a LH 744 crew they started 2 engines at a time on their 744. Captain said to the FO start engines 3 and 4, and after those two engines where up he said 2 and 1 and you could see both engines being run up.

Yes and LH have auto start and a different SOP. Point is that without auto start the monitoring of the engines is very important in case of a hot start etc. for the crew to take the right steps to shut down and re-try without killing the engine. Because with out auto start you do not have the full engine protection during start.

Leo



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4001 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8441 times:



Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 6):
Because with out auto start you do not have the full engine protection during start.

It should be part of your check list to check that autostart is selected.

Thre was once a B744 crew that trained on a simulator with autostart. They then positioned to CDG to pick up a brand new B744 on delivery to their airline. They used autostart to start the engines two at a tiime. Unfortunately their airline had not specified autostart. We had to change two engines.


User currently offlineKrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8431 times:



Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 2):
UA who operate the PW4056 on their 744's will start one at the time, and all their 744's have AUTOSTART.

How about on the B777?

I was watching the UA B777 Justplanes video and the Capt started both engines at once. I've herd from charliecossie that most B777 operators start each engine one at a time, so how come some airline choose not to utilize the simultaneous engine start function on the B777?

KrisYYZ


User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6598 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8349 times:

You are correct. The smaller engines on the 777 require less air to start and SOP is to start both at the same time. This is for the Trent and the P&W.

The GE90 is substantially bigger and requires more air and thus we start one at a time. This goes for the 772ER, 77L or 77W all with GE90s. The APU is actually capable of starting 2 GE90s at the same time but we do not do it as SOP as there would be cases like high altitude airports where he APU would not be able to cope and you don't want a double hung start because of it. We just start the first engine earlier during pushback, so it does not delay the entire start-up process much unless we are at airports which do not allow us to start until the pushback is complete.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5774 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8271 times:

Kris,
It's entirely up to the airline- the manufacturer does not write the SOP!!!
The above reply may be true for that man's carrier, but not all.
I have watched Pratt 4000's started simultaneously (a laborious, long-term affair... but then, so is starting ANY large Pratt) and started individually.

That said, I have never seen a Pratt powered 747 start multiple engines simultaneously. But I have seen it done on the Triple.

I'm under the impression that some GE-90-94 operators do dual-starts, actually, but don't have anything to back it up.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25191 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8149 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
I can't think of any operator that starts more than one engine at a time. Normal start sequence is accomplished one engine at a time, and either 4,1,2,3 or 1,2,3,4.

That prompts another question out of curiosity. I recall that it was common to start engines on 4-engine piston/turboprop types in the sequence 3,4,2,1. I think that was also common in the early jet era. Is that no longer the usual practice on 4-engine jets now?


User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4001 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8144 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
I recall that it was common to start engines on 4-engine piston/turboprop types in the sequence 3,4,2,1. I think that was also common in the early jet era. Is that no longer the usual practice on 4-engine jets now?

On the B744 it is all to do with the hydraulic systems and the brakes they power.


User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2692 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8133 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
The 744 will do just fine starting all 4 engines simultaneously, with or with out Auto Start.

Wow, I never knew the 744 APU had enough grunt to start all four engines simultaneously! However, I have once seen something similar occur. I was doing the push and tow an a 747 (Aerolineas Argentinas), and for some reason, the flight engineer left all the packs on as the engine were started. The engine did eventually start, but as you can imagine, it took a long time to get up to speed.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
I think that was also common in the early jet era. Is that no longer the usual practice on 4-engine jets now?

On many 747 flights, if given the option, most crews usually start #4 engine first. The reason is that primary brakes on the 747 runs off # 4 system. #1, #2 and #3 are usually started in sequence afterwards. Co-incidently, #1 and #2 hydraulic systems are the first alternate and second alternate systems for brakes on the 744 ( and 747 classic? ).

Regards, JetMech



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5774 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8058 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
I can't think of any operator that starts more than one engine at a time.

JAL does it routinely. Dual starts 3-4, followed by 2-1.

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 12):
On the B744 it is all to do with the hydraulic systems and the brakes they power.

Not necessarily, from my own observation. Barring dual starts, JAL will do 4-3-2-1, while I have watched Cathay do 4-1-3-2. Recently flew on KLM, and they did 1-2-3-4... go figure. But then, they're Dutch.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 13):
Wow, I never knew the 744 APU had enough grunt to start all four engines simultaneously!

I am not entirely convinced of this rumor, see as follows:

Quoting JetMech (Reply 13):
flight engineer left all the packs on as the engine were started.

I know you can leave two packs on and start one engine, but I also know that in order for JAL do to dual starts, they were only allowed to run one pack. And they fly GE's.... with a Pratt, it's a miracle that the thing will spin at all, even with an APU coupled to a ground start cart!
Considering the remarkably greater amount of air required to start 4 engines than 2 (hint: it's double), you've run out of packs to shut down. With as little airflow as you're now dealing with, you've left the door wide open to a hot start or hung start.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 13):
#1, #2 and #3 are usually started in sequence afterwards.

Again, depends on the airline. I have never seen a carrier do it the way you've described- which leads me only to believe that I've never watched the carrier you're watching.


User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4001 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8045 times:

Reading this makes me think how easy it all is nowadays. I push back a B777 every day and I delay the start up until we are nearly at the stop posn. The crew then start them together and 30secs later I am walking away with the pin.

In an earlier life I used to start up Tristars in BAH. In the summer with a normal APU (i.e low pressure) we used to start Nbr2 first because it was closest to the APU. Drill was B and C hyd pumps off, Aft fuselage pneumatic isolation closed, then select start. Wait until the N3 stops increasing and fuel on. Watch the EGT and N3 like a hawk and at about 40pc N3 open the pneumatic isolation valve and select a pack on. The start took around 2 minutes, then to start 1 and 3.
You closed the air valve to reduce air losses in the ducts. You opened it again because when the starter cut out there was a good chance the APU would surge and shut down.

It was also dramatic starting them up in ARN at M15degC after a night stop. Same procedure but as the engine motored over you had to watch the oil pressure rise off scale high, and the oil quantity go to zero. Fuel on and not much happened except clouds of fuel out the back of the engine. Finally a slow rumble as the engine laboured into life and slowly crept up to idle. A little while later the oil quantity would slowly rise and the pressure start to drop. I have seen a L1011 completely fill the cul-de-sac with smoke, with the attendant fire engines trying to put out the non-existent fire.

The big change from the R211-22B to the Trent 800 is the surge margin in the engine. In the RB211 it was tiny, and fuel could only be introduced very slowly to stop the engine stalling. In the Trent it is huge and the beast goes straight to idle.


User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2692 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8042 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 14):
Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 12):
On the B744 it is all to do with the hydraulic systems and the brakes they power.

Not necessarily, from my own observation. Barring dual starts, JAL will do 4-3-2-1, while I have watched Cathay do 4-1-3-2. Recently flew on KLM, and they did 1-2-3-4... go figure. But then, they're Dutch.

I think TristarSteve has the reason for the 747 start sequence. #4 system powers primary brakes, #1 system is the first alternate (#2 is second alternate) . Thus, CX and JA start to give primary brakes, where as KLM starts to get first alternate.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 14):
And they fly GE's.... with a Pratt, it's a miracle that the thing will spin at all, even with an APU coupled to a ground start cart!

The Aerolineas Argentinas 747 classic I observed starting engines with packs on was powered by none other than the venerable JT9D-7. Whether or not the PW-4000 has vastly different starting air requirements I'm not sure.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 14):
Again, depends on the airline. I have never seen a carrier do it the way you've described- which leads me only to believe that I've never watched the carrier you're watching.

Given an entirely free choice, most 747 crews at SYD start as I have stated, but it is most certain to be a highly airport and airline dependant procedure, thus my related experiences fall under the same umbrella of uncertainty.

Regards, JetMech



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineJohnClipper From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2005, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7829 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 1):
At UA, standard 777 procedure is to start up both engines at the same time.

On most of my UA 777 flights (more than I care to remember), engines were started one at a time.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2548 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 7697 times:



Quoting JetMech (Reply 16):
I think TristarSteve has the reason for the 747 start sequence. #4 system powers primary brakes, #1 system is the first alternate (#2 is second alternate) . Thus, CX and JA start to give primary brakes, where as KLM starts to get first alternate.

For pushback it's just as important that you have hydraulic power for the nose wheel and body gear steering systems (hyd sys 1). However, since the 747 has multiple sources of hydraulic power (standby pumps, demand pumps, engine driven pumps) a push or tow can be safely accomplished with no engines running at all. So the engine starting order is as much about tradition as anything else.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3205 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 7690 times:



Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 2):
UA who operate the PW4056 on their 744's will start one at the time, and all their 744's have AUTOSTART.

It's interesting how different airlines can operate near the same airplane quite so differently!! NW always does two at a time. 4/3, then 1/2.

Quoting JohnClipper (Reply 17):
On most of my UA 777 flights (more than I care to remember), engines were started one at a time.

Don't know what to tell you. I get to work with them pretty frequently, and they almost always start both at the same time. I don't remember a case in recent history where they haven't.


User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 7633 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 14):
I am not entirely convinced of this rumor, see as follows:

Never was a rumor... 744 Captain knows better  Wink

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
The 744 will do just fine starting all 4 engines simultaneously, with or with out Auto Start. However, for those airlines who did not order autostart, for example SQ, it would be an accident waiting to happen.


Leo  Smile



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months ago) and read 7607 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 14):
am not entirely convinced of this rumor, see as follows:

Not a rumor but fact. I have picked up several new aircraft at Boeing and when they do their flights prior to the C1 flight, it's all 4 at the same time.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 16):
The Aerolineas Argentinas 747 classic I observed starting engines with packs on was powered by none other than the venerable JT9D-7. Whether or not the PW-4000 has vastly different starting air requirements I'm not sure.



Quoting JetMech (Reply 13):
I was doing the push and tow an a 747 (Aerolineas Argentinas), and for some reason, the flight engineer left all the packs on as the engine were started. The engine did eventually start, but as you can imagine, it took a long time to get up to speed.



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 14):
I am not entirely convinced of this rumor, see as follows:

Quoting JetMech (Reply 13):
flight engineer left all the packs on as the engine were started.

AA737-823, since your profile says you're a line mech at ANC, you should know a few things. First the APU on the 400 is completely different than it is on the classic. Secondly the classic pneumatic system is crap when compared to the 400. It's kind of like comparing a 737-100 to a 737NG, apples and oranges. So, believe it or not those are the facts.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5774 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7564 times:



Quoting JohnClipper (Reply 17):
On most of my UA 777 flights (more than I care to remember), engines were started one at a time.

Haha, when United sent a 772 here to Anchorage last fall (diversion, actually) they did dual starts!

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 18):
For pushback it's just as important that you have hydraulic power for the nose wheel and body gear steering systems (hyd sys 1).

WHAT ON EARTH do you need hydro power to nose gear steering for during pushback? Have you never heard of a bypass pin? No, I am sorry, but you're simply incorrect. A person installs the bypass pin to... ahem... bypass hydraulic power to the nose gear steering system. The body gear steering is only activated in extreme nose gear angles.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 21):
you should know a few things.

If you'll read what I wrote right below what you've quoted, you'll see that I am speaking from experience. Your experience tells you that it's a more capable airplane than my experience tells me- that's fine.
But there's no need to get snippy. I'm well aware that the APU on the 747-400 is new- hence it burns so much less fuel. That directly affects me when I am planning how much fuel to upload.


User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2692 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7554 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 22):
But there's no need to get snippy.

I'm really not sure if you intend it, but your language in this thread to several others conveys a significant amount of "snippiness" on your part  Wink .

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 22):
That directly affects me when I am planning how much fuel to upload.

I never knew it was the mechanics responsibility to decide fuel upload.

Regards, JetMech



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7546 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 22):
If you'll read what I wrote right below what you've quoted, you'll see that I am speaking from experience. Your experience tells you that it's a more capable airplane than my experience tells me- that's fine.
But there's no need to get snippy. I'm well aware that the APU on the 747-400 is new- hence it burns so much less fuel. That directly affects me when I am planning how much fuel to upload



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 14):
I am not entirely convinced of this rumor, see as follows:

Sorry you feel as though I've been "snippy". I haven't been. But when I have been flying the 400 since 1989 and you tell me I am wrong I do get somewhat peeved. If you think I have been "snippy" I apologize, but you I can assure I have been very reserved.

You don't plan fuel, the Captain does that. That's the problem! You are a line mechanic. A very valuable tool but you are out of the loop when it comes to making decisions. End of story. I suggest you take a step back and re-evaluate your position and move along.


25 Mir : They may feel that they'd rather have both pilots focus their attention on one start rather than have them divide it between two. It may also be for
26 Jetlagged : No need to shout, or to be so sarcastic. Body gear steering is quite likely to be required during a pushback. It is activated by NWS angles greater t
27 TristarSteve : Agreed. I have to push a B777 round a tight S bend at ARN. With MLG Steering pressurised it goes OK, but with the steering INOP the tyres bend and tw
28 Qantas744ER : For what 74F operator do you calculate the fuel load as a mechanic? Armchair Cargo? Leo
30 TF39 : Is the APU on the 744 the same as in the 777 especially given it has the capability to start all four engines at the same time? Also, I read before th
31 Transpac787 : I do believe it depends on the length of the ETOPS dispatch. I have heard (but don't quote me) that ETOPS-120 can be dispatched with INOP APU's. ETOP
32 TristarSteve : The B777 was built for ETOPS. The APU is not required for ETOPS despatch as there are two generators on each engine. The B777 APU has two starter mot
33 Movingtin : typical pilot response
34 Tdscanuck : It's not the same APU. It was only very recently that ETOPS rules (most of them, anyway) got applied to quads. Prior to that, there was no ETOPS requ
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B777 Engine Start-ups
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Battery VS. APU Engine Start? posted Fri Nov 2 2007 09:42:14 by BR715-A1-30
Strange Sound On 717 Before Engine Start posted Sun Jul 8 2007 19:48:00 by Jaylink
Pushback Direction, And Engine Start posted Fri Mar 2 2007 18:33:48 by Trichos
Why Airbus For Start-ups? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 18:27:42 by AirWillie6475
Question About Engine Start Config. During Landing posted Wed Apr 26 2006 03:30:09 by Bio15
Jet Engine Start Attempt On Running Engine posted Tue Apr 11 2006 01:06:55 by Taguilo
Engine Start-up Durring De-icing! posted Mon Mar 6 2006 03:27:13 by CYEGsTankers
WHOOP-WHOOP Sound On Engine Start UP posted Tue Nov 22 2005 14:53:56 by THVGJP
Duct Pressure For Engine Start posted Sat Oct 29 2005 14:57:01 by Taguilo
Question Re Turbine Engine Start posted Fri Oct 7 2005 23:36:47 by RedFlyer
Question About Engine Start Config. During Landing posted Wed Apr 26 2006 03:30:09 by Bio15
Jet Engine Start Attempt On Running Engine posted Tue Apr 11 2006 01:06:55 by Taguilo
Engine Start-up Durring De-icing! posted Mon Mar 6 2006 03:27:13 by CYEGsTankers
WHOOP-WHOOP Sound On Engine Start UP posted Tue Nov 22 2005 14:53:56 by THVGJP
Duct Pressure For Engine Start posted Sat Oct 29 2005 14:57:01 by Taguilo

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format