Best Single Engine Glider?
An autogyro is not a better example. I wanted a more direct example of motive, mechanical power (i.e. what you already accepted as power, as I didn't at the time feel the need to teach you basic physics) producing lift than a fixed-wing aircraft, which does it by producing thrust, which moves the aircraft, which causes airflow across the wing which then produces lift. The helicopter just uses power to movement of a wing that produces lift. You then come up with an autogyro, which does use power to produce lift but in an even more roundabout way than a fixed-wing aircraft!
Put a propeller on the arrow the same diameter with the same blade area and properties as the rotor on the helicopter, and find a way to get it in the air without striking the prop...and you'll have a rough comparison. However, you won't be able to make one between the arrow as it stands, and a helicopter (particularly with respect to gliding); no comparison between lift, thrust or drag.
Are you thick enough you can't tell the difference between an airplane and a helicopter? Someone allows you to pilot an aircraft in that condition?
You really don't understand what power is, do you? I say again: power is the rate of conversion or transfer of energy. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not require machinery. It can come from the burning of fossil fuel, the falling of a weight or the differential heating of the Earth's surface. It's still power!
You asserted that an aircraft with a low glide ratio couldn't do it...it was this ridiculous assumption which kicked off the discussion, and the fact of the matter is that the glide ratio isn't necessarily indicative of what the aircraft can do under power. Several examples have been provided of aircraft with power to weight ratios approximating most light airpalnes in which glide ratio was very poor with power reduced by varying percentages...yet the airplanes managed to do very well under power.
Again, to the point of the original poster (which you never found, and what bit you did, you apparently lost very early on)...the glide ratio isn't particularly important; it's what occurs at the end that counts. That applies every bit as much in an airplane as in a helicopter.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds fantastic Chuck. I knew a helicopter Ag pilot, actually US Coast Guard when I met him. Great guy, lots of stories with brilliant sense of humour and turn of phrase - "went down like a waxed piano". Very outgoing for rotary!
SN3
Still no examples of light aircraft commonly flown privately with a glide ratio less than 7:1?
The entire point is that a helicopter’s rotor, while being aerodynamically a propeller, has to be very large in order to produce a lot of thrust. If a helicopter of a reasonable weight and power existed with a rotor the size of an Arrow’s prop then it would in fact support your view, not mine. If you will only accept the relevance of non-existent aircraft that would prove your mistaken physics then we are really not going to get very far. The whole relevance to my point is in the difference in size between the Arrow prop and the R44 rotor.
I think your confusion is in assuming that thrust has to be forward. Of course the lift of a helicopter is just thrust produced in an upward direction. That is the thrust I am talking about. An autogyro is an irrelevance only introduced by you. It has nothing to do with any of the points I have made, as the big propeller on the top is not powered directly by the engine, so cannot illustrate the greater thrust produced by an engine coupled to a larger prop.
The meaning of power cannot be irrelevant if we are talking about power. So far you have clearly shown that you have misunderstood the meaning at every mention.
The difference between a helicopter and an aeroplane is clear to me. That is why I only used the helicopter to illustrate that power can be used to produce lift and that a large propeller produces more thrust than a small propeller, given the same power.
You on the other hand have just done exactly what you said incorrectly I had done, and mistaken a helicopter for an aeroplane. Since a helicopter flies in a completely different way to an aeroplane none of my arguments apply to a helicopter. Yet you use a helicopter as a counter example. Therefore either you have been unable to follow any of the discussion and are really lost, or you really think aeroplanes and helicopters fly in a similar way. So if you thought I was thick when you mistakenly believed I had made that error, what do you think of yourself now that you have?
No-one “allows” me to fly aircraft, thanks. I authorise myself, and others, to fly aircraft. That is my job, along with ensuring that when we fly we all fly safely.
I never denied that an aircraft with poor glide ratio could fly with limited power by the way. What I pointed out was that a typical GA design would not fly if it had a glide ratio that poor, because of the relationship between glide ratio and lift to drag ratio. I really do mean it, if you just tripled the drag on these aircraft they genuinely wouldn’t fly. I am bemused by the fact that you think they would.
Perhaps you are right that someone here should be kept away from all aircraft!
Actually I don’t think that is the case. I don’t think you are stupid at all. I think you are just hide-bound and stuck in simplified concepts you were taught years ago in principles of flight groundschool, perfectly good enough for flying but not useful beyond that. Concepts like thrust only being along the line of travel. Either your physics wasn’t up to any really deep understanding of those concepts and their inter-relationships or more likely you simply were not that interested.
SN3
Still no examples of light aircraft commonly flown privately with a glide ratio less than 7:1?
When you find a helicopter with a rotor diameter the same as the propeller on the arrow, then you'll have your comparison
I think your confusion is in assuming that thrust has to be forward. Of course the lift of a helicopter is just thrust produced in an upward direction. That is the thrust I am talking about. An autogyro is an irrelevance only introduced by you. It has nothing to do with any of the points I have made, as the big propeller on the top is not powered directly by the engine, so cannot illustrate the greater thrust produced by an engine coupled to a larger prop.
The meaning of power cannot be irrelevant if we are talking about power. So far you have clearly shown that you have misunderstood the meaning at every mention.
The difference between a helicopter and an aeroplane is clear to me. That is why I only used the helicopter to illustrate that power can be used to produce lift and that a large propeller produces more thrust than a small propeller, given the same power.
You on the other hand have just done exactly what you said incorrectly I had done, and mistaken a helicopter for an aeroplane. Since a helicopter flies in a completely different way to an aeroplane none of my arguments apply to a helicopter. Yet you use a helicopter as a counter example. Therefore either you have been unable to follow any of the discussion and are really lost, or you really think aeroplanes and helicopters fly in a similar way. So if you thought I was thick when you mistakenly believed I had made that error, what do you think of yourself now that you have?
No-one “allows” me to fly aircraft, thanks. I authorise myself, and others, to fly aircraft. That is my job, along with ensuring that when we fly we all fly safely.
I never denied that an aircraft with poor glide ratio could fly with limited power by the way. What I pointed out was that a typical GA design would not fly if it had a glide ratio that poor, because of the relationship between glide ratio and lift to drag ratio. I really do mean it, if you just tripled the drag on these aircraft they genuinely wouldn’t fly. I am bemused by the fact that you think they would.
Perhaps you are right that someone here should be kept away from all aircraft!
Actually I don’t think that is the case. I don’t think you are stupid at all. I think you are just hide-bound and stuck in simplified concepts you were taught years ago in principles of flight groundschool, perfectly good enough for flying but not useful beyond that. Concepts like thrust only being along the line of travel. Either your physics wasn’t up to any really deep understanding of those concepts and their inter-relationships or more likely you simply were not that interested.
What I pointed out was that a typical GA design would not fly if it had a glide ratio that poor, because of the relationship between glide ratio and lift to drag ratio.
The original poster was interested in airplanes that glide well, for safety, and the bottom line again, and for the last time is that he needn't worry. The distance the airplane can glide is superfluous and unimportant when considering if the airplane is safe. It's the pilot that makes it safe, and distance isn't at all important when one keeps a viable landing site beneath on at all times.
I've had enough of you. You're on the ignore list now too.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One common GA type which is actually a very good glider...especially with the prop fully back is the Firefly, nice long wings and very light construction. Otherwise 500ft lost per NM seems about good to average for a light aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Age: 43
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i hope i am not confusing things even more, but something just occured to me...
wouldnt the better glider need a longer landing distance? surely that would mean the aircraft that glides less would be better in an emergency situation as it could land in a shorter field, right
please forgive me if this post is nonsence, im still in very early days of my PPL...
wouldnt the better glider need a longer landing distance? surely that would mean the aircraft that glides less would be better in an emergency situation as it could land in a shorter field, right
please forgive me if this post is nonsence, im still in very early days of my PPL...
airplanesy,
That makes sense, but it's not necessarily so.
What a higher glide ratio, or flatter glide does for you is allow you a wider range of options in the event you must glide. It doesn't mean you must maintain that rate of descent for the entire descent, or even that descent angle.
Think of it this way; you can always increase the descent rate or angle with a slip, with flaps, with spoilers, or simply by flying a different angle of attack (airspeed), by putting out gear, and so forth. You can make an airplane with a significant glide ratio descend steeper...but you really can't make an airplane with a poor glide ratio go flatter or farther.
The landing distance is a function of approach speed, weight, configuration, and pilot technique. The slower you approach, the shorter the landing distance. Putting the airplane down where you want in order to make the most of the available space is pilot technique. A lighter airplane is easier to get stopped than a heavy airplane, to a point, and the way you configure (flaps, etc) and the way you use that configuration makes a big difference.
An airplane that's a great glider can still be set down just like any spot landing; thats up to you. You can always slip.
An airplane with a very limited glide ratio can't be upgraded...you can pitch up, increase angle of attack, and sacrifice airspeed and energy a brief decrease in descent rate...but that's about it. It's never really going to get better. An airplane with a higher glide ratio can always be degraded to get down, and if you find you've misjudged and you're slipping to make your landing spot, you can always stop slipping and readjust your landing point. If you've misjudged in the airplane with the lower glide ratio, you're out of luck.
It's for that reason that being high is better than being low during a forced landing. No matter what the glide ratio. You can always do more to get down...but if you're truly on your way earthward, you can't do a lot to go back up unless you're in a sailplane, have ridge lift, or you can find some lift along the way. Erring on the side of safety by staying a little high and bleeding it off with flaps or a slip or other means is better than finding one's self short and low and slow and having no way to recitify the situation.
Be on speed and in practice...it's the best defense against calamity in a forced landing. A prepared state of mind is much more important than how far you can glide; prepare mentally and prepare physically (keep forced landing sites available) is the key.
That makes sense, but it's not necessarily so.
What a higher glide ratio, or flatter glide does for you is allow you a wider range of options in the event you must glide. It doesn't mean you must maintain that rate of descent for the entire descent, or even that descent angle.
Think of it this way; you can always increase the descent rate or angle with a slip, with flaps, with spoilers, or simply by flying a different angle of attack (airspeed), by putting out gear, and so forth. You can make an airplane with a significant glide ratio descend steeper...but you really can't make an airplane with a poor glide ratio go flatter or farther.
The landing distance is a function of approach speed, weight, configuration, and pilot technique. The slower you approach, the shorter the landing distance. Putting the airplane down where you want in order to make the most of the available space is pilot technique. A lighter airplane is easier to get stopped than a heavy airplane, to a point, and the way you configure (flaps, etc) and the way you use that configuration makes a big difference.
An airplane that's a great glider can still be set down just like any spot landing; thats up to you. You can always slip.
An airplane with a very limited glide ratio can't be upgraded...you can pitch up, increase angle of attack, and sacrifice airspeed and energy a brief decrease in descent rate...but that's about it. It's never really going to get better. An airplane with a higher glide ratio can always be degraded to get down, and if you find you've misjudged and you're slipping to make your landing spot, you can always stop slipping and readjust your landing point. If you've misjudged in the airplane with the lower glide ratio, you're out of luck.
It's for that reason that being high is better than being low during a forced landing. No matter what the glide ratio. You can always do more to get down...but if you're truly on your way earthward, you can't do a lot to go back up unless you're in a sailplane, have ridge lift, or you can find some lift along the way. Erring on the side of safety by staying a little high and bleeding it off with flaps or a slip or other means is better than finding one's self short and low and slow and having no way to recitify the situation.
Be on speed and in practice...it's the best defense against calamity in a forced landing. A prepared state of mind is much more important than how far you can glide; prepare mentally and prepare physically (keep forced landing sites available) is the key.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. The distance the airplane can glide is superfluous and unimportant when considering if the airplane is safe. It's the pilot that makes it safe, and distance isn't at all important when one keeps a viable landing site beneath on at all times.
So how does a pilot make a safe landing if he/she is flying one of those airplanes with a glide ratio of 3:1 and there are only tall trees and big rocks below, yet just a little further away is an airport that a light aircraft such as a Cessna 150 with a glide ratio of 8:1 would be able to glide to with altitude to spare?
Just exactly what magic or superman skills would this " safe " pilot have that would trump the ordinary pilot in the airplane that could glide to the airport?
The distance the airplane can glide is superfluous and unimportant when considering if the airplane is safe.
That kind of statement has no place in a forum meant for private pilots as it may influence some newbie to actually believe such garbage.
So how does a pilot make a safe landing if he/she is flying one of those airplanes with a glide ratio of 3:1 and there are only tall trees and big rocks below, yet just a little further away is an airport that a light aircraft such as a Cessna 150 with a glide ratio of 8:1 would be able to glide to with altitude to spare?
Just exactly what magic or superman skills would this " safe " pilot have that would trump the ordinary pilot in the airplane that could glide to the airport?
The distance the airplane can glide is superfluous and unimportant when considering if the airplane is safe.
That kind of statement has no place in a forum meant for private pilots as it may influence some newbie to actually believe such garbage.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lost Man Standing, I finished my Ag. years flying the Hughes 300, but my true love is the Stearman with the P&W 985.
By the way of all the flying devices I flew over the decades the most fun is the gyroplane.....why I even managed to get a US Commercial Gyroplane Pilots License.
By the way of all the flying devices I flew over the decades the most fun is the gyroplane.....why I even managed to get a US Commercial Gyroplane Pilots License.
Come now, chuck. Even you aren't that stupid. You're just being difficult.
A landing site beneath the aircraft, for which one has no need to glide negates any significance of a glide ratio. You understand that if one has no need to glide anywhere, and one has exercised good airmanship by keeping a forced landing site beneath ones self and accessible given the type of aircraft which one is flying...then the actual glide ratio is irrelevant. You get this, right?
Chuck, you really need to work on your comprehension skills.
A landing site beneath the aircraft, for which one has no need to glide negates any significance of a glide ratio. You understand that if one has no need to glide anywhere, and one has exercised good airmanship by keeping a forced landing site beneath ones self and accessible given the type of aircraft which one is flying...then the actual glide ratio is irrelevant. You get this, right?
Chuck, you really need to work on your comprehension skills.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>So how does a pilot make a safe landing if he/she is flying one of those airplanes with a glide ratio of 3:1 and there are only tall trees and big rocks below, yet just a little further away is an airport that a light aircraft such as a Cessna 150 with a glide ratio of 8:1 would be able to glide to with altitude to spare?
Just exactly what magic or superman skills would this " safe " pilot have that would trump the ordinary pilot in the airplane that could glide to the airport?<
Chuck really dont want to get very involved in all this :-) so just a couple of warnings.
Realistically there is always a danger of trying to make a runway or distant place in any plane. Why ? because it focuses the mind on one point.
I was always taught in life to always have an "out" In a forced landing situation that to me means having a number of options and being able to take another option if you realise that one door or landing spot is not going to work for you.
There are many factors which will determine whether you get to a distant chosen landing site one being wind or groundspeed which can change on your way down. Flying in moving air we also have to consider rising or falling pockets of air and how that will effect your chosen profile.
The success of a forced landing will depend on skill and a certain amount of luck but also a quick mind in determining that something is not working and being able to change tack and take somewhere else which might mean a crosswind component or even tailwind.
Taking somewhere else might be somewhere which is not ideal and may take out a hedge or damage the undercarriage but at least you keep the thing flying to the ground.
A little tip worth trying for extending a glide very low level is to dip the nose to increase speed and get into ground effect. I can remember many moons ago being with an examiner in a forced practice landing. He told me that no way was i going to make the runway. I dipped the nose increased speed levelled in ground effect and we sailed along like a hovercraft to the runway. it does work why? havent a clue but worth trying in a practice situation.
:-) take care all
Pace
Just exactly what magic or superman skills would this " safe " pilot have that would trump the ordinary pilot in the airplane that could glide to the airport?<
Chuck really dont want to get very involved in all this :-) so just a couple of warnings.
Realistically there is always a danger of trying to make a runway or distant place in any plane. Why ? because it focuses the mind on one point.
I was always taught in life to always have an "out" In a forced landing situation that to me means having a number of options and being able to take another option if you realise that one door or landing spot is not going to work for you.
There are many factors which will determine whether you get to a distant chosen landing site one being wind or groundspeed which can change on your way down. Flying in moving air we also have to consider rising or falling pockets of air and how that will effect your chosen profile.
The success of a forced landing will depend on skill and a certain amount of luck but also a quick mind in determining that something is not working and being able to change tack and take somewhere else which might mean a crosswind component or even tailwind.
Taking somewhere else might be somewhere which is not ideal and may take out a hedge or damage the undercarriage but at least you keep the thing flying to the ground.
A little tip worth trying for extending a glide very low level is to dip the nose to increase speed and get into ground effect. I can remember many moons ago being with an examiner in a forced practice landing. He told me that no way was i going to make the runway. I dipped the nose increased speed levelled in ground effect and we sailed along like a hovercraft to the runway. it does work why? havent a clue but worth trying in a practice situation.
:-) take care all
Pace
I dipped the nose increased speed levelled in ground effect and we sailed along like a hovercraft to the runway. it does work why? havent a clue but worth trying in a practice situation.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We can beat this subject to death forever and put forward as many arguments as there are stars in the sky.
However for someone like myself who is just a simple minded aircraft operator if I am to be faced with an engine failure at any altitude I'll take the aircraft with the best glide ratio every time.
The very worst scenario I can imagine flying a machine like that is having to wait a little longer for a safe landing rather than having to be super pilot with only a few seconds to display my exceptional skills just before I smack into the trees.
By the way how many of you here have used T effect to increase range during long over ocean flights?....... I have.
As long as we are sharing flying experiences what was your longest flight as a pilot flying the thing, mine was 19 hours and 10 minutes.
However for someone like myself who is just a simple minded aircraft operator if I am to be faced with an engine failure at any altitude I'll take the aircraft with the best glide ratio every time.
The very worst scenario I can imagine flying a machine like that is having to wait a little longer for a safe landing rather than having to be super pilot with only a few seconds to display my exceptional skills just before I smack into the trees.
By the way how many of you here have used T effect to increase range during long over ocean flights?....... I have.
As long as we are sharing flying experiences what was your longest flight as a pilot flying the thing, mine was 19 hours and 10 minutes.
Last edited by Chuck Ellsworth; 4th Sep 2008 at 14:40.
If I had an engine failure I would prefer an aircraft with the lowest stall speed and the lowest sink rate. A great glide ratio doesn't help a lot if that glide ratio is achieved at 120 knots. An aircraft with a low stall speed and sink rate will usually fare better in an off-field landing. It will also be capable of forced landings in smaller places. Just my opinion.
By the way how many of you here have used T effect to increase range during long over ocean flights?....... I have.
As long as we are sharing flying experiences what was your longest flight as a pilot flying the thing, mine was 19 hours and 10 minutes.
Going a long stretch like that gives a lot more meaning to the thought of someone like Lindbergh doing his 33 and a half hour flight...alone. That's a long time to not stand up and go visit the gentleman's room.
If I had an engine failure I would prefer an aircraft with the lowest stall speed and the lowest sink rate. A great glide ratio doesn't help a lot if that glide ratio is achieved at 120 knots. An aircraft with a low stall speed and sink rate will usually fare better in an off-field landing.
Sooooo...it's not the descent rate in the glide that determines how you'll touch down...that's just a matter of the distance you'll glide.
So far as the descent rate, most students are never taught that two basic glide speeds apply; one is the "best glide" speed, which is essentially what we're talking about in this thread. That's the speed at which the aircraft moves forward the farthest distance for a given amount of altitude lost. There's another equally important speed to consider, however, and that's minimum sink. Minimum sink speed provides the slowest descent rate, or more practically, the longest time aloft. It's found at a slower speed than best glide, and roughly speaking approximates the sea level best angle of climb speed for most light airplanes.
Best glide approximates the sea level best rate of climb speed. The speeds don't exactly coincide, of course (best angle and best rate are functions of available power--that's engine power for some--and change with altitude as available power and propeller efficiency change), but close enough.
Minimum sink is the speed to use when you want to stay aloft as long as possible, to troubleshoot a problem, communicate a position, etc. When stretching a glide as far as possible isn't important (it isn't if your landing site is below you), minimum sink may be just what you need to have time to prepare for the landing.
When you get to the bottom of the glide, of course, it won't matter what speed you used in the descent so far as the angle and descent rate...only that you arrest it (flare) to land.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about one of the worst in GA. I remember my instructor inviting me to try a practice forced landing in a loaded Cherokee Six. From 3000ft the touchdown zone was inder the nose! A very capable airoplane with the engine running.
DO.
DO.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>?As long as we are sharing flying experiences what was your longest flight as a pilot flying the thing, mine was 19 hours and 10 minutes. <
Chuck my longest flight was a couple of months ago flying a Citation as Captain Florida to South Africa via Goose bay, Iceland direct, Prestwick (Scotland) Santander (Spain) Then down through Morocco, Algeria. across Nigeria to a little island on the Equator called Sao Tome and on down to South Africa.
This Citation was an S2 with a fuel capacity of 5800 ibs and 1500 nm range with reserves.
Diciest leg was to Sao Tome 400 miles off the Africa coast with not enough reserves to come back after the Nigerians refused to let us go high.
Total flight time 35 hrs at usually FL390 but with fuel stops and overnights.
But then again mine was in a Jet not like you brave guys in singles
Pace
Chuck my longest flight was a couple of months ago flying a Citation as Captain Florida to South Africa via Goose bay, Iceland direct, Prestwick (Scotland) Santander (Spain) Then down through Morocco, Algeria. across Nigeria to a little island on the Equator called Sao Tome and on down to South Africa.
This Citation was an S2 with a fuel capacity of 5800 ibs and 1500 nm range with reserves.
Diciest leg was to Sao Tome 400 miles off the Africa coast with not enough reserves to come back after the Nigerians refused to let us go high.
Total flight time 35 hrs at usually FL390 but with fuel stops and overnights.
But then again mine was in a Jet not like you brave guys in singles
Pace
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck my longest flight was a couple of months ago flying a Citation as Captain Florida to South Africa via Goose bay, Iceland direct, Prestwick (Scotland) Santander (Spain) Then down through Morocco, Algeria. across Nigeria to a little island on the Equator called Sao Tome and on down to South Africa.
I have flown over Sao Tome but never landed there. But by longest flight I meant non stop without landing. .
But then again mine was in a Jet not like you brave guys in singles
There is no way on earth you could tempt me to ferry a single engine airplane on over water routes.....period...because I'm a coward.
Diciest leg was to Sao Tome 400 miles off the Africa coast with not enough reserves to come back after the Nigerians refused to let us go high.
AAhhh Africa, you just gotta love it.
I would love to share some of my more interesting experiences flying in Africa but I can get enough flack here just making comments about flying generally.
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>I have flown over Sao Tome but never landed there. But by longest flight I meant non stop without landing. .<
Chuck what were you flying with that endurance ? it must have been tanked.
I have some nice shots of Sao Tome but cannot see how to add them here without linking to a site where they are held? They are on my computer.
A few of the airfields we used in Africa were over 5000 feet up still with temperatures in +35 deg thank god the runways were huge :-) cant remember the book rotation speeds
Pace
Chuck what were you flying with that endurance ? it must have been tanked.
I have some nice shots of Sao Tome but cannot see how to add them here without linking to a site where they are held? They are on my computer.
A few of the airfields we used in Africa were over 5000 feet up still with temperatures in +35 deg thank god the runways were huge :-) cant remember the book rotation speeds
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 4th Sep 2008 at 20:05.
