Reasons why i severely lowered my BoS flight time lately [from a BoS enthusiast]

February 11, 2015

No, they are both connected to the power control. They don't give a diddlydoo about each other.

Asking again: Do you understand the "constant" part of "constant speed propelller"?

February 11, 2015

As an A&P...I hope so.

February 11, 2015

Let me further explain that Marauder.

It is the manifold pressure change at critical altitude that causes the aerodynamic forces to change on the propeller and oil pressure changes on the propeller governor that drive the change in blade pitch to maintain the constant speed.

So since we know each specific fuel flow is unique to a specific manifold pressure....

Will there be a change in engine speed at critical altitude?

February 11, 2015

Ah, you want to count single rpm...let me quickly process...since air density goes down along with engine power and the prop meets less resistamce, true air speed is usually increasing in a climb and the whole system has a variance of several rpm all the time...your point is: Irrelevant.

February 11, 2015

Ah, you want to count single rpm...let me quickly process...since air density goes down along with engine power and the prop meets less resistamce, true air speed is usually increasing in a climb and the whole system has a variance of several rpm all the time...your point is: Irrelevant.

[Edited]

Edited February 12, 2015 by Bearcat

February 11, 2015

Ah, you want to count single rpm...let me quickly process...since air density goes down along with engine power and the prop meets less resistamce, true air speed is usually increasing in a climb and the whole system has a variance of several rpm all the time...your point is: Irrelevant.

Think of manifold pressure as power input and propeller rpm as power output.

Guess what happens to the output of any system when you reduce the input??

Coefficient of Power (Constant Speed Propeller) = POWER input / [density of the air * (revoltions/s)^3 * (Disk Diameter)^5]

The point is hardly irrelevant. It is the meat and potatoes of this long muddied discussion.

Yes there will be an engine speed change at critical altitude. That engine speed change is what triggers the BMW801D2 supercharger to start the gear change process.

All gear changes are a function of density altitude just like the NACA says and BMW designed.

Will there be a change in engine speed at critical altitude?

Nobody seems to want to answer this simple question about the BMW801 Kommandogerät.

[Edited]

[Edited]

This thread is moving towards being locked if this trend continues.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Bearcat

February 11, 2015

Yes. The problem only is that you have not shown any mechanism that links the variable datum to anything that does calculate density. Even though I have asked you several times. The report clearly states that "the displacement of the variable datum is caused by a change in the position of the main-servocontrol lever."

I have pitbullviscous every time you have asked I have explained it. I just thought you knew it was the main conductor of the basic power producing function of the engine...specific fuel flow.

It is caused by a change in the power lever but that is not the only thing to cause displacement of the variable datum!!

Think of it this way....

How is the engine going to change supercharger gear in a constant airspeed climb. The pilot does not touch the power lever.

Maybe this will show the connection a little better. It is plugged right into the variable datum of the engine and when it changes...the variable datum changes. Even has it own linked in servo motor with manifold pressure because they work together so closely and it fine tunes the intake butterflies.

February 12, 2015

All this is above my designerhead. Just limited technical understanding here:)

What would be interesting to know for me is: Will all this finally lead to a change in Game FMs (especially the 190?).

Crump did all your effort help anything?

February 12, 2015

I'm amazed how Crump manages to answer the questions and personal attacks. I myself being a mechanical engineer am excited by his deep knowledge in this field.

Reading through the pages I came to the conclusion that most disputes are revolving around terminology. It may be too difficult to graps precisely all those confusing terms like density altitude, pressure altitude and lastly engine speed. I'm not specialized into combustion engines and aviation so I also had to get accustomed to these terms. And I must confess I had a headake to get that all sorted in my mind. So thank you Crump for all those details and explanations.

February 12, 2015

I'm amazed how Crump manages to answer the questions and personal attacks.

+1 !

February 12, 2015

I'm amazed how Crump manages to answer .... personal attacks.

+1

This and the term luftwhiners tells me a lot....

February 12, 2015

Very interesting...

and mostly over my head. I did learn something and I hope what I learned is true. When people discus the issue of how a flight sim simulates flight there are two things involved. The general in how well forces of air and wind affect a plane and the second more particular in how plane x compares to plane y. I always felt that BoS gave the best by far of the subjective 'feel of flight' and the general forces of air and wind on any plane. But until I read through this thread I only had a tiny understanding of the issue of plane x behavior verses plane y. I suspect the dev's behind BoS don't have a virtual wind tunnel that they can test out a plane and see how close it may come to actual test. It does seem to me that if planes bf 109g verses the 190a-3 don't show their real life differences in how they behave then we don't have much more then different looking aircraft.

February 12, 2015

It does seem to me that if planes bf 109g verses the 190a-3 don't show their real life differences in how they behave then we don't have much more then different looking aircraft.

But the planes do sport their real life differences. It's always a question to what degree it's modeled. But ... there are things that can't be modeled or the possibility of modeling is limited. How do you model tactical use of aircraft employed by LW or VVS? How do you model fear? How do you model limited maintenance? We use our airplanes under conditions that are far from WW2 reality. And we use them in a way that had not been prevalent back then. Clasical dogfights seen over the trenches during WW1 is what we do and was not done so often in WW2. We use different sticks to measure our planes than real pilots did. I'm not saying the sim is perfect when it comes to performance modeling. I also doubt the speed margin between the Yak and the FW 190 was almost non existent. And the instant excelent roll rate of the Lavotchkin fighters - what will be La 5FN like when it's released? Will it be like F16?. But I have no data to prove it. So I fly almost every day and enjoy what's available.

February 13, 2015

Of course it does...it is how the pilot changes power settings. I am not sure why this is even an issue or what it has to do with the fact the KG identifies the density altitude and changes gears appropriately.

The problem is that the report does not show any mechanism for anything else than pressure and the "pilot power setting" affecting the gear change. Now, there might be at least two reasons for this:

1) It is correct and nothing else affects the gear change.

2) The report, or my understanding of it, is incomplete in this part.

You obviously take the second stance, as it makes sense to you, based on your experience on the matter. Therefore you have to (well, it's not your obligation by any means, but if we are to discuss the matter and hope to move forward doing so ) establish the physical mechanism (from the source of the information to the variable datum connecting to the gear change control) that supports your case (and I'll get back to this later, quoting another of your posts).

While it is clear that density is relevant to both aerodynamics and engine performance, there still MIGHT be several reasons why the gear change has been implemented the way several people believe that it has.

It may be due to complexity: if more complex system does not bring considerable benefits, the easier system is most likely a better solution. The old mantra of "if it works, don't fix it". Maybe due to the way that other control systems compensate, the density is not that critical in defining the gear change, but instead pressure and control lever position give "good enough" solution.

What is obvious from the report that even in "ideal" conditions the manifold pressure is allowed to drop (and the report gives a good reason for this). Therefore, it may well be plausible that due to other factors like fuel economy or engine longevity, the most optimal gear change (in terms of power output) is not the most critical issue and again pressure and throttle position give a good enough estimation for the gear change, even in more adverse conditions.

It is obvious if you think how much more optimal power the engine might bring if it was indeed operated by a human. As soon as the manifold pressure starts to drop, a human could change the higher charger gear and adjust throttle and prop pitch accordingly and keep adjusting these as altitude changes according to the instruments he or she has in his or her disposal. However, the whole point of the KG is to take cognitive load off from the pilot (so that he or she does not have to observe the instruments and keep adjusting everything all the time) and adjust things automatically. This does not necessarily mean the engineers got everything optimal -- however amazing engineering feat the KG was AT ITS TIME -- but it was a "good enough", cost effective and robust system so that the pilot indeed didn't have to pay attention to anything but the lever in his or her cockpit.

To reiterate: Because it is not obvious from the report that density DIRECTLY plays role in deciding the gear change, you need to SHOW clearly HOW the information about the density affects the position of the variable datum, as the report clearly does not.

Quoting tables that have nothing to do with the MECHANISM of the gear change itself is not going to help. It is obvious from those tables (and from physics) that density does play a role in critical altitude and engine performance, but the causal link between density and gear change is not shown by those tables. They do not say anything directly about the change of the gear and that why you just repeating those -- would I dare say "trivialities" if you consider the actual question -- facts isn't bringing us any closer to solution.

The NACA is also very clear on what it was designed to do. They were testing a captured piece of equipment so capsule stack may have been compromised. That does not change its function and purpose.

BMW is very clear on the fact it's job is maintain a fixed fuel to air ratio. That is the basis of all engine power.

The NACA did get the principles right on how it operates that fact they could not get it to operate properly does not change the mixture control design purpose.

Of course, nobody is disputing this. They reported their test results and didn't speculate (or further research) why this happened (whether it was a broken unit, problem with the test process, or design flaw in the KG itself), most likely because it was out of the scope of their report.

Ok good, I was not seeing that clearly spelled out. Please do not get frustrated..internet boards are a very poor communication medium.

Yes, this is what we (again) agree on: communication can be frustrating. Communication is of course two directional thing, so I definitely have to take my part of the blame, but what frustrates me is that you seem to constantly misquote or misunderstand me (which, I admit, may well be due that I'm not communicating my ideas properly, this is why I'd hope that you'd ask what I mean, if there is something unclear in my messages) and quote from the report stuff that seems non-related to the actual question. This does not mean of course that I'm angry with you, just frustrated

And I definitely hope that the latter part of this sentence doesn't apply to me:

I'm amazed how Crump manages to answer the questions and personal attacks.

Now that it is clear.

Yes, let's get back to business. After all that meta-discussion

Answer this question:

Is engine speed at a constant power lever setting going to change at critical altitude?

I do not know. What I read from the report, it seems to me that the propeller-pitch control tries to maintain the propeller speed despite the drop in the manifold pressure. Now, to what extend it can do that is not clear from the report. As the manifold pressure is allowed to drop even in the "ideal" conditions, I would imagine that there is at least some area of manifold pressure drop relative to the power lever setting, where the system manages to maintain engine speed.

Again, this is irrelevant to the actual question, unless a direct physical link between the engine speed (and I'm not talking about using the engine speed as index, as seems to be done in Figure 14) and the variable datum of the gear change control can be shown to exist.

It is caused by a change in the power lever but that is not the only thing to cause displacement of the variable datum!!

Think of it this way....

How is the engine going to change supercharger gear in a constant airspeed climb. The pilot does not touch the power lever.

Well, this is very much the question that we are asking, isn't it. Looking at the report there seems no other mechanism than the pressure change and the power lever setting (affecting the variable datum).

Maybe this will show the connection a little better. It is plugged right into the variable datum of the engine and when it changes...the variable datum changes. Even has it own linked in servo motor with manifold pressure because they work together so closely and it fine tunes the intake butterflies.

NOW we are getting somewhere (and this is what I asked several posts ago, I believe). The report does not actually explain that part of the mechanism (or I'm not reading it right), but refers to the other paper that is supposed to. I have located that paper and when I get a chance, I'll try to go and get it (unfortunately the library is open only during my work hours).

Meanwhile, unless we have other sources that explain the mechanism this or if you can't explain it in more detail yourself, I'm afraid I can not make any conclusions. But now you have at least pointed me to a new direction which may (or may not) give new insight on the matter.

February 13, 2015

Well, this is very much the question that we are asking, isn't it. Looking at the report there seems no other mechanism than the pressure change and the power lever setting (affecting the variable datum).

The pilot does not have to do anything in a constant airspeed climb with the power lever for the system to change gears.

Go to "I" on the diagram and follow the linkage.....

You will see how the mixture control adjusts the variable datum independent of the power lever.

What I read from the report, it seems to me that the propeller-pitch control tries to maintain the propeller speed despite the drop in the manifold pressure.

It does try to maintain it. It will change speed at critical altitude and the blade has to be driven to a new pitch. That will change the variable datum.

February 13, 2015

Please, Crump. For the sake of everything good and beautiful in this world (not to mention my blood pressure ): read the whole post a few times and try to understand what I'm saying before replying. And if what I say is unclear, ask before quoting.

February 13, 2015

If the red arrows in the diagram show direction of movement, then the arrow to the supercharger gear change module is pointing in the wrong direction.

February 13, 2015

The problem is that the report does not show any mechanism for anything else than pressure and the "pilot power setting" affecting the gear change.

Follow the linkage from "I" to the supercharger gear control and manifold pressure control. You will see how it changes the variable datum and engine speed independent of power lever setting.

Again, this is irrelevant to the actual question, unless a direct physical link between the engine speed (and I'm not talking about using the engine speed as index, as seems to be done in Figure 14) and the variable datum of the gear change control can be shown to exist.

It is very relevant. The engine speed change is the catalyst for the gear change process. The gear change is a function of the engine speed change at critical altitude...that is right out of the text.

the density is not that critical in defining the gear change, but instead pressure and control lever position give "good enough" solution.

The issue is pressure altitude is not "good enough". It is often thousands of feet difference between density altitude and pressure altitude.

Rumcajs, Solmyr, StG2_Manfred, VSG1_Winger, Pitbullvicious, and jcomm....

Thank you guys for your maturity. It has been a team effort from Celestial, Kwaitek, and others who contributed the data and every thing else. It is not just me.

Please, Crump. For the sake of everything good and beautiful in this world (not to mention my blood pressure ): read the whole post a few times and try to understand what I'm saying before replying. And if what I say is unclear, ask before quoting.

I reread it and realized I screwed up! My apologies!!

The board would not let me edit it so I just deleted the post and quoted the correct thing. This post has the correction.

February 13, 2015

Milo, I think that that arrow is to the correct direction, but I'm not sure about the arrow from the I and H apparatus. Crump's picture on that is a bit unclear and the text does not explain this part clearly.

February 13, 2015

Looking at the report there seems no other mechanism than the pressure change and the power lever setting (affecting the variable datum).

Tell me what you think the variable datum is....I think this could be contributing to the issue.

Milo, I think that that arrow is to the correct direction, but I'm not sure about the arrow from the I and H apparatus. Crump's picture on that is a bit unclear and the text does not explain this part clearly.

....it goes both ways. Think of the linkage as a communication pathway transmitting and receiving information...that is why it is variable datum.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Crump

February 13, 2015

....it goes both ways.

Yes but only in one direction at a time.

February 13, 2015

Tell me what you think the variable datum is....I think this could be contributing to the issue.

In this context I understand it as a physical mechanism that moves the whole pressure sensor up or down so that the amount which the pressure sensor affects the gear change can be controlled.

This is however trivial I think, as...

....it goes both ways. Think of the linkage as a communication pathway transmitting and receiving information...that is why it is variable datum.

..the REAL question is what pushes and pulls the variable datum

The I might indeed be the solution to this question, but current sources (that I have read via this discussion) don't seem to explain its function detailed enough.

What ever it is, it seems to be connected to the mixture control (I can't see a connection between it and the prop. pitch controller anyhow) and might indeed be the "lost Grail" of this discussion.

Edited February 13, 2015 by PitbullVicious

February 13, 2015

I'm doing something I hate, speculating with lack off evidence, but the way that the KG MIGHT work in the way that Crump is trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong), is that the mixture control OUTPUTs to the link, going from it (G) to the I. This then could adjust the angle in which the link to the supercharger is attached to the link directly from the main servo control (the pilot's power lever).

What confused me is that the mixture control also requires INPUT from the power lever control, and I've been reading as that link going from I to G. However, the H might actually be the input that defines the setting between lean and rich and as the mixture control does not need other input besides the charge air temperature and pressure (i.e. it can then mechanically calculate the charge air density and adjust fuel mixture accordingly) the link to I might indeed be and output.

This would be much easier to explain with the picture, but I'm not at my own computer at the moment. I'll get back to you once I am

But until the function of H and I and their relation to G is clear, this is just speculation from my part.

February 13, 2015

From online engineering dictionary:

"Datum Points

In layout and machining operations the reference points on a datum plane from which dimensions are measured."

It is not strictly a physical entity, just a defined point in space. In the context of the KG document this point is where the control lever mechanism stops and the mechanism integral to each control unit starts. Each control unit is then working off a defined point using it's specific internal mechanism.

The point is moved by the movement of the control lever, hence it is variable. The word "variable" in no way implies that it must be moveable by some feedback.

On the linkages: there is an input from the control lever to the fuel mix mechanism: the detailed text in NACA discusses this, it relates to the switch from rich to lean and back that happen at specific control lever settings.

(I wish a moderator would move this all onto the FW thread - hard to follow like this....)

February 13, 2015

Rumcajs, Solmyr, StG2_Manfred, VSG1_Winger, Pitbullvicious, and jcomm.... Thank you guys for your maturity. It has been a team effort from Celestial, Kwaitek, and others who contributed the data and every thing else. It is not just me.

Hey Crump. Indeed thanks to all the other guys that take their time and contribute to try and help make this sim a little better.

IMO the way the FW flies right now is just a shame and i desperately hope the devs dont ignore the obvious very many voices that want the plane to become the competetive killer it was back in the day and not the flying runawaybrick it is right now.

February 13, 2015

As promised, here's the picture of my speculation from previous page. I would recommend to take this with a pinch of salt, until it can be verified from some reliable source.

Red represents the input (to the gear change control variable datum) from the power level, with the red dots signifying the possible positions of what I've marked as "Joint A" (in reality the positions are of course continuous, not discrete). The blue then signifies the output from mixture control ("K", not "G" as I previously wrote). This output would, via "I" then rotate the vertical (in the picture) bar around "Joint A". This way the value of the variable datum for gear change control would indeed be dependent on both mixture control AND the pilot power lever setting.

If anybody has corroborating on contrary sources, I'd be more than happy to hear about them.

February 13, 2015

Dear Mr Zak

Seeing how everyone is talking about that FW-190

I will give you 20$ for that beautiful LA-5 and that

under modelled FW-190 A-3 through STEAM

seeing that you're planes are already on the BOS

main site.

Please answer me fast so I have time to go get

STEAM wallet cards.

Hehehe

OMG!

Available with the premium edition. Buy them separately or activate a corresponding gift code if you're a standard edition owner.

LA-5 (SERIES 8)

$19.99

$9.99

Soviet Fighter Aircraft
Fastest Soviet fighter in the Game
Learn more on its Wiki

BUY

FW 190 A-3

$19.99

$9.99

German Fighter Aircraft
Most heavily armed ingame fighter
Learn more on its Wiki

BUY

Edited February 13, 2015 by WTornado

February 13, 2015

the REAL question is what pushes and pulls the variable datum

And you figured it out!!

Excellent job man!

February 13, 2015

And you figured it out!!

Excellent job man!

Still need that evidence, mate. You know I won't settle for anything less

February 13, 2015

Got to love a guy with standards!

February 13, 2015

As promised, here's the picture of my speculation from previous page. I would recommend to take this with a pinch of salt, until it can be verified from some reliable source.

Red represents the input (to the gear change control variable datum) from the power level, with the red dots signifying the possible positions of what I've marked as "Joint A" (in reality the positions are of course continuous, not discrete). The blue then signifies the output from mixture control ("K", not "G" as I previously wrote). This output would, via "I" then rotate the vertical (in the picture) bar around "Joint A". This way the value of the variable datum for gear change control would indeed be dependent on both mixture control AND the pilot power lever setting.

If anybody has corroborating on contrary sources, I'd be more than happy to hear about them.

No other sources, but I do have some questions/comments about this interpretation.

The mixture control seems to be the most complex part of the KG, the NACA is filled with qualifications in its description of how it works.

There is, however, no indication in the text that the mixture control has anything to do with the gear change. Hence my skepticism.

If you are getting feedback around "Joint A", it must be going to the manifold pressure control unit as well since they are joined by the same line. What is it supposed to be

doing? Note that the mixture control is linked to the manifold control at the front of the schematic: they are sensing the same gases.

Is "joint A" a rotating joint? Hard to interpret the schematic. Anyway, a rotating T bar can simply act to equalize the forces needed to move a lever at either arm to reduce stress on the components.

The main servo lever has to affect the mixture control directly since it dictates the change from rich to lean regimes at a pair of set positions. pp10-11. So whether there is a feedback or not, the linkage has to be functioning as a control.

Since it looks from diagram and text that the fine tuning of the fuel flow is accomplished by the mechanism just to the right of the capsule stacks, I surmise that the rich/lean change must be achieved by the mechanisms at or around H and I, although I cannot find a clear explanation of how this works in the text.

To me it seems logical that servo gear affects area 1 (H-I etc) which is responsible for setting rich/lean regime, and then mixture control unit does fine tuning within these parameters. I cannot see the logic of the blue arrows going in the other direction, it looks to me as though the arrow should head off top the left towards L and M (off your extract).

So I am unconvinced.

Edited February 13, 2015 by unreasonable

February 13, 2015

Just to add the other issue that got stuck on the other page, since it seems relevant here:

pp15 Mixture Control

1. The mixture control is designed to meter fuel to the engine in accordance with some function of manifold pressure, altitude pressure, and charge-air temperature. Laboratory bench tests, however, showed that the changes in charge-air temperature had no effect on fuel flow.

February 13, 2015

The mixture control seems to be the most complex part of the KG, the NACA is filled with qualifications in its description of how it works.

There is, however, no indication in the text that the mixture control has anything to do with the gear change. Hence my skepticism.

Indeed. I'm very skeptical myself still, although it does kind of make sense. This is just a hypothesis that fits somewhat to Crump's claim. I guess you could say I made a model on how the system might work based on one hypothesis and now we need to see which of the models is the best one. Empiric data would be best, so if anybody has a BMW801D2 lying around...

If you are getting feedback around "Joint A", it must be going to the manifold pressure control unit as well since they are joined by the same line. What is it supposed to be

doing? Note that the mixture control is linked to the manifold control at the front of the schematic: they are sensing the same gases.

Is "joint A" a rotating joint? Hard to interpret the schematic. Anyway, a rotating T bar can simply act to equalize the forces needed to move a lever at either arm to reduce stress on the components.

This is my interpretation of the picture, but it may be completely wrong. Someone with more familiarity with the annotation might shed light on this. I'm also curious what the "comb" symbols signify.

The main servo lever has to affect the mixture control directly since it dictates the change from rich to lean regimes at a pair of set positions. pp10-11. So whether there is a feedback or not, the linkage has to be functioning as a control.

Since it looks from diagram and text that the fine tuning of the fuel flow is accomplished by the mechanism just to the right of the capsule stacks, I surmise that the rich/lean change must be achieved by the mechanisms at or around H and I, although I cannot find a clear explanation of how this works in the text.

As I mentioned earlier, this MIGHT be achieved via H. Like you said, the report just gives an reference (ref. 2) where the mechanism is supposed to be described in more details. I have located that article @ Tokyo University Aeronautics Engineer lab library and will get it as soon as I have time.

It is also available online here:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/eb031063

{EDIT: OOPS. LINK FORGOT}

if somebody has an access to that, or willing to spend $32 to find out (btw. that journal has a lot of interesting reports from during WWII, so when I go to that library, its not going to be only that particular article I'm going to copy). They also have a Swedish report (based on Finnish one?) of performance of LaGG 3).

To me it seems logical that servo gear affects area 1 (H-I etc) which is responsible for setting rich/lean regime, and then mixture control unit does fine tuning within these parameters. I cannot see the logic of the blue arrows going in the other direction, it looks to me as though the arrow should head off top the left towards L and M (off your extract).

Way I'm interpreting this is that the line going directly left from F is the thing that transmits the information from the power lever. the more-or-less perpendicular lines to that are either "reading" it, or indeed rotating "around" it. But your guess as good as mine at this point.

So I am unconvinced.

As you should be.

Edited February 13, 2015 by PitbullVicious

February 13, 2015

I'm also curious what the "comb" symbols signify.

They are pivot points.

February 13, 2015

I think the comb indicates a fixed position, or a sliding joint in a fixed bracket: it seems to in this, for example.

http://www.societyofrobots.com/robot_arm_tutorial.shtml

aka "pivot points" ?

Edited February 13, 2015 by unreasonable

February 13, 2015

Milo & unreasonable are correct, I have seen allot of older mechanical drawings, and the comb looking item is used to show a pivot point is connect to something, where the dash lines of the comb is the connection. seen some of this on the old V2 drawings we have here at WSMR

Edited February 13, 2015 by ACEOFACES

February 13, 2015

OK, thanks for the clarification. That was kind of what I was suspecting from the picture. I'll have a better look at the schematics with that piece of puzzle in place... when I'm sober

February 13, 2015

when I'm sober

Rise and shine drinker! My kind of drinking!

February 13, 2015

The double 'comb' on the line between module B and D is a sleeve or guide.

February 13, 2015

Rise and shine drinker! My kind of drinking!

Hey! It's Friday midnight at my neck of woods!

Reasons why i severely lowered my BoS flight time lately [from a BoS enthusiast]

Recommended Posts

Marauder

Crump

Crump

Marauder

SKG51_robtek

Crump

Crump

SR-F_Winger

CaK_Rumcajs

Solmyr

StG2_Manfred

Uriah

CaK_Rumcajs

LLv24_Vilppi

Crump

LLv24_Vilppi

MiloMorai

Crump

LLv24_Vilppi

Crump

MiloMorai

LLv24_Vilppi

LLv24_Vilppi

unreasonable

SR-F_Winger

LLv24_Vilppi

wtornado

Crump

LLv24_Vilppi

GOAT-ACEOFACES

unreasonable

unreasonable

LLv24_Vilppi

MiloMorai

unreasonable

GOAT-ACEOFACES

LLv24_Vilppi

GOAT-ACEOFACES

MiloMorai

LLv24_Vilppi

Browse All

Activity