RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Search This Thread

Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pylon Universe - RC Pylon Racing >> Scale Racing >> RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 10/30/2009 8:24 PM

Tommy_Gun

Posts: 905
Score: 100
Joined: 4/7/2004
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Ione, CA, USA
Status: offline

Wing area for the SAMs warbird racing is calculated by multiplying avarage chord by the span.
In other words, yes the wing under the fuselage is a part of it.

_____________________________

Yeeeeahhh seee.
Say hello to my leetle fren.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to tsawyer148)

Post #: 226

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 10/31/2009 4:40 AM

skymasterone

Posts: 3
Score: 100
Joined: 4/24/2005
Last Login: 2/13/2010
From: , CA, USA
Status: offline

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tony Pacini)

Post #: 227

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 10/31/2009 4:51 AM

skymasterone

Posts: 3
Score: 100
Joined: 4/24/2005
Last Login: 2/13/2010
From: , CA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tony Pacini

Skids-

Sorry for the rant. Yes, I'm whining. There's more to it than you're probably aware of, but I still shouldn't be venting in a public forum. I apologize for not proposing something constructive.

We like racing with you guys and that's why we go. You are TOUGH competitors. We've just resigned outselves to the fact that whatever we bring probably won't be legal the following year

Take care, and hope to see you guys soon-

Tony

Why don't you guys try bringing something that is within the rules. I am not aware of many rule changes over the years.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tony Pacini)

Post #: 228

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 10/31/2009 5:14 AM

Tony Pacini

Posts: 322
Score: 100
Joined: 1/11/2002
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Prescott Valley, AZ, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: skymasterone

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tony Pacini

Skids-

Sorry for the rant. Yes, I'm whining. There's more to it than you're probably aware of, but I still shouldn't be venting in a public forum. I apologize for not proposing something constructive.

We like racing with you guys and that's why we go. You are TOUGH competitors. We've just resigned outselves to the fact that whatever we bring probably won't be legal the following year

Take care, and hope to see you guys soon-

Tony

Why don't you guys try bringing something that is within the rules. I am not aware of many rule changes over the years.

What we bring IS within the rules. The rules get changed as a result of what we bring. (Two out of the last 3 times, anyway).

Hide Signatures

(in reply to skymasterone)

Post #: 229

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 10/31/2009 7:40 AM

Tommy_Gun

Posts: 905
Score: 100
Joined: 4/7/2004
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Ione, CA, USA
Status: offline

Really Tony?,

Would you care to elaborate on just what transpired, instead of making it look like we are attempting to eliminate outside participation?

I seem to recall a story of a group that came to race in the Warbird races with high winged quickee type planes that were painted up to look like military cubs. Seriously? Do you think that meets with the spirit of the event?

I've said this in another forum you are familiar with and I'll say it here too. If it ain't a warbird then DON'T bring it to a warbird race.
Don't try to find loopholes and gray areas in the rules. That takes away from the fun of the event.

If you want to race formulas or quickees than fine go race them.

Just don't expect to come to a warbird race and compete with something that does not even come close to a plane that has raced in Reno or Cleveland or Mohave or Phoenix. Or that was an actual plane used in combat in the time period specified in the rules.

_____________________________

Yeeeeahhh seee.
Say hello to my leetle fren.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tony Pacini)

Post #: 230

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 10/31/2009 4:27 PM

Tony Pacini

Posts: 322
Score: 100
Joined: 1/11/2002
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Prescott Valley, AZ, USA
Status: online

OK, I'll give you the NE-1s. Although fairly scale, most aren't amused by a supersonic Cub. We didn't build them specifically for the SAM race, but we had them so we brought them. They were clearly legal at that time based on how the rules were written.

How about T-28s and AT-6s? They've raced at Reno. Are they legal?

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tommy_Gun)

Post #: 231

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 10/31/2009 4:37 PM

Tommy_Gun

Posts: 905
Score: 100
Joined: 4/7/2004
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Ione, CA, USA
Status: offline

As I understand the rules, we are trying to emulate the "unlimited" class at Reno.

This would plainly exclude the trainer type planes.

This is in the same vein as the PM Strega banning IMO. If it doesn't look like a full scale unlimited class warbird racer. It doesn't belong in the warbird racing.

And yes a Pond Racer would be legal according to the rules.

Also it looks as though I was mistaken about the other full scale racing venues.
The only place mentioned in our rules is the Reno races.

"Model Aircraft Requirements:
The only models qualified to be entered in a SAM Warbird event must be scale models replicating heavier than air, fixed wing, piston engine powered, man carrying, fighter or fighter-bomber aircraft that were in production after January 1, 1937, or scale models of non-military aircraft that have raced in the unlimited category of the Reno Air Races. To “have raced” means that the aircraft must have crossed the starting line while participating in an official heat. Observation or trainer aircraft that may have been modified to carry a weapon in unique circumstances do not qualify as fighter or fighter-bombers."

_____________________________

Yeeeeahhh seee.
Say hello to my leetle fren.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tony Pacini)

Post #: 232

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 10/31/2009 4:45 PM

Tony Pacini

Posts: 322
Score: 100
Joined: 1/11/2002
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Prescott Valley, AZ, USA
Status: online

Yes, I'm aware of the "trainer" clause that's in your rules now. My point is that the rule wasn't written that way until after we came to race at SAM with T-34s in 2002.

Attachments

Click to see fullsize image.

Click for fullsize

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tommy_Gun)

Post #: 233

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 10/31/2009 5:23 PM

Tommy_Gun

Posts: 905
Score: 100
Joined: 4/7/2004
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Ione, CA, USA
Status: offline

That may be the case and if you want to feel "targeted" for such a thing I suppose it's your prerogative.

When I first came to race with SAMs in the late '90s it was ALWAYS my understanding that we were racing planes which were supposed to represent full scale Unlimited Reno class racers or WW2 era fighters.

From just that picture it is plain to see that they are T-34 fuselages. But the wing planform and dihedral angle is drastically altered.
This is another thing IMO that needs to be addressed.

When the wing shape starts to get so far away from the original that it is obvious, it no longer looks like it's full scale counterpart.
Which takes away from the event.
And the same is still present with some of the wings used on some purpose built mustang based racers.

_____________________________

Yeeeeahhh seee.
Say hello to my leetle fren.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tony Pacini)

Post #: 234

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 10/31/2009 5:45 PM

Tony Pacini

Posts: 322
Score: 100
Joined: 1/11/2002
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Prescott Valley, AZ, USA
Status: online

How could we not feel targeted? We swept the Gold class, then received a phone call a few months later telling us that we couldn't bring those airplanes back again. How would you feel? When we came back the following year with Mustangs and Mustang variants (figuring that they should be safe from scrutiny), we even got some guff about the Miss Ashley IIs that we brought. We've learned to expect it.

Your rules were developed from the original SWRA rules, then SAM went to 1-day races and dropped the static judging portion of the event. We liked the format so we ended up doing the same thing back in Arizona. The original SWRA rules allowed almost everything with regard to aircraft, and what showed up was tempered by the static judging. The rules were unrestrictive to encourage diversity and participation. The one revision I can remember came in the early 1990s as a result of a Martin MO-1 (that's where the "in production after January 1, 1937" came into play). That plane was scale AND very fast, and some didn't like it.

I fully agree with you that the planes aren't "scale" enough. When I started in 1990 (and when static judging counted for 50% of your total score), the planes as a whole looked a lot more like the real thing. Few were ARFs because they just got hammered so badly in static judging. Those were the good old days.

What we have now, though, is an entirely different mindset in the modeling community. Most don't build anymore, they assemble ARFs. And who wouldn't? There are so many good ARFs that it doesn't make sense to build any more, especially when used as a disposable racer. I wouldn't have had my P-61 Black Widow (my favorite airplane, no less) unless it had been made available as an ARF. I'd bought plans for a smaller one, even bought a Ziroli kit, but neither of those ever got built.

I fear that if we require everyone to bring really scale airplanes (however we could attempt to manage that), participation would suffer as a result.

The thin line here is that the rules should accurately reflect the intent of the event. If something is clearly allowed in the rules, then nobody has a right to get upset when somebody builds to the letter of those rules. If you want to restrict the event to certain aircraft that have raced in the Unlimited Class at Reno, (rather than those that theoretically could have qualified to race), then maybe the rules should spell it out specifically. In the meantime, though, it's very likely that someone will show up with something else that isn't well-received.

Please don't let this come between us. I'm sorry if I've upset you. We've got far more in common than these few issues that could divide us. We like racing, round airplanes, and P-61s. Shouldn't that count for something?

< Message edited by Tony Pacini -- 10/31/2009 6:58 PM >

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tommy_Gun)

Post #: 235

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/1/2009 1:05 AM

Tommy_Gun

Posts: 905
Score: 100
Joined: 4/7/2004
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Ione, CA, USA
Status: offline

Nothing lost, nothing gained.
We are just voicing experiences and opinions.

_____________________________

Yeeeeahhh seee.
Say hello to my leetle fren.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tony Pacini)

Post #: 236

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/2/2009 11:45 PM

Jimmy Skids

Posts: 365
Score: 100
Joined: 6/10/2003
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Sacramento, CA, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: summin

Gents,

Here is a comparison of the current rules with the 115 4c added (straight linear interpolation) versus a 1.5x multiplier on the 2c displacements. I rounded to the nearest 1/100th of a cu. in. This makes the 2c have 75% of the displacement of the 4c.

Maybe there could be a grace year so the 115 4c would be legal in airplanes with 513+ wing areas or we could slide the wing area scale to accommodate them.

Not sure how the formatting will come thru until I post this. Here goes.

Mark

Current rules with 115 added Proposed 1.5x incr to 2c disp
2c disp 4c disp Min sq. in. 2c disp 4c disp Min sq. in.
0.40 0.80 400 0.60 0.80 400
0.45 0.90 438 0.68 0.90 438
0.50 1.00 475 0.75 1.00 475
0.55 1.10 513 0.83 1.10 513
0.58 1.15 532 0.87 1.15 532
0.60 1.20 550 0.90 1.20 550
0.65 1.30 567 0.98 1.30 567
0.70 1.40 585 1.05 1.40 585
0.75 1.50 602 1.13 1.50 602
0.80 1.60 620 1.20 1.60 620
0.90 1.80 650 1.35 1.80 650
1.08 2.16 700 1.62 2.16 700
1.20 2.40 735 1.80 2.40 735

First, I would like to commend Tommy and Tony for a very positive working out of the differences. Mark, good job on the chart. Things seem to be headed in the right direction.

Second, Mark took the time to post the above and it covered some of what I had been thinking about since my last visit.
1. What max size two stroke if we were to increase the displacement would we draw the line at?
2. What would the minimum wing area be (and yes Terry touched on this as well)?

So can others chime in and let's start to work from there. I still would like to see the wing area come down a tad on the 90-115 4 strokes, but I'm flying 120's in 550sq warbirds so in reality it doesn't matter at this point to me. I would prefer to keep the mini's out of racing and keep it to 400 minimum squares, but what does everyone else think? Let's do this.

Figure the max 4 stroke, the max 2 stoke, the minimum wing area, and then start building the chart from there.

Respectfully,
Jimmy Skids

Hide Signatures

(in reply to summin)

Post #: 237

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 1:33 AM

Tony Pacini

Posts: 322
Score: 100
Joined: 1/11/2002
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Prescott Valley, AZ, USA
Status: online

Jimmy,

Here's a question regarding the smaller aircraft that you refer to ("minis"). Didn't SAM experiment with 1/12 scale combat planes as racers? I seem to remember a demonstration heat during one of our last 3 visits (2001/2002/2003). I'd guess that if you guys thought it was a good idea, you'd be doing it already. My personal believe is that there's little reason to allow less than 400 square inches. Few run anything near that small other than the occasional purpose-built Nelson racer. You guys at least tried it, though, so you probably have a better perspective as to why it would or wouldn't work.

Do you remember the 1/12th scale experiment?

Tony

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Jimmy Skids)

Post #: 238

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 2:30 AM

eddyc

Posts: 75
Score: 100
Joined: 9/29/2003
Last Login: 3/10/2010
From: Smartsville, CA, USA
Status: offline

As a new guy I'll chime in and say the 90 120 550sq chart looks good to me. I also support keeping the minis out, too hard to judge relative distances if planes are too different in size. Might increase the chance of mid-airs.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tony Pacini)

Post #: 239

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 2:46 AM

still4given

Posts: 961
Score: 100
Joined: 1/27/2006
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Victorville, CA, USA
Status: offline

Hi Guys,

Again, most of the guys chiming in here run in the gold class. While I love the gold class, my biggest concern being a race promoter is drawing new people into the sport. Keep in mind that while many of them will be non racers looking to become part of it, some will be folks who have racing experience in Giant scale racing, Q40, Q500 etc. No matter how much we talk about drawing new people into the sport, it keeps going back to whether someone can be competitive in gold. I keep hearing the guys who basically run only Gold class, and only run Silver if there is no Gold class, saying don't worry about the bronze and silver classes, they have plenty of options. Well that's not what I hear from the guys I have approached about joining in to the warbird racing. I certainly wasn't thinking about the gold class when I suggested that we allow .25 two strokes. That was to help folks get involved in the Bronze class. Give the newcomers a lot of choices and and the chances are that they can join in using something they already have. How does this hurt us?

Blessings, Terry

_____________________________

Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply.
Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tony Pacini)

Post #: 240

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 3:04 AM

still4given

Posts: 961
Score: 100
Joined: 1/27/2006
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Victorville, CA, USA
Status: offline

I tweaked my chart a little. Again, keep in mind, while I certainly don't want to hurt the gold class, my main goal is to fill all three classes.

Blessings, Terry

Attachments

Click to see fullsize image.

Click for fullsize

_____________________________

Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply.
Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God

Hide Signatures

(in reply to still4given)

Post #: 241

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 3:42 AM

delateurj

Posts: 21
Score: 100
Joined: 11/21/2006
Last Login: 2/18/2010
From: Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Status: offline

Input from a first year racer. Would probably come and fly if the chart allowed the WM Mustang on .75 as then I wouldn't need a different plane/engine combo than what I have for Morgan Hill/Fresno/Madera warbird racing. Latest version, if I read that right wouldn't allow that combo.

Thanks,
Joe.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to still4given)

Post #: 242

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 4:16 AM

still4given

Posts: 961
Score: 100
Joined: 1/27/2006
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Victorville, CA, USA
Status: offline

Both Marks chart and mine allow a .75 on a WM P51. The WM p51 has 585 squares. Marks chart allows a 1.05 two stroke and mine allows a 1.08.

_____________________________

Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply.
Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God

Hide Signatures

(in reply to delateurj)

Post #: 243

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 4:43 AM

delateurj

Posts: 21
Score: 100
Joined: 11/21/2006
Last Login: 2/18/2010
From: Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Status: offline

Duh!
I knew I shouldn't of posted after a glass of wine.

- Joe.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to still4given)

Post #: 244

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 4:44 AM

Tony Pacini

Posts: 322
Score: 100
Joined: 1/11/2002
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Prescott Valley, AZ, USA
Status: online

Why not allow the 1:1 ratio that the SWRA guys are already using?

Look at the traditional hot spots on the proposed chart: a .40 2-stroke could easily overpower a .65 4-stroke. Which 2-stroke .75 could run with a YS 1.10, and which .80 2-stroke could be expected to compare with the new YS 1.15? Are the .91 ducted fan motors on-par with a YS 1.20? I'm asking because I don't know. Is there any hard data comparing the proposed 2-stroke changes against the performance of the benchmark YS .91/1.10/1.15/1.20 engines?

If you want to put the 2-strokes on an even playing field with the 4-strokes, why now allow equal displacement? We already have a working model in place (the SWRA group). How has it been working for them?

Also, this is a club-level sport event. We're not likely to draw from the Giant scale racing, Q40, or Q500 crowds. You're more likely to pull entries in from the everyday sport fliers of the hosting club. We've seen it work that way at Speedworld. Sure, you'll get the occasional 3-pole guy who joins in, but for the most part it's the sport fliers that are likely to step up and give it a try.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to still4given)

Post #: 245

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 5:28 AM

Tommy_Gun

Posts: 905
Score: 100
Joined: 4/7/2004
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Ione, CA, USA
Status: offline

Ok now, before anyone throws the almighty SWRA and what they are "doing".
What has anyone heard about the SWRA as of late? Anything at all?
From what I see here http://www.swraracing.com/ the last website update was on 12/01/2007 05:33:31 PM

And the last race on their schedule was December of 2008.

So just how much influence should this group have on our rule making?

_____________________________

Yeeeeahhh seee.
Say hello to my leetle fren.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tony Pacini)

Post #: 246

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 1:29 PM

RocketRob

Posts: 1156
Score: 100
Joined: 12/27/2002
Last Login: 3/10/2010
From: San Francisco, CA, USA
Status: offline

I think a 1.5:1 or 1.3:1 displacement bias is realistic.
The top running 2 strokes seem to have more HP but less torque per displacement than the 4 strokes. I don't think this is earth shattering news.

I support the .91/120/550 group.

Now what to do with the minis?

I'm a bit on the fence here- both in agreement with Terry that it will bring out some new planes/racers but also wary of having them in a gold class for visual avoidance reasons. Perhaps we could use a chart similar to Terrys allowing the minis (below 400sq) to compete in bronze and silver but not allow them in gold - making a cut off at 400sq in. The points in support may be the minis would tend to be less experienced entry level flyers - this would allow them to get valuable experience and provide a steping stone if they choose to move up. This would insulate the gold racers from flying/racing with less stable and tougher to judge smaller sized planes.

_____________________________

Space Available

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tommy_Gun)

Post #: 247

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 3:52 PM

still4given

Posts: 961
Score: 100
Joined: 1/27/2006
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Victorville, CA, USA
Status: offline

The truth is, Bert and Marty, who are working to develop RCPRO Warbird racing in the Las Vegas/Lower Utah area are both GS racers. They have been dabbling in our warbird racing and are hooked. I don't know how many guys we will see from the Q40 and Q500 crowd, but my point was that not all folks who are looking at getting involved in our races are novices. Some of them will be looking at the Silver and Gold classes as a place to get involved. I have no idea what "Minis" are. My example of a .25 size bird is the Model Tech Me-109. John Buckner flew on with an OS .25 at the last Kingman race and it did just fine and it was not noticeably smaller than the other planes in the heat. This is not a big deal to me, just an attempt to give more options to newcomers. We are currently having a discussion between the CD's of the various RCPRO Warbird events about this very thing. Doing away with the wing area chart all together and relying on the breakout times is even on the table. That is opening up some other interesting prospects such as electric power. Silent power. imagine how that would have helped our pilots in WWII.

Blessings, Terry

_____________________________

Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply.
Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God

Hide Signatures

(in reply to RocketRob)

Post #: 248

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 4:25 PM

Jimmy Skids

Posts: 365
Score: 100
Joined: 6/10/2003
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Sacramento, CA, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tony Pacini

Jimmy,

Here's a question regarding the smaller aircraft that you refer to (''minis''). Didn't SAM experiment with 1/12 scale combat planes as racers? I seem to remember a demonstration heat during one of our last 3 visits (2001/2002/2003). I'd guess that if you guys thought it was a good idea, you'd be doing it already. My personal believe is that there's little reason to allow less than 400 square inches. Few run anything near that small other than the occasional purpose-built Nelson racer. You guys at least tried it, though, so you probably have a better perspective as to why it would or wouldn't work.

Do you remember the 1/12th scale experiment?

Tony

Tony,
Remember it, yes. Never participated in it. 1/12 scale didn't catch on...... hand launch, wide open two strokes, and not enough kit's in production would be my guess regarding it's non-success. Personally I believe 400 minimum squares is a good bench mark as well.
Jim

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Tony Pacini)

Post #: 249

RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento - 11/3/2009 4:33 PM

Jimmy Skids

Posts: 365
Score: 100
Joined: 6/10/2003
Last Login: 3/12/2010
From: Sacramento, CA, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: still4given

Both Marks chart and mine allow a .75 on a WM P51. The WM p51 has 585 squares. Marks chart allows a 1.05 two stroke and mine allows a 1.08.

Terry,
I would add here that my chart as well supports this combination. This was my main purpose in posting a proposed change. Also, let's be really clear, a WM Mustang has 580 square inches not 585 (a typo on Airborne's site - do the metric conversion). It would be great to see all three groups using the same basic rules, but when I set out with this venture it was mainly with the bay area racers in mind since they are closest in distance to Sacramento. Not trying to snub the rcpro guys, just looking to get northern Ca. on the same page first.
Jim

Hide Signatures

(in reply to still4given)

Post #: 250

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pylon Universe - RC Pylon Racing >> Scale Racing >> RE: Two Day Warbird Race in Sacramento
Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Jump to:

Google

Search | Marketplace | Event Calendar | Local Clubs | Magazine | Product Ratings | New Products | Discussion Forums

Photo Gallery | Instructor Search | Field|Track|Marina Search

Advertisers | Hobby Vendor Resources | Rate Manufacturers | Sign In/Sign Up

SITE MAP! : : FORUM RULES

© 2001 - 2007 24-7 RC, LLC, all rights reserved.

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America

3.016RCU1