Sources of thrust effectively calculated in BoS FDM....?

January 19, 2016

But is it actually producing thrust ..or just reducing the amount of drag the radiator is creating

Don't worry this is not an entirely serious question

Cheers Dakpilot

I am not worried In my simple mental model of such things, if there is a force (other than gravity) acting to push the plane forwards that is a thrust, not a reduction in drag.

Understanding something at the level of components is sometimes more insightful than only looking at the margin. Am I wrong?

Edited January 19, 2016 by unreasonable

January 19, 2016

For me the thread provided exactly what I needed to know unreasonable, from what you posted and explained so well, but also from the documents I was able to read, posted by you and crump.

It is clear that there is indeed a benefit, from well designed exhaust systems, and they can play their role overcoming the parasite drag created by the radiators, if not for more, at least by providing a "compensatory" thrust, which will be significative at higher speeds.

I just wondered, in my OP, if this was being taken into account in aircraft like the 109s, C.202, P40... in il-2 BoS / BoM.

Apologies old chap, I did not know this would turn into one of these things ....as per your real question, I am guessing that those who know are in no [edit] hurry to stoke the flames by revealing their secrets.

Edited January 19, 2016 by unreasonable

January 19, 2016

Is it this patent? (US version)? https://www.google.com/patents/US1464765

This is a ventral radiator with a regulator, to be sure, but I wonder if he had thought about the issues we are discussing? They are not mentioned in this patent.

Nice photo though.

Doesn't seem to be the same, perhaps he patented his "Düsenkühler" along with the Junkers J 1...?

Googles results are however very interested, it seems Hugo was quite fascinated with boiling vessels and radiators (and his company still is, being a major water heater producer, altough acquired by Bosch)

Edited January 19, 2016 by VO101Kurfurst

January 19, 2016

Let's get to the heart of the OP initial question.

Does the P-51 produce more force than the engine inside the cowling that allows it to have a higher thrust limited performance than another airplane with more force inside of its cowling?

The answer is no. There is no miracle radiator system. The engines will produce exhaust thrust IAW their power output. The higher the horsepower, the more exhaust thrust is produced.

There is no way to transcend the physical boundaries.

January 19, 2016

Let's get to the heart of the OP initial question.

Does the P-51 produce more force than the engine inside the cowling that allows it to have a higher thrust limited performance than another airplane with more force inside of its cowling?

The answer is no. There is no miracle radiator system. The engines will produce exhaust thrust IAW their power output. The higher the horsepower, the more exhaust thrust is produced.

There is no way to transcend the physical boundaries.

Although, again, that was not my question Crump, but rather, if the calculation of this other sources of thrust, no matter what net result they really have on a given aircraft model, are indeed calculated in il-2 BoS.

Of course what you write is important, and could be used at another thread we both know about ( again, remind you I'm "jcomm" at the DCS and other forums... ) but I didn't even think about bringing that matter here because we do not have a p51d ( yet... ).

January 19, 2016

I haven't read it all either but couldn't your comment be re-written as: ...

Well, the P-51 did have a very low zero lift coefficient, owing to a low drag radiator design when compared to contemporaries (or slightly earlier) designs. This can be seen in existing data. The reason for low radiator drag can either be a more effective Meredith effect as designed, or midgets on a cartwheel to make up for a failed design.

Edit: The same engine with smaller exhaust cross section area will as a trend produce less shaft horse power and more thrust. The statement that more horsepower = more thrust is wrong. Check differences in DB and Jumo engine, for instance.

Edited January 19, 2016 by JtD

January 19, 2016

another thread we both know about

I do not know what you are talking about. I do not have anything to do with DCS outside of getting my money back.

January 19, 2016

The reason for low radiator drag can either be a more effective Meredith effect as designed,

More likely a properly sized and position intake as found in the P-51B series and continued in the D series. They moved the intake 2.63 inches off the bottom of the wing to eliminate the duct rumble from boundary layer ingestion and the resulting flow separation. They also changed the oil cooler intake in the process.

These have more to do with the low drag of the radiator design than the meredith effect. Radiators just do not produce enough heat to achieve net thrust.

January 19, 2016

Edit: The same engine with smaller exhaust cross section area will as a trend produce less shaft horse power and more thrust. The statement that more horsepower = more thrust is wrong. Check differences in DB and Jumo engine, for instance.

No, that statement is a physical fact.

More Horsepower = More Mass flow = More thrust

Not all exhaust systems are created equal. Some are more efficient at turning that mass flow into thrust.

One simply has to read the NACA document posted on the Merlin to see just how confused they were by this phenomenon.

They really do not have any good methods for expressing thrust producer performance (Jets). Notice all of their expressions of Exhaust thrust is in terms of "horsepower". Power has an element of velocity in its basic units. Exhaust thrust is not power, it is a constant thrust at a given throttle setting.

The amount of horsepower it adds to the equation is dependant upon the velocity.

It is really a stupid way to express exhaust thrust but if it is all you know, then it is all you know. The NACA were not the worlds leaders of Jet Propulsion technology at that time.

January 19, 2016

There is nothing useful measured in this report. Why? The NACA was not sure what they were even seeing. It is an investigation on the theory that jet thrust might have something to do with it. There is nothing measured. Once more, thrust horsepower is a poor method of expressing exhaust thrust and is almost meaningless in terms of practical use.

It is just a preliminary investigation to show there might be something there to increase performance of aircraft.

http://spitfirevsbf109.com/files/19930093540_1993093540.pdf

January 19, 2016

This could all be quite right, but my impressions are:

1) The article notes that the effect was indeed very small at low speeds, but built up considerably. A good cruise speed for a P51 would be 350-390 mph, I believe, within the range that the article notes a significant effect. If you are trying to fly a single engined escort fighter from Britain to Berlin and back I imagine that a 20 mph speed improvement for a given fuel usage would be extremely valuable. Whether it would somehow dissipate in a dogfight is another matter - if I were flying a P51 (not that I ever have, even virtually) I would not be slowing down for a turnfight if I could avoid it.

2) The only comment I have on the "why not think of the 109 radiator outlets in the same way" issue would be to look at the size of them - by eye, the two outlets appear to have a much greater area than the single outlet of the P 51 so I imagine it would have been harder to maintain a high pressure gradient, but that is just a guess. Spitfire radiators also attempted to harness the effect - but failed because of the details of the design - so clearly there was more to it than just having a variable outlet.

1) According to experiments at NACA the effect didn't really show up until Mach 0.5 though, and even then it was small. So for anything other than straight cruise flight I don't see it as being useful. In a turning dogfight it wouldn't even show up as the speeds would be too low plus the outlet would for the most part be wide open.

2) Well the 109 could reduce outtake area just as much as the P-51 could = completely shut if off if needed or provide a very small slit. In other words to me it looks very much like the 109 would benefit the same from this effect.

To me the most logical explanation as to why the Mustang went as fast as it did simply boils down to an unusually careful attention to the general cleanliness of the design, and eventhough the laminar flow wings probably werent as effective as advertized the sharp leading edges of the P-51's wings would undoubtedly have lowered the overall drag in straight and level flight.

January 19, 2016

Crumpp,

Now that we're talking about exhaust thrust, what about the design of the exhaust stacks, what effect would this have in your opinion? I ask this because we see a lot of difference in exhaust stack designs on the WW2 aircraft.

January 19, 2016

Can anyone tell me why we are now seeing stuff about exhaust stacks in a discussion about radiators? Or is this a distinct topic?

January 19, 2016

Your guess is a good as anyone's.

January 19, 2016

To me the most logical explanation as to why the Mustang went as fast as it did simply boils down to an unusually careful attention to the general cleanliness of the design, and eventhough the laminar flow wings probably werent as effective as advertized the sharp leading edges of the P-51's wings would undoubtedly have lowered the overall drag in straight and level flight.

That is it.

No need to speculate either or make leaps of faith into unknown flights of fantasy.

Can anyone tell me why we are now seeing stuff about exhaust stacks in a discussion about radiators? Or is this a distinct topic?

Sources of thrust effectively calculated in BoS FDM....?
Started by Herr_Target, Jan 16 2016 06:47

January 19, 2016

To me the most logical explanation as to why the Mustang went as fast as it did simply boils down to an unusually careful attention to the general cleanliness of the design, and eventhough the laminar flow wings probably werent as effective as advertized the sharp leading edges of the P-51's wings would undoubtedly have lowered the overall drag in straight and level flight.

That's a good explanation for the low drag of the aircraft, but not really for the low radiator drag. Edited January 19, 2016 by JtD

January 19, 2016

1) According to experiments at NACA the effect didn't really show up until Mach 0.5 though, and even then it was small. So for anything other than straight cruise flight I don't see it as being useful. In a turning dogfight it wouldn't even show up as the speeds would be too low plus the outlet would for the most part be wide open.

2) Well the 109 could reduce outtake area just as much as the P-51 could = completely shut if off if needed or provide a very small slit. In other words to me it looks very much like the 109 would benefit the same from this effect.

To me the most logical explanation as to why the Mustang went as fast as it did simply boils down to an unusually careful attention to the general cleanliness of the design, and eventhough the laminar flow wings probably werent as effective as advertized the sharp leading edges of the P-51's wings would undoubtedly have lowered the overall drag in straight and level flight.

1) Are you referring to the posted reference or a different experiment? The posted experiment states that at Mach 0.5 the thrust was equal to the drag in their test set up - can you link to this other source?

Mach 0.5 sounds like a scary number but it is actually the P 51's cruising speed, give or take. (Why is a "turning dogfight" even relevant here?)

2) Per the 109 again - obviously the designers had to get a lot of things right to get a measurable effect - assuming that they did - having a variable exit flow control is clearly not enough.

3) Yet I understand that the P51 was 20-30 mph faster than much lighter Spitfires fitted with identical engines, that actually had lower total drag....must be some reason for it.

January 19, 2016

http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com/about.asp

Here is something from the AAIA 9th Applied Aerodynamic Conference.

Cooling thrust.JPG

AIAA913288.pdf

I think John Leland Atwood has just a bit more credibility than you do.

January 19, 2016

Crumpp,

Now that we're talking about exhaust thrust, what about the design of the exhaust stacks, what effect would this have in your opinion? I ask this because we see a lot of difference in exhaust stack designs on the WW2 aircraft.

It has a large effect on the realization of exhaust thrust benefits.

The NACA report was issued on December of 1942.

The other research institutes were well aware of exhaust thrust and correctly accounting for it even in June of 1941:

Being aware of the effect and designing exhaust ejectors to take advantage of it kind of goes hand in hand.

I think John Leland Atwood has just a bit more credibility than you do.

Except I did not write the report.

You need to take up your objections with AAIA.

Since 1963, members from a single professional society have achieved virtually every milestone in modern American flight. That society is the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. With more than 30,000 individual members from 88 countries, and 95 corporate members, AIAA is the world’s largest technical society dedicated to the global aerospace profession. Created in 1963 by the merger of the two great aerospace societies of the day, the American Rocket Society (founded in 1930 as the American Interplanetary Society), and the Institute of the Aerospace Sciences (established in 1933 as the Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences), AIAA carries forth a proud tradition of more than 80 years of aerospace leadership.

https://www.aiaa.org/AboutAIAA/

January 19, 2016

3) Yet I understand that the P51 was 20-30 mph faster than much lighter Spitfires fitted with identical engines, that actually had lower total drag....must be some reason for it.

Weight does not effect top speed so much, unless you speak of very high altitudes where the air is so thin that aircraft have to fly at increased angles of attack to stay 'afloat'. The very simple answer is that the Mustang was a throughly clean design, with fully retractable and covered undercarriage and so on. The Spitfire - not so much after the first models with lots of humps and bumps, larger radiators, cannon fairings appearing all over it. Each of these cost a couple miles per hour, but cumulatively they added up to about 30-40 mph, as a contemporary British study states.

Edited January 19, 2016 by VO101Kurfurst

January 19, 2016

Weight does not effect top speed so much, unless you speak of very high altitudes where the air is so thin that aircraft have to fly at increased angles of attack to stay 'afloat'. The very simple answer is that the Mustang was a throughly clean design, with fully retractable and covered undercarriage and so on. The Spitfire - not so much after the first models with lots of humps and bumps, larger radiators, cannon fairings appearing all over it. Each of these cost a couple miles per hour, but cumulatively they added up to about 30-40 mph, as a contemporary British study states.

This is perfectly plausible but I remember seeing somewhere that the total (gross) drag of the relevant Spitfires was lower according to some measure. Might take a while to hunt down the reference if I can find it at all.

Even if you are correct, I am still curious to know what in Mr Atwood's description is actually wrong, and why he would be restating this case at such a late date - does he not know that he has been corrected?

January 19, 2016

Can anyone tell me why we are now seeing stuff about exhaust stacks in a discussion about radiators? Or is this a distinct topic?

Sorry I thought we talking about other sources of thrust than just the propeller.

January 19, 2016

Sorry I thought we talking about other sources of thrust than just the propeller.

No need to apologize - it was genuine question: the way it appeared just threw me off track.

January 19, 2016

Not sure I have ever seen figures showing Spitfire with less drag than Mustang, am happy to be educated though

Cheers Dakpilot

January 19, 2016

This is perfectly plausible but I remember seeing somewhere that the total (gross) drag of the relevant Spitfires was lower according to some measure. Might take a while to hunt down the reference if I can find it at all.

These are the Cd0 figures I have for the aircraft:

P-51 Cd0 = 0.0161 (D variant)

Spitfire Cd0 = 0.0229 (earlier versions) to 0.0235 (later versions)

These show a pretty significant difference in favor of the P-51, thus I'd be very surprised if the P-51's total drag wasn't quite abit lower than the Spitfire's, esp. when we also Keep in mind that the Spitfire, whilst lighter, features a larger wing surface area & span than the P-51.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Panthera

January 19, 2016

Thanks for that info - time for some more digging. But not now - 2.00 am my time, whoops!

January 19, 2016

The P-51's low cooling drag has more do with inlet design and placement than anything else.

The inlet was not only properly sized and as a result, much smaller than previous cooling installations. North American put the inlet in a position to receive some of the most high energy air on the aircraft. Because of that, the inlet could be made small and still provide enough flow for a large enough single radiator to meet the cooling requirements of the engine installation.

The single inlet of the P-51 is smaller than two radiators found in many earlier liquid cooling designs. That more than explains the low cooling drag of the design without having to resort to explanations outside of newtonian physics.

Even if you are correct, I am still curious to know what in Mr Atwood's description is actually wrong, and why he would be restating this case at such a late date - does he not know that he has been corrected?

It is not wrong "in theory". "In theory" it should work but to what extent and circumstance was unknown.

Well, in finding out the extent it works we have discovered it takes a lot more heat than a radiator can provide to realize significant benefit.

January 19, 2016

[edit by unreasonable- just the part addressed to me]

It is not wrong "in theory". "In theory" it should work but to what extent and circumstance was unknown.

Well, in finding out the extent it works we have discovered it takes a lot more heat than a radiator can provide to realize significant benefit.

Atwood thought that it worked in practice, what is more he gives numbers in the article. Are they wrong? The numbers are for the volume and relative speed of the expelled airmass - no doubt many here are more up to date than I with their physics - are the numbers consistent with generating a force at the exhaust outlet capable of producing a measurable speed increase?

Your second point might even be right - but I still have not seen any actual evidence for it. The attachments you provided show no such thing. Is there some other document?

BTW, I do not understand why you think this is "outside of Newtonian physics" and simultaneously say "It is not wrong in theory". We are not in the quantum realm here, are we?

January 19, 2016

Atwood thought that it worked in practice, what is more he gives numbers in the article. Are they wrong? The numbers are for the volume and relative speed of the expelled airmass - no doubt many here are more up to date than I with their physics - are the numbers consistent with generating a force at the exhaust outlet capable of producing a measurable speed increase?

Your second point might even be right - but I still have not seen any actual evidence for it. The attachments you provided show no such thing. Is there some other document?

BTW, I do not understand why you think this is "outside of Newtonian physics" and simultaneously say "It is not wrong in theory". We are not in the quantum realm here, are we?

While he gives numbers, there is no measurements. He gives approximations and just a few sentences away from noting that no measurements where ever taken nor could they prove the phenomenon exist's except in theory.

The NACA did take measurements and did investigate the theory.

January 20, 2016

While he gives numbers, there is no measurements. He gives approximations and just a few sentences away from noting that no measurements where ever taken nor could they prove the phenomenon exist's except in theory.

The NACA did take measurements and did investigate the theory.

I accept that these are approximations - but given these basic physical parameters it should be possible to calculate the amount of thrust.

NACA - according to the link you made - did investigate the theory and said:

"Clearly, the insignificant "Meredith effect" had the potential to become a primary jet-propulsion system."

"Testing of the "heat model" started in February 1941, the first NACA wind tunnel investigation of a propulsive duct producing thrust. At a Mach number of about 0.5, the propulsive effect had become equal to the internal drag, and beyond this speed substantial net thrust was developed by the internal flow."

That is your source document: if there is another one that shows that the system could not produce useful drag-offsetting thrust please link to it.

That aside, I am still curious to know how you would go about convincing Mr Atwood, were he still alive, (and forgetting for the moment about some irritating guy on the internet - ie me), that he was wrong.

Anyway, we are clearly into the repeating ourselves stage here - I think I have nothing to add.

January 20, 2016

Guys,

I have to thank you all for your precious comments and data and links and thoughts!

For me this is food for my thoughts, and will "entertain" me for a good while :-) trying to figure out and filter the information contained in all material already referenced in this thread.

I didn't get an answer to my OP but I guess that's expected because that would require than someone from the Dev team could answer and explain up to which point these additional forms of thrust are modeled in il-2

I confess that the more I play il2, the more I like the way these ww2 birds are modeled in it.

I would really like to have a p51d in the future. For the time being I am pretty much satisfied with the P40-E already, but... getting to the OP, I believe one thing was made quite clear to me, and I believe even Crump agrees

with that - on some aircraft, the amount of thrust effectively provided by the exhaust / radiator systems can, at least, contribute to overcome the parasite drag they create! This is certainly very important.

January 20, 2016

I accept that these are approximations - but given these basic physical parameters it should be possible to calculate the amount of thrust.

NACA - according to the link you made - did investigate the theory and said:

"Clearly, the insignificant "Meredith effect" had the potential to become a primary jet-propulsion system."

"Testing of the "heat model" started in February 1941, the first NACA wind tunnel investigation of a propulsive duct producing thrust. At a Mach number of about 0.5, the propulsive effect had become equal to the internal drag, and beyond this speed substantial net thrust was developed by the internal flow."

That is your source document: if there is another one that shows that the system could not produce useful drag-offsetting thrust please link to it.

That aside, I am still curious to know how you would go about convincing Mr Atwood, were he still alive, (and forgetting for the moment about some irritating guy on the internet - ie me), that he was wrong.

Anyway, we are clearly into the repeating ourselves stage here - I think I have nothing to add.

Unfortunately though you leave out some key information. That is the conditions of the "heat model" that it takes to produce thrust.

A search of the electrical heater catalogs with help from G. T. Strailman, Langley's principal electrical engineer, turned up no [164] high-output heater capable of being fitted into our 11-inch diameter duct. Baals and I therefore became high-capacity heater designers and produced a 160-kw, three-phase, 1500⁰ F heat exchanger with 32 square feet of surface area in the form of 1.5-inch-wide Nichrome ribbon woven on reinforced asbestos millboard supports.

If your radiator heats up to 1500 degrees.....your system will produce thrust.

Once again, the NACA investigation supports the modern investigations conclusion that radiators simply do not have the propulsive efficiency to impart enough heat to create thrust.

When you get some measured data showing otherwise, by all means share it. However, please stop trying to create a fantasy by mudding the waters with things you do not understand like you did with the Kommandogerat discussion.

You did yourself and the community no great service because you were unable to understand how fuel to air ratio is the key to engine power.

You are attempting to replicate that behavior and bamboozle the readers into believing what is considered to be a debunked theory.

It does not change the fact the P-51 was a low drag design. That has more to do with correct inlet placement, radiator sizing, and outlet design.

I believe even Crump agrees with that - on some aircraft, the amount of thrust effectively provided by the exhaust / radiator systems can, at least, contribute to overcome the parasite drag they create! This is certainly very important.

No, I agree with the engineering investigations that actually measured the effect. A radiator simply does not have the ability to raise the air to the temperatures required to produce thrust. Think about it, at 10,000 feet on a standard day it is -4.8 degrees celsius.

You really believe the P-51's radiator is going to heat that air up enough to raise it's temperature to 110 degrees celsius at the outlet?

The radiator design of the P-51 is simply much lower drag because it has a smaller inlet and less radiator than other World War II liquid cooled installations.

It can do that because the inlet is placed to ingest high energy air above the boundary layer.

January 20, 2016

It seems not only the P-51 had a good heat recovery and almost balanced out the drag with the Meredith effect: The British report R&M 2498 has some interesting info and while it does not deal with the Mustang, it lists information about the Spitfire, Tempest and Mosquito.

The report differentiates between a number of different radiator configuration: Wing leading edge, aft win, underslung and annular radiators. The heat recovery effect as it is termed in the paper depends on the power output and speed but is listed as being approximately 4.4% for a 1000 hp installation and 7.4% for a 2000 hp installation. This is then connected to the radiator drag without heat recovery (in drag power percent) and the following figures are listed:

Tempest underslung radiator: 15.8%

Tempest annular radiator: 7.3%

Spitfire aft wing: 17.3%

Mosquito wing leading edge: 4.6%

The report goes on to conclude that the Mosquito and Tempest (with annular radiator) manage to balance out the radiator drag whereas the Spitfire aft wing radiator and the Tempest underslung radiator do much worse and a substantial drag is still present after the heat recovery.

So to conclude, it looks like alternative radiator configurations can do just as good a job as on the P-51 provided they are well designed.

January 20, 2016

So to conclude, it looks like alternative radiator configurations can do just as good a job as on the P-51 provided they are well designed.

Again, this was something the RAE insisted occurred but no other Aeronautical Research body has been able to reproduce. No one else at the time that investigated the meredith effect reached the same conclusions and no modern investigation has agreed with their findings either.

As the NACA notes, it is very difficult to separate the drag production.

It would be interesting to see the report. Can you link it?

January 20, 2016

Pretty sure one of the things that makes the P-51Ds radiator low-drag say in compared to the Spitfire is the fact that the radiator intake itself is not attached to the fuselage, which increases air flow into the radiator as its far less affected by the boundary layer of the fuselage.

Edited January 20, 2016 by RoflSeal

January 20, 2016

In our engineering analysis of the effects of heat in internal flow systems, the conversion of heat to thrust power was clearly the most [162] intriguing aspect. Thinking in terms of flight speeds of 550 mph, we calculated ideal thermal efficiencies of as much as 10 percent, and by Mach 1.5 the heated duct would have a thermal efficiency comparable to an internal combustion engine. Clearly, the insignificant "Meredith effect" had the potential to become a primary jet-propulsion system. (The term "ramjet" was not then in general use, and we were unaware that there were several discussions of propulsive ducts in the literature starting with Lorin in 1913 and including later treatments by Carter, V Leduc, Roy, and others.)

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-445/ch5-5.htm

Pretty sure one of the things that makes the P-51Ds radiator low-drag say in compared to the Spitfire is the fact that the radiator intake itself is not attached to the fuselage, which increases air flow into the radiator as its far less affected by the boundary layer of the fuselage.

You have nailed the exact reason why the NACA came to the conclusion that investigating individual installations would not return good results.

Here we see the Spitfire installation does ingest the boundary layer. The Coefficient of Pressure at the separation points is of course velocity dependent!!

Which causes our drag percentage to vary with velocity.....

January 20, 2016

Which causes our drag percentage to vary with velocity.....

With it's square ... :-)

January 20, 2016

With it's square ... :-)

Yes and it will mirror what the RAE measured, a drag reduction with increasing velocity.

It will be reduced with velocity as the Coefficient of Pressure is reduced. Separation occurs at high Cp. Mach effects of course also cause separation but the separation that is occurring at the sharp bends is a low velocity phenomenon.

In other words, our drag will be reduced as velocity increases. It could easily be mistaken for the "Meredith Effect" when measure drag over velocity in a specific engine cooling installation.

Once we exceed critical mach and normal shock begins to form then we will see our drag rise with velocity.

January 20, 2016

This is pretty much mirrors the opinion of the modern aeronautical sciences community when examining all the evidence.

liquid cooled engine installations.pdf

North American Aviation paid very close attention to the installation and design of the P-51's cooling system. They definately got it right. What they did not do was install a jet engine in their design and it certainly does not add any thrust to the aircraft's performance picture.

F=Ma in newtonian physics and the radiator installation is not making any Force.....

January 20, 2016

Thx Crump.

Sources of thrust effectively calculated in BoS FDM....?

Recommended Posts

unreasonable

unreasonable

Kurfurst

Crump

Guest deleted@50488

JtD

Crump

Crump

Crump

Crump

Panthera

Panthera

unreasonable

MiloMorai

Crump

JtD

unreasonable

LukeFF

Crump

Kurfurst

unreasonable

Panthera

unreasonable

Dakpilot

Panthera

unreasonable

Crump

unreasonable

Crump

unreasonable

Guest deleted@50488

Crump

Holtzauge

Crump

=362nd_FS=RoflSeal

Crump

Guest deleted@50488

Crump

Crump

Guest deleted@50488

Browse All

Activity