Issue 7 Article By Greg Covey Project VTOL - Part 1
Issue 7Article By Greg CoveyPrint Issue 7 "Project VTOL - Part 1"VTOL is an abbreviation for Vertical Take-Off and Landing. VTOL describes fixed-wing aircraft that can lift offvertically. This classification includes only a very few aircraft like helicopters, autogyros, jump jets, andtiltrotors. Helium-filled balloons and airships are not normally considered VTOL. The following project wasdedicated to our passion for making a functional VTOL design for the hobbyist using conventionalcomponents available at multiple vendors.It seems that some people currentlyworking on a VTOL project are gettinghung up on making a functionally true toscale model (like a V22 Osprey) whichmakes the cost and complexity of theproject extremely high. Other successfulprojects have been contracted bycommercial or military organizationswhere cost is not a major focus.I have also seen successful VTOLprojects that end up looking like spidersfrom outer space. While I suspect thatthese "spiders" are good low-costdesigns, they do not look or fly like ascale plane.Project VTOL was inspired by the Bell/Augusta BA609 Civilian Tiltrotor. This multi-part article details mydesign that has vertical take-off capability but looks and flies like a twin turboprop plane.My focus in this month's issue of AMP'D will be in making a VTOL design that is a repeatable project for theadvanced R/Cer; one that is easy to repair and looks like a real model plane. By using some of the keyconcepts revealed in this multi-part article, you can create your own VTOL design inspired by yourimagination.
Selecting a HostI initially looked into making a V22 Osprey for myVTOL project. I discovered that this model did notexist in a .60-.90 size kit or ARF so I then plannedto use an existing heli body to cover myframework. The model that seemed closest to theV22 Osprey body was the Century Airwolf fuselagethat cost around 200 unpaintedI decided that my host airframe must beinexpensive, readily available in ARF form, and,easily repairable. After discovering the full scaleBell/Agusta BA609 Tiltrotor, I realized that my hostdesign could take on the form of a moreconventional plane instead of the military heli-likeV22 Osprey.I choose the Multiplex Magister ARF for my host plane due to its size, low cost, and, my previous experiencefrom first reviewing it and then modifying it for brushless power. The Elapor foam can be assembled quicklyand repaired with regular CA and kicker (accelerator). The nice thing about using the Magister as a host isthat I already know it flies great and it is available from trusted vendors like Hobby Lobby , Horizon Hobby,and Tower Hobbies. The CG was not critical for normal flight and could deviate - 10mm without issue. l willsimply be using twin motors instead of a single one in the nose.Key Component SelectionsWhen selecting key components, my goal was to design the project so that it may be reproduced easily byothers using commonly available parts and low-cost components available through multiple vendors. To date,most designs I have seen are making military-sized VTOL projects, spending thousands of dollars. Theseprojects often used custom machined parts that were not readily available to others.A computer transmitter with 8 or 9 channels is a must for this project as it makes mixing the spare channelseasy to coordinate. I will be using a Futaba 9C transmitter with a dual-conversion receiver. At the very least,an 8 or 9 channel receiver and Futaba 9C transmitter will provide a good start.When it comes to gyro performance, you basically get what you pay for. The better performing gyros costmore money. To help me select the right gyro for my VTOL project, without breaking the bank, I solicitedhelp from heli experts, Ray and Kyle Stacy.I also felt that using an inrunner motor would be easier to mount and swing 90 degrees without having todeal with a rotating can. My plan was to use two Jeti Phasor 30-3 inrunner brushless motors, Jeti 40-ampESCs, and 12" props on a single 3-cell (20C) 5000mAh LiPo pack. The single 14oz 3-cell 5000mAh pack candeliver 100amps, if needed, and keep the cost and weight of the model down. By using 12" props, I couldtheoretically obtain about 8lbs of thrust on my target 5lb plane.
Design and TestingFor initial testing purposes, I saw two independent engineeringgoals. One is the ability for Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL).This testing will lift the plane up and set it down with the propspointed up. There will likely be a need for an additionalstabilization tail motor to keep it level on a third axis. The secondgoal is to simply make a flyable plane when the props are forward.This should be a normal plane design with dual motors. Myprevious experience with the Multiplex Magister proved it to be anexcellent stable flyer. The final goal would be the transition fromVTOL to flying (and back) where the plane starts moving forwardfrom hover to flight.One problem to deal with will be roll control. The electronic speedcontrollers (ESCs) may not be fast enough to control roll using agyro. I may need a basic rate gyro to dampen out roll during thehover mode.Pitch control is another issue. If the aircraft uses gravity for pitch stabilization, it will be become unstable.Perhaps a small motor and prop in the tail pointing up or down might work if the aircraft is made tail heavy.The pivot on the main motors could be made to shift the center of gravity back so that the tail fan can bemore effective. When the motors are shifted forward in normal flight, the CG can be moved forward again.These type of design issues were mulled over, again and again. I knew that it would likely take some testingbefore finding out if a particular technique worked or failed. I also wanted to keep things simple.Wiring would be simple plug and play. It should allow for easy disconnect of the main motors and variouscontrol stages. The Futaba 9C transmitter and receiver will control everything using mixes, knobs, andswitches. An inexpensive gyro on the tail fan could be used for pitch dampening. The two main motors couldbe mixed in the transmitter to provide manual roll control. There could also be gyros on each speed controlin the roll direction, if needed.I decided not to worry too much about regular flight mode since I knew the plane flew well so my initialconcentration would be on hovering and stabilization. Did I even have enough thrust to hover? What if theplane weighed more than I had anticipated? These questions were often thought about during the initialdesign phase. I saw the transition from vertical hover to forward flight as the tricky part.
Here are some key points that I considered to reduce the cost and complexity of the project.1)2)3)4)5)6)7)Does not need to be functionally scaleUse a computer transmitter for mixing functions, 8 (or more) channel receiverUse gyros for hovering stabilizationMotors only swing on one servo-driven axis (perhaps only 90 degrees for up and forwardUse a tail fan somewhere on aft fuselage for pitch stabilizationUse inexpensive rate gyros for low level hovering stabilizationBreak problem into basic stepsa) Vertical Takeoff and hover1) Test vertical lift to verify thrust/weight level (correct motor/prop choice)2) Initial tail stability control can be done manually3) Use gyros and tail fan for final hover stabilityb) Normal flight with normal gear landing (fly it like a normal plane)c) Transition from take-off to flightd) Transition from flight to landingI consider steps 7c and 7d to be the most difficult and will address them in a future part of my article. Onepossible solution is to rely on advanced piloting skills. Proper hovering stabilization may also prove to be achallenge.On my first test for VTO (or thrust level) the dual Jeti Phasor 30-3 motors will use the throttle stick formaster ESC control and I'll have a mix set up in the 9C transmitter to use aileron stick to slightly offset thespeed of the ESC for simple roll control. This offset mix will help during the test as the gyro will not be set upyet. A simple string tied on the tail will let a human control the pitch for the initial thrust test. I don't expectto take the plane more than 4' off the ground on this test. It will qualify my choice of motors, props, and 3cell 5000 pack as valid components on the Magister.or maybe it won't qualify them.According to Motocalc 8, I can expect 4lbs of thrust at 43 amps using an 11x5.5 APC prop on my Jeti 30-3motor. That's 8lbs total thrust and 86amps full throttle for both motors on my expected 5lb airframe. Sincethe generally accepted practice is a minimum thrust to weight ratio of 1.1:1, it was a good start.The Multiplex Magister host plane and other key components had all been selected. I had also broken thecomplex VTOL plan into more basic, easier to achieve steps that could be tested independently. It was timeto start building!Building and Stabilization PlanningI decided to try the following techniques for my initial VTOL project stabilization and control. A single JRDS8611 digital servo (260oz/in on 6v) will control both outer wing thirds from not only swinging up andforward but providing additional pitch control in the hover mode. The servo easily mounted in the stockarea meant for the standard aileron servo. I will be using smaller HS-55 servos on 6v for each aileronwhich provides about 1/2 the torque of a standard stock servo on 5v. Just about a perfect torquereplacement for the stock requirement. By rotating a large portion of the wing up during hover mode, itkeeps the motor thrust very efficient.
The Multiplex Magister design provides a carbon rod and channelmeant to hold the two wing halves together. The plane wasdesigned for easy removable wing halves. I will create a one piecewing as the span is only 64".still very portable.The stock channel cover can be cut and then sealed with thecarbon rod to the outer 1/3 wing half but let the tube swing insidethe channel on the center 1/3 portion. This technique allows asingle DS8611 servo to control the wing pitch and will perhaps bestabilized by a single gyro.Since the outer third of the wing on each side will swing up, theailerons can be used for yaw control as the air from the mainmotors will flow right over them. A gyro in-line with the aileronchannel will provide automatic yaw control. An additionaltransmitter mix from the rudder stick into the aileron channel(during hover mode only) will allow the pilot to also performmanual yaw compensation.At ground level, I expect hovering to take place by pilot and gyrocontrol. Higher up, I expect the pilot to control most of themovement. The unique side trim controls on the 9C transmittermay allow for easy mode or gain changes on the gyro. When thewing is swung down for normal flight, I will use leading andtrailing edge stops to keep the wing properly positioned. I mayalso need a servo driven latch to help lock the wing position fornormal flight.My initial flight mode testing would use the following control surfaces.Vertical Take-Off and LandingAileron - moves ailerons for yawElevator - moves elevator but has no effectAft Pitch Control Motor - On with gyro stabilization, manual gain adjust using knobWing swing servo - up position, has mix for manual pitch control using elevator stickRudder - moves rudder but has no effect, transmitter mix adjusts yaw by aileronsMotor ESC mix on aileron stick for manual roll controlForward FlightAileron - moves ailerons for rollElevator - moves elevator for pitchAft Pitch Control Motor - OffRudder - move rudder for yaw
My Speed 600 motor mount used on the Hobbico Superstar EP canbe unscrewed as well as shimmed to vary the thrust line, ifneeded. I tested the power system using a 12x6 APC e-prop todraw 44amps (440w) at full throttle on a 3s 3200mAh (20C) pack.This should work well with a single 3s 5000mAh (20C) pack ontwo motors. I expect to hover at around 30-35amps per motor.The linkage on the JR DS8611 servo used stock Hangar 9 1-1/2"Titanium Pro-link (HAN3550), 4-40 hardware (HAN3616), and, a3D servo arm (HAN3578) from Horizon Hobby. Note the carbonrod for locking the leading edge into position. For the trailingedge, I used a small rectangular piece of lite plywood.I misjudged my control horn position on the carbon bar beforeCAing it. It was too far forward making it difficult to achieve fullvertical position for hover take-offs. The metal bracket "fix" is aSullivan 5/32" (#888) wheel pant bracket with one arm removed.It is an attempt to correct the swing range. I will keep theselessons in mind for a second wing build.I was somewhat concerned about the strength of the 10mmcarbon tube for supporting the weight and thrust of the outerwing thirds. I will look into using an aluminum tube for mysecond wing build. By using a ½" aluminum tube for my secondwing build, I could then utilize a regular Hangar 9 (HAN3614) 832 Swivel Clevis Horn. The 8-32 screw will easily fit through thetube without weakening it as it would be bolted in place. Ishould still be able to make this initial version work and gainvaluable experience from it.Since I could not find an APC 12x6 pusher e-prop,the Zinger 12x6 normal and counter-rotating(pusher) wood props (ZINQ1260 and ZINQ4015)were used to cancel the torque of each motor. Theseprops are available at Tower Hobbies. The brushlessmotor can easily be reversed by swapping any two ofthe three wires going to the ESC.A 6v 10-amp Power Force Regulator (VRLI2) fromFMA Direct was used to power the receivers, gyros,and servos. With all the electronics, I was concernedthat the 3-amp UBEC would not be able to supplysufficient enough current. Further, the 10-ampPower Force Regulator uses noise-free linearregulation for a clean 6v output.I found a new use for my old chin-up bar in the garage as it will help me balance the VTOL plane andperform stabilization tests. Initially, I hung the plane from the two prop shafts and later from a singlepoint on the wing chord at the Center of Gravity.
The photos show that I initially used a LensRC 17tmotor from Todd's Models for pitch stabilization inhover mode. The thrust level was not sufficient and thismotor has already been replaced with a higher power150 watt brushless power system. Although the pitchcontrol cannot be reversed, the pilot has control overthe amplitude to make the tail settle where he wants.This seems to work well in conjunction with a second Eflite G90 gyro in-line with the motor's ESC. The 150watt motor (BP-12 at BP Hobbies) seemed to providegood pitch stabilization power.I also experimented with some techniques fortransferring the load from the outer wing thirds to thecenter portion. The results of my experimentsconvinced me that what I really needed was a strongeraluminum tube to replace the stock carbon tube.Initial Thrust TestAfter all the planning andbuilding, it was time toperform the initial thrusttest. My final weight wasclose to 6lbs instead of mydesired 5lb estimate. If themotors couldn't lift the planeoff the ground, I would needto re-think my entire powersystem or find ways toreduce the unwantedweight.My hope was that the lowvoltage drop using a single3-cell, 20C 5AH packcombined with the efficienttransfer of thrust throughthe tilted wing would proveto be key areas of thedesign enabling it to work.The wind was blowingabout 10mph that day andit was difficult to lift theplane off the groundwithout it starting to toppleover.
I patiently waited for a calmer day. In the Northeast,the fall season can bring plenty of wind and rain so Ihad to wait several weeks before my opportunityhappened. In the interim, I started to work on mystabilization techniques. When the calm day finallyarrived, to my surprise, the experimental plane notonly lifted off the ground, but I was only at 2/3throttle!"Project VTOL" was off to a great start!Improving the Wing DesignSometimes you just have to experiment with a technique to find out what works and what doesn't work. Idid discover several valuable things on my initial attempts. First, the 10mm carbon tube was notsufficiently strong to handle twisting forces when crashing the plane during the thrust and hover tests.Second, the various gyros I tested each had their own good points and bad points. Read on as I reveal myfindings.
The 10mm carbon tube, although light, did not hold up to theoccasional twisting action that would occur when the plane rolledover during the thrust and hover testing. This type of carbontube is not designed for twisting forces but has great strength towithstand bending forces. Further, the added weight of twinpower systems, wires, and electronics, put a greater load on thewing which it was not designed to handle.Tower Hobbies sells individual parts for the Multiplex Magister so Ibuilt a new wing using a 1/2" aluminum tube from Home Depot.The aluminum tube is 1/16" thick and will be able to handle muchstronger forces at a penalty of additional weight. The 36" tube,which I cut to a length of 31", weighed 3.5oz when finished.To help strengthen the tube channel and distribute the forceswhere the wing sections separate, I added some aircraft gradeplywood braces and glued them to the center section of the wing.The 10mm wing channel was also sanded a bit bigger to makeroom for the thicker ½" (13mm) aluminum tube. This wasaccomplished by wrapping the 5" cut off section of tube with #100and #150 grit sandpaper.Before mounting the aluminum tube inside the new wing channel,I added a 6" long hardwood dowel epoxied in the center areawhere the Hangar 9, 8-32 Swivel Clevis Horn will be mounted. Inthis manner, drilling a hole through the tube in that section wouldnot weaken it very much.The entire linkage was now made from Hangar 9 giant scalehardware. It was simple and solid. The mechanical rotation of thenew wing control provided about a 130 degree swing.Gyros and StabilizationAfter some research on available gyros, it was time to try one. Basically, what I had learned from severalaccomplished R/C heli pilots was that you get what you pay for. Of course, I did not want to go out andspend 300 for the top of the line designs so it becomes a compromise area of the design. I decided toorder three of the E-flite 9.0 Gram Sub-Micro G90 Heading Lock Gyros for initial stabilization testing. ModelAviation columnist and heli expert, Ray Stacy, had tried one on a small electric and said it worked fine, butthey often use heavier and more expensive JR G500T gyros on the larger T-rex brand helis.
The new E-flite G90 weighs 0.3oz and the JR G500Tweighs 1.0oz. If it didn't work the way I needed, I wouldthen try some more expensive JR G500A or Futaba GY401Rate Gyros.For my VTOL project, the heading lock mode is notneeded. The heading lock mode is actually an angle holdthat is prefered operation in helicopter tail control. As Ilater discovered, the E-flite G90 gyro defaulted to theHeading Lock Mode and could not be changed to the RateMode without using a spare channel for control. Thislimitation would become an issue later on.Another consideration to keep in mind is the control speed of the ESC. Ifthe ESC cannot keep up with the gyro compensation, it appears to makethe gyro look like it has poor performance. I kept this in mind when Iwas testing my pitch control system.For pitch control, I decided not to use an EDF motor as it is not meant torun in reverse and the spool-up time may be too long for properstabilization. The technique I mostly considered was to make the modeltail-heavy when the tiltrotors are pointed up so that the aft tail fan canmodulate around 50% thrust.My initial pitch control system was "borrowed" from one of my IcarusShockflyer models. It was a 50w brushless power system that was meantfor a 5oz to 10oz model. Initially, it appeared that the gyro compensationinto the ESC for pitch control was rather slow but I eventuallydetermined that the thrust level was not sufficient. I replaced the 50wpower system with a 150w brushless power system (BP-12 at BPHobbies) spinning an 8x4 SF prop. The increase in power provided anincrease in pitch response as well as keeping the motor and ESC cooler.The added weight was not an issue.Up until now, much of my VTOL plane control has been manual using the transmitter sticks throughvarious mixes. The second E-flite G90 Gyro was added to the aileron servo for yaw control. When the tiltrotors were pointed up, the ailerons controlled yaw through the thrust passing over the upright wingsections. Since the gyro was mounted on the outer moving section of the wing, when the tilt rotors facedforward for normal flight (a 90 degree change), the compensation was now on the roll axis. The yawcontrol seemed to work well when twisting the plane back and forth manually.
The aileron ontrol gyro gave me another idea. I decided to put the thirdgyro on the JR DS8611A digital servo that controls the wing swing. TheE-flite G90 gyro has a digital servo mode for super fast control response.My initial testing showed that this digital servo control mode using theG90 gyro had excellent response time as I could tip the plane forwardand backward while keeping the props pointed straight up! One shortcoming that I ran into was that unless I connected the G90 gyro to aspare channel on the receiver, I could not select the Rate Mode. Further,there was no offset control (or Servo Travel Limit Adjustment) on thegyro so I could not obtain the correct gain I needed when the wing wasproperly positioned. After wrestling with the limitations, I decided toupgrade my wing stabilization control to a JR G500A Airplane Rate Gyro.The JR G500A (now replaced by the G770 3D) is a more capable (andexpensive) ring sensor gyro that has outstanding holding power anddrift-free operation. It is designed specifically for airplane use and offersa variety of settings for easy setup. The G500A has a high rate frameselection for digital servos and separate gain and servo traveladjustments. The JR G500A gyro allowed me to set up the VTOL wingswing gain and position as I wanted it. However, the G500A gyro didrequire using a spare channel for gain control.Futaba 9C Transmitter MixesMixMixMixMixMixMixis Mix1 - Throttle - Flap (Ch. 3 to Ch. 6 for controlling both main motors)2 - Aileron - Flap (Ch. 1 to Ch. 6 for manual roll control of one motor in up position)3 - Elevator - Gear (Ch. 2 to Ch. 5 for manual pitch control of wing swing in up position)4 - Rudder - Aileron (Ch. 4 to Ch. 1 for rudder stick control of aileron yaw in up position)5 - Offset - Aux2 (Fixed offset to Ch. 8 for turning on/off pitch control motor in up position)6 - Throttle - Aux2 (Fixed curve 100% offset into Ch. 8 for disabling pitch motor when throttle stick10% or all the way down)7 - UnusedReceiver Channel nelChannelChannel12345678-AileronsElevatorThrottle for main motor 1RudderHover/Flight Mode SwitchThrottle for main motor 2JR G500A Gain adjustment for wing swing servoThrottle for 150w pitch control motorTest FlyingThe initial hover testing was done over a soft grassy area in my backyardand at a local park. The transmitter mixes allowed me to manuallycompensate for all three axis. The ESC gain on the pitch control motor wascontrolled by a knob on the transmitter which adjusted how the tail sat inrelation to the upright wings. After some repeated testing, I discovered thatthe E-flite G90 gyro would "creep" from its established setting making thetail go higher or lower. Although the amount of "creep" can be minimized byadjusting the sub-trim, it made the pitch control unreliable. When used on aheli rotor control, the effect is minimal as it will slowly make the tail drift inflight. On my VTOL design, the undesired effect would sometimes make thetail flip the plane over its nose onto its back.
My first thought was to replace the E-flite G90 gyro with another JR G500A Airplane Rate Gyro. The JRG500A ring gyro's drift-free operation could eliminate the servo "creep" experienced with the E-flite G90gyro. I then realized that I had no free channels to control the gain. I needed another solution so Idecided to try a Futaba GY401 Rate Gyro from Tower Hobbies for 140. This gyro uses a Silicon MicroMachine (SMM) sensor that eliminates trim changes in flight as it automatically corrects for a constantoffset like cross-wind or other unwanted axis changes.The Futaba GY401 Rate Gyro eliminated the "creep" in trim that I was experiencing with the E-flite G90gyro and did not require a spare channel to set the gain or switch to a rate mode. As mentioned earlier,this gyro benefit came at about double the cost but it was a better fit for my project.The Test of TransitionOnce that I was fairly happy with thegyro compensation on the variousaxis, and, I had some success in lowlevel hovering, it was time to moveon to step "b" of my basic VTOLfunctions. Would my design still flylike a normal plane from take-off tolanding even though it was a pound(or 20%) over the stock flyingweight?The main reason for testing normalflight with a tricycle gear take-offand landing is so that I hadconfidence to fly it like a normalplane if I got into trouble on mytransitions in and out of hover mode.As it turned out, my overweightMagister flew just fine! Although I didnot perform any aerobatics, it hadplenty of power and easily flew atonly half throttle. The 5AH (20C) LiPopack lasted for about 7-8 minutes.The plane also flew tail heavy so Iwould need to compensate bymoving the pack forward from thecockpit area and see how it affectedmy hovering capability.
SummaryOverall, I was pleased with the results of my design andtesting of the Magister host plane. The power system hadplenty of thrust to hover and the heavier than stock weightdid not prevent the Magister from performing like a normalplane.In the final part, it will be time for the true test of success.Will my VTOL design properly transition from hover to flightand back? Will I need any additional gyros? Assuming mydesign survives all the testing, what will my final scaleappearance emulate? Stay tuned for part 2 of Project VTOL ina future issue of AMP'D.When you fly electric, fly clean, fly quiet, and fly safe!Special thanks for contributions by:"Papa Jeff" Ring and Lynn Bowerman
This section of AMP'D covers some of the questions that our readers have sent in and I thought would beinteresting for others.Jim asks: "Hi Greg,I lost my manual for the World Models 40S Ultimate and want to know what therecommended controls throws and CG location is?Regards.Greg: Hi Jim,The link for all the manuals is right near the top of the Airborne Models Web site next to the"Contact Us" button. This link is for the Ultimate 40S PDF.Regards.Andy R. asks: "Hi Greg,I just came across your Feb 2008 Amp’d article regarding EDFs. I see you were hoppingup a twister with the Ammo 28-45-3600. In one of the pictures it shows a 5/32” tubebeing used as an adapter between the 3.2mm shaft and 4mm shaft adapter. Did this workwell and give a nice snug fit? Also, is this setup performing well on 4S? Do you know theamp draw, thrust, etc by any chance?Thanks.Greg: Hi Andy,So far, I have had no issues with my Twister EDFhop-up. Just rough up the motor shaft and inside ofthe brass tube before using medium CA to hold it inplace. Allow a 24hr dry time before test flying.With my 4-cell FlightPower 3700mAh pack connected,the current draw was 55amps (about 700w) at fullthrottle static testing. I never measured the thrustbut the performance change is very noticeable overthe stock setup.Note that with the extra battery weight, you need toadd3/4oz of lead weight to the tail. See the attached photo where I added it below the elevator andpainted it silver. I also made an exhaust ring from the bottom of a 20oz plastic bottle of Gatorade.Ask questions by e-mailing me at greg@rcuniverse.com
PilotViewFPV offers a breakthrough in the way you fly radio controlled aircraft. With this system you will beflying from the cockpit of your own model!Futaba R616FFM 2.4GHz FASST PR ReceiverFlat Foamy Performance- With Full-Fuse Style!
An Ultra-Micro Flyer For Everyone
Print Issue 7 "Project VTOL - Part 1"
control stages. The Futaba 9C transmitter and receiver will control everything using mixes, knobs, and switches. An inexpensive gyro on the tail fan could be used for pitch dampening. The two main motors could be mixed in the transmitter to provide manual roll control. There could also be gyros on each speed control in the roll direction, if .
Amendments to the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 Article I Article II Article III Article IV Article V Article VI Article VII Article VIII Article IX Article X Article XI Article XII Article XIII Article XIV Article I: Declaration of Rights Election Ballot # Author Bill/Act # Amendment Sec. Votes for % For Votes Against %
Mar 21, 2019 · THE TIME ME AND GREG CAME UP WITH OUR OWN SUPERHERO Me and Greg were bored one day, and Mrs. Heffley gave us some paper and markers to draw. Then Greg had an AWESOME idea. He said we should create our own SUPERHERO. Greg said the FIRST thing we needed to do was
Jefferson Starship article 83 Jethro Tull (Ian Anderson) article 78 Steve Marriott article 63, 64 Bill Nelson article 96 Iggy Pop article 81 Ramones article 74 Sparks article 79 Stranglers article 87 Steve Winwood article 61 Roy Wood art
Article 27 Article 32 26 37 Journeyman Glazier Wages Article 32, Section A (2) 38 Jurisdiction of Work Article 32, Section L 43 Legality Article 2 3 Mechanical Equipment Article 15, Section B 16 Out-of-Area Employers Article 4, Section B 4 Out-of-Area Work Article 4, Section A 4 Overtime Article 32, Section G 41
1 ARTICLES CONTENTS Page Article 1 Competition Area. 2 Article 2 Equipment. 4 Article 3 Judo Uniform (Judogi). 6 Article 4 Hygiene. 9 Article 5 Referees and Officials. 9 Article 6 Position and Function of the Referee. 11 Article 7 Position and Function of the Judges. 12 Article 8 Gestures. 14 Article 9 Location (Valid Areas).
2 Gary Labagh 2 George Price 2 Greg Carner 2 Greg Clark 2 Greg Kimball 2 Greg Pessolano 2 Gus Hurlburt 2 Howard Jarvis 2 Jack Swain 2 Jame Strassburg 2 James Henry 2 Jason Bennett 2 Jason Urckfitz 2 Jay Clause 2 Jean Boissonneault 2 Jeff Isabell Jr. 2 Jeff Parker 2 Jeff Yasinsac 2 Jeremy Markle 2 Jim Johnstone .
Greg Hammond . Greg Hammond is the chief executive officer of Hammond Iles Wealth Advisors, and co-founder of Planned Giving Strategies . Greg leads a team of professional financial advisors providing customized wealth management and investment solutions for individuals, families, companies, and charitable organizations across the U.S.
Andrew has recently taken over the residential side of the company with the assistance of Greg Alm. Greg Alm joined asman back in 2013. Greg has been a Red Seal carpenter for over a decade now specializing in single family residential construction. Greg has a keen eye for detail and l
