Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Plank

The Camel: Will it chew up and spit out the DR1? We ask our panel of experts....

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

Always funny, how German military is depicted in older British or American films on both world wars.
"Gugelhupf" (spell: Google-hoopf) is a Bavarian name for this cake - I don't think any German really had it as a family name. :happy:

 

 

That was a German film.

 

Can we not get beyond trotting out the tired old evidence free anecdotes?

 

On the Dr.1 - if you think the FC Dr.1's climb is not right, why not prove it?  If you want to use Carlson's Dr.1 video as evidence, you need to to know the weight of Carlson's Dr.1: no ammunition and enough fuel for a short routine I would guess, but perhaps he is also a big man.  Also the wind strength, since this will have a significant bearing on the ground speed needed to take off and hence the shortness of the take off run and steepness of the climb out.   You can see the windsock just before the lift off. 

 

If you can replicate that and demonstrate that the FC result is clearly different then your assertion that  "The strong climb of the real Fokker Dr.I is not yet fully implemented in FLYING CIRCUS." would be worth taking seriously.

 

As for the Camel "only turning well in one direction" - pull the other one.  It turned more easily in one direction, just as the Dr.1 does, and for exactly the same reason, requiring the same sort of rudder work to adjust. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

That was a German film.

 

Really? Didn't know it - do you know the title? So it wasn't "Hollywood-distortion", but rather "self-irony"? Thought we Germans had no humor... :salute:

 

Quote

As for the Camel "only turning well in one direction" - pull the other one.  It turned more easily in one direction, just as the Dr.1 does...

 

The Camel turned so bad to the left (I think it was left?), that their pilots preferred to rather make a 3/4 turn to the right.
I have never read anything like that for the Dr.I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

Really? Didn't know it - do you know the title? So it wasn't "Hollywood-distortion", but rather "self-irony"? Thought we Germans had no humor... :salute:

 

 

The Camel turned so bad to the left (I think it was left?), that their pilots preferred to rather make a 3/4 turn to the right.
I have never read anything like that for the Dr.I

 

I am going on 307_Tomcat's post earlier reproduced below, which he got from here https://combatace.com/forums/topic/44196-flying-the-old-planes-part-6-fokker-dr1/ - plus of course the fact that it is the chivalrous German flier who allows the Tommy to surrender. I do not know the title.

 

"With Hitler’s rise to power the Richthofen squadron was reactivated in the mid 1930’s. With the commissioning ceremony just days away, a real Fokker DR1 was found languishing in a barn, and another shortly after. The experts who saw it felt both aircraft were genuine Fokker built triplanes. To inspire the revived Luftwaffe, Hitler commissioned a motion picture on World War One, unblushingly filled with propaganda about a German squadron flying triplanes. There are some lovely flying shots of the Triplanes that can be seen in this film. They are in death-defying combat, with modern (1935 hehehe) Bucker Jungmans thinly disguised as Allied SE5’s. Sadly both resurrected triplanes were destroyed in the bombing of Germany in World War Two".

 

As to the "pilots preferring to make a 3/4 turn to the right" I am afraid that is exactly the sort of unsourced anecdote I dislike:  having just read "No Parachute" by someone who actually flew them there is no mention of any such preference.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some guy recently linked to a presentation by Javiar Arango where he specifically addressed the turn to the right vs the left.  He concluded that what the WW1 pilots were referring to was a spiral dive to the right as an evasive manuever, not a typical turn in the horizontal.  Doing a horizontal turn, he found that the aircraft turns equally both to left and right.  I think he said it can complete a horizontal 360 in about 16 seconds in both directions.  The plane won't do a snap roll to the left, so I guess you could probably enter the right hand turn a little faster if you snapped into it, but other than what I just said above, the thing about the pilots being able to complete a 270 turn to the right faster than just going 90 to the left appears to be big myth.

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

...having just read "No Parachute" by someone who actually flew them there is no mention of any such preference.  

 

Okay, I'll have to search for that. However - "No Parachute" is my favourite book on WW1 aviation; it brought the "other side" real close to my German heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calculated Sopwith Camel: Putting the famous fighter to a digital test.

 

One of the legends clinging to the Sopwith Camel is that it was so reluctant to turn 90 degrees to the right that pilots preferred making a 270 to the left (...) Our tests produced a lot of complicated-looking graphs. Some of the most striking are the time histories of steep turns. The airplane rolled into a 60-degree bank to the left or right in about 2½ seconds, but the maximum roll rate, reached only momentarily, was about 40 degrees per second to the left and 30 degrees per second to the right. No surprise there; left roll is torque aided. That the steady turn rate was about the same left and right was not surprising either: All airplanes turn at the same rate in coordinated flight at a given speed and bank angle. The story about the Camel making a left 270 more quickly than a right 90 was evidently just a comical embellishment of the fact that the Camel rolled into a left bank more easily than into a right one.

 

The Camel unpractical right turn is a myth. IIRC, they were using a Gnome 160hp. From the same studies of the late Arango.

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Camel having contemporary reputation of being unpractical in right turn isn't a myth. The average RFC pilot being unable to perform one likely isn't either (same with landing without crashing). Says more about pilots Camel was given to than Camel itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The average RFC pilot being unable to perform one likely isn't either

Is this why they introduced the left hand circuit for airplanes? Like this, they could pass a pilots exam.

 

38 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

same with landing without crashing

You must think of Admiral Benson:

Benson: "You know, I've personally flown over 194 missions and I was shot down every one of them. Come to think of it, I've never landed a plane in my life."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember great review of a Camel in one of Yeates book he the author  flew 248 hours in Sopwith Camels, crashed four times, was shot down twice and scored five victories. I need to check my Kindle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Flying Camels was not everyone’s work. They were by far the most difficult of service machines to handle. Many pilots killed themselves by crashing in a right hand spin when they were learning to fly them. A Camel hated an inexperienced hand, and flopped into a frantic spin at the least opportunity. They were unlike ordinary aeroplanes, being quite unstable, immoderately tail-heavy, so light on the controls that the slightest jerk or inaccuracy would hurl them all over the sky, difficult to land, deadly to crash: a list of vices to emasculate the stoutest courage, and the first flight on a Camel was always a terrible ordeal. They were bringing out a two-seater training Camel for dual work, in the hope of reducing that thirty per cent of crashes on first solo flights"

‘I suppose you haven’t run a Clerget engine before.’ (It was a Clerget Camel.) ‘You’ll find it just like a Le Rhone; you’ve taken up the Le Rhone Pup, haven’t you? You’ll find it a bit fierce to start with: you’ve got another forty horse-power and plenty more revs. You’ll soon get to like that. Be careful with your fine adjustment, 

they’re a bit tricky on that. Ease it back as much as you can as soon as you’re off the ground, and the higher you get the less juice you’ll find she wants. I expect you’ve heard all about flying them. Be careful of your rudder. You may find it a bit difficult to keep straight at first. Keep just a shade of left rudder on to counteract the twist to the right; when you’re on anything like full throttle you can feel the engine pulling to the right all the time. Remember to use the rudder as little as possible, you hardly want any when you turn. But don’t be afraid of putting on plenty of bank. A Camel’s an aeroplane, not a house with wings, and you can put ‘em over vertical and back again quicker than you can say it. I expect you’ll find three-quarter throttle or so best for getting used to it. Keep her between eighty and ninety at first. Don’t get wind up, and you’ll be quite happy. Now this is what I want you to do. Take your time in running the engine on the ground, so as to get used to it, then go straight up to five thousand all out. You’ll be up there in no time. You’re not to turn or do anything except ease the fine adjustment back below five thousand. Climb at eighty-five. Then you can try turning to the left, all out or throttled down, just as you like. Don’t be afraid of spinning. If you do spin, you know how to get out: pull off the petrol and give her plenty of opposite rudder and stick. Have the stick well forward, but don’t keep it too far forward when she’s coming out, or you’ll dive like hell and lose 

a lot of height and jerk yourself about and lord knows what.’

 

But it was just this instability that gave Camels their good qualities of quickness in manoeuvre. A stable machine had a predilection for normal flying positions, and this had to be 

overcome every time you wanted to do anything, whereas a Camel had to be held in flying position all the time, and was out of it in a flash. It was nose light, having a rotary engine weighing next to nothing per horse power, and was rigged tail heavy so that you had to be holding her down all the time. Take your hand off the stick and it would rear right up with a terrific jerk and stand on its tail. Moreover, only having dihedral on the bottom plane gave a Camel a very characteristic elevation. You could tell one five miles off, so that Huns had plenty of time to think twice before attacking. With these unorthodox features, a Camel was a wonderful machine in a scrap. If only it had been fifty per cent faster! There was the rub. A Camel could neither catch anything except by surprise, nor hurry away from an awkward situation, and seldom had the option of accepting or declining combat. But what of it? You couldn’t have everything.

 

 

and there is much more 🙂

 

 

Yeates, V. M.. Winged Victory 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the question in the OP, IMHO the Camel should thrash the Dr1: Not punishing the Camel for its higher fuel capacity but assuming a similar endurance, i.e. the Camel at around 660 Kg and the Dr1 at 575 Kg, the Camel is faster, has a slightly higher power to weight ratio, slightly better wing loading and a substantially better aspect ratio. Sure, the Dr1 has a higher Clmax but that won’t save it in a turn contest since the Camel will have a better sustained turn rate (not radius mind you) due to the substantial aspect ratio advantage which counts for much more than the advantage the DR1 has due to the thicker Göttingen profile.

Edited by Holtzauge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

To answer the question in the OP, IMHO the Camel should thrash the Dr1: Not punishing the Camel for its higher...... 

Not to question any of this in a real life sense, but I don't think this describes how these planes match up in RoF. In FC a lot will depend on engine choices we ultimately get for the Camel. 

 

S! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Not to question any of this in a real life sense, but I don't think this describes how these planes match up in RoF. In FC a lot will depend on engine choices we ultimately get for the Camel. 

 

S! 

 

Good point: I should have mentioned what engines and power I assumed: For the Camel a Clerget rated at 130 hp but delivering 126 hp and for the Camel an Oberursel II rated at 110 hp but delivering 122 hp. Those are the best estimates I have and under those conditions the Camel should beat the Dr1 in speed, climb and turnrate. That is AFAIK also the weakest engine for the Camel so if they choose anything else the Camel will do even better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! This upcoming Camel release goes much deeper than how it performs vs the Dr1. 

It should give us an insight into Devs approach to the entente rotaries that were altered in RoF and engine strategies for planes with longer active service in general.

 

FC1 is absolutely set in mid 1918, so we could realistically expect later Camel engine/performance.

If that eventuates, then it opens the door to 1918 performance comparisons of planes like the Spad13, DVa, and Mercedes powered DVIIs.

 

Not making judgements yet, it's still wait and see stage. Simply pointing out what interests me about the Camel release.

Edited by US103_Baer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

It should give us an insight into Devs approach to the entente rotaries that were altered in RoF and engine strategies for planes with longer active service in general.

 

Since the Dr.1 was ported to FC with no apparent changes after the nerfing, we can expect the Camel to be ported to FC the same way, with a worse climb rate than planes like the N11, Halb D2 and Albatros D2 (which is laughable). It has a good zoom climb and it is easier to fly, but not on par with the Dr.1, and just an old dog when you try to make it climb. Not to mention that the Fokker D8, with the same 110hp engine of the Dr.1, simply smokes both the Dr.1 and the Camel (which has a 130hp engine) in speed and climb. The same with the Hanriot. 

 

But FC is a new full paid module, the same price of any other module and under the umbrella and standard quality of BOX (?), so I'm curious to see how it is going to come out. But like I said, the Dr.1 was ported with no changes. Which makes me think the Camel will come to FC the same way. 

 

Pity though, especially regarding the Sopwith Triplane, perhaps one of the best flight models we had before the nerfing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I would bet on too, but I hope to be surprised by a reversion to the much more accurate pre-nerf FM.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Since the Dr.1 was ported to FC with no apparent changes after the nerfing, we can expect the Camel to be ported to FC the same way.......

 

Very wrong on the first point and therefore likely wrong on both points.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if they fix the Camel and leave the Dr.1 unchanged as it is, the Dr.1 will become Camel fodder. So either way they will be wrong. Since it is a full paid module, they should sit back and rethink what they did and come up with a balanced solution for all three planes - Camel, Dr.1 and Sopwith Triplane. And all this balanced with the Fokker D8 and Hanriot, Albatros and all.

 

But since we got the post-nerfed Dr.1, they should come up with the post-nerfed Camel.

 

It is a predicament, but they did got themselves into this hole, with a push from some players, so now they should find a way to come out of it, but it appears that they will do nothing. Or else they will continue to mess things even further - which will not surprise me either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, J5_Baeumer said:

 

Very wrong on the first point and therefore likely wrong on both points.  

 

Of course I do.

 

And How so? The only difference, and this apply to both Dr.1 and Spad, is that we now have different speeds depending on the map / season. But it is not proprietary of the Dr.1. Both planes perform more or less on the same percentage in speed variation.

 

From my early tests, speed and climb did not change. And this was the objective of the nerfing.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, J5_Baeumer said:

 

Very wrong on the first point and therefore likely wrong on both points.  

 

And yet, from the Russian forum thread about the stick pressure and balance:   https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/7517-фм-летающего-цирка/

 

It seems to me that the perceived differences between RoF and FC Dr.1 ane more to do with the general handling of the BoX engine vs the RoF engine, not the input data in the FM.  I could be wrong, but I would have to see actual comparative test data to believe it. If the head developer says the FMs were ported unchanged the burden of proof is on someone who claims they are different.

 

 

A forum post.JPG

a post 2.JPG

Edited by unreasonable
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

If the head developer says the FMs were ported unchanged the burden of proof is on someone who claims they are different

 

Exactly. 

 

I'm seeing no difference other than the game engine context, when planes perform differently depending on the map / season, which indicates they might be modeling prop pitch or drag. But from my tests, the variation in performance is proportional for both planes (Dr.1 and Spad).

 

21 minutes ago, J5_Baeumer said:

SeaW0lf, do you actually own Flying Circus?

 

These are some of the tests that I did with the new engine:

 

Fuel load study for Flying Circus:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/39945-fuel-load-study-for-flying-circus/

 

 

Regarding game engine changes from ROF to BOX:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/39968-todays-update-26918/?do=findComment&comment=676388

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

That is what I would bet on too, but I hope to be surprised by a reversion to the much more accurate pre-nerf FM.  

 

 

 

Lol not for the engine it had.

 

But don't worry, we will be getting engine mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Familiar with the quote.

 

Also, we are all familiar with a real DrI pilot who says the DrI modelling is highly accurate in FC.....hardly an example of a nerfed FM...?

 

Additionally, personal experience flying both RoF and FC DrIs should prove to even an average sim pilot like me that for whatever reason, the two sims DrI flight models are different.  Quite different, at least in how they translate in their respective game environments.

 

My personal opinion is the FC DrI bring highly preferred to fly, once one learns to get it off the ground properly.

 

Finally, this is a business.  It's not uncommon to under promise and over deliver, or try to.  The overwhelming consensus elsewhere on this form seems to contradict your fairly pessimistic 'analysis' regarding the performance of the DrI, and the whether we are flying a purely ported RoF FM or not in FC. 

 

Frankly I don't think it matters.....what does matter is that the FC models to date appear improved from RoF and highly accurate making planes that many hated and even refused to fly or couldn't fly in RoF, actually enjoyable to fly.

 

But then, this isn't really a thread about the DrI, it's about the Camel....a plane yet to be released that none of us have been able to fly, much less 'test'. 

 

I look forward to flying the camel and seeing what it is like in FC when released.....history being my guide....I look forward to being pleasantly surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J5_Baeumer said:

Familiar with the quote.

 

Additionally, personal experience flying both RoF and FC DrIs should prove to even an average sim pilot like me that for whatever reason, the two sims DrI flight models are different.  Quite different, at least in how they translate in their respective game environments.

 

 

I agree that there is some difference in feeling and ease of control: as I said, that can be accounted for in the details of how the newer BoX engine handles data. But if you think the basic FM parameters are different , in the face of both repeated assertions by the developer and the results of SeaW0lf's tests that demonstrate that they are not, then there is nothing more to say, except that you would benefit from learning how and when to admit that you are completely wrong. 

 

As for the engine mods on which people are placing so much hope: I must have missed that. Does anyone have a link to a developer thread that says that these will be available in FC?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

as I said, that can be accounted for in the details of how the newer BoX engine handles data.

I think this is key here. In terms of speed and substained climb vs power setting, there I find no difference between FC and RoF and I think this is what SeaWolf is referring to.

 

But it is my guess that most of the planes are on the slow side, as even a faster Camel had little hope catching any running (contemporary) fighter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

But it is my guess that most of the planes are on the slow side, as even a faster Camel had little hope catching any running (contemporary) fighter.

 

 

 

Not pre-nerf.  ;)

 

Of course when the Nerf came, they...overdid it a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

 

Not pre-nerf.  ;)

 

Of course when the Nerf came, they...overdid it a bit.

It is my impression that "pre-nerf" Spad, SE5, Dolphin were on the slow side giving an slightly fast Camel/Dr.I a bit of an edge that it didn't really have. Nerfing two planes is simpler than boosting more than two planes. Besides, I think FC makes much better use of the planes performance figures than RoF and having a tad more power does not translate into a plane that can han on the prop as if it was an Extra300. There should be less "nerf" needed to still give all planes the purpose they had.

 

The Camel and the Dr.I pre-nerf just made all other planes irrelevant in RoF, and this was clearly not the case back then.

 

That said and seeing how FC turned out so far, I'm actually looking forward for engine mods giving both the Camel and the Dr.I more power in FC because i think this sim is a major step forward from good old RoF.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when they rolled out the Spitfire Mk.V, it came with changes in how yaw was handled (people had been complaining that the 109 was too twitchy), which I understood took into greater account the yaw damping effect of an aircraft's fuselage or something along those lines.   Shortly afterwards, they incorporated this change into all of the aircraft.  It's likely that the FC aircraft use this newer yaw modelling as well, and this might be the factor that people are noticing as different from RoF, even if all the other aspects of the FM are unchanged.  

Edited by SeaSerpent
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2018 at 11:27 AM, unreasonable said:

Here is a nice Camel video - turning both ways.

 

...and it shows exactly what I said: how unbearably long the turn takes.
He seems to find it hard to bank the craft more (what you need to in a combat turn) - or he doesn't dare.
It would be necessary to see these aircraft perform like under real combat conditions - but I guess nobody would dare to.

 

The gyroscopic effect that makes the Camel want to roll right must be so strong, that a Camel pilot would constantly give left rudder in the air,

as Gene DeMarco from THE VINTAGE AVIATOR said:

"In the air, De Marco says, the Camel does indeed live up to its reputation: keep left rudder on at all times or risk diving down to the right.

But overall he says he likes flying the Sopwith very much."

[source: THE AERODROME] 

 

There had been a great video on YOUTUBE by Cambridge professor of physics Hugh Hunt, where he demonstrated this gyroscopic effect

on a model, and how it effected the Sopwith Camel. Strangely, there are still several videos of him about similar experiments -

but the one especially about the Sopwith Camel is gone.

I guess the Sopwith Camel has become so iconic for the British, that it's abilities cannot be criticized much without causing protest.

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

I guess the Sopwith Camel has become so iconic for the British, that it's abilities cannot be criticized much without causing protest.

 

Lol, wut!?

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that ROF aerplanes in  FC are harder to spin , just feeling I need to w8 for camel to test. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

The gyroscopic effect that makes the Camel want to roll right must be so strong, that a Camel pilot would constantly give left rudder in the air,.....

 

There had been a great video on YOUTUBE by Cambridge professor of physics Hugh Hunt, where he demonstrated this gyroscopic effect

on a model, and how it effected the Sopwith Camel. Strangely, there are still several videos of him about similar experiments -

but the one especially about the Sopwith Camel is gone.

I guess the Sopwith Camel has become so iconic for the British, that it's abilities cannot be criticized much without causing protest.

 

 

 

Maybe you should have paid more attention to the Hunt video. Gyroscopic precession does not want to make the Camel roll - it wants to make it yaw right when you pitch up, hence the left rudder when you apply a nose up pitching moment during a turn.  Actually the torque tends to encourage a roll to the left.

 

What I find so odd about your comments is that you seem not to understand that the characteristics of the Camel that affect it's handling are almost the same as those of the Dr.1: a rotary engine with a short fuselage with the weight concentrated in a small area and small fin. The handling characteristics will be fairly similar: both exhibit directional instability and a yaw to the right when you pull the stick back.  The idea that the Dr.1 was some marvelous instrument and the Camel was a dog is absurd.  It is really only the wing configuration that is significantly different: the Dr.1 has a higher lift wing section, but the Camel's biplane configuration is more efficient per unit area. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. 1 flight tests:

 

image.png.2fc81007654e66d07492185db5c5e28f.pngimage.png.b1b393b044d7b3e1e05314eca02d53b8.png

 

Camel Flight tests:

 

The most common front line model in 1918 would be the 140 hp Clerget or the B.R. 1 . 

 

notice climb times to 10,000 feet are 8.5 to 10 minutes instead of over 16 minutes for the RoF Camel.

 

image.thumb.png.6c16b5b096804888c0105080cab0677e.png

 

speed and climb performance of the Sopwith and Fokker are comparable.

Edited by Sgt_Joch
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a mix, all three, i.e. Clerget, B.R.1 and Le Rhône were used at the front. They seemed to have been grouped on a per squadron basis, as you can see in the quote, which would make sense from a maintenance viewpoint. I have not been able to find a total number for april-may 1918, which is the "Flying Circus" time frame, although at that time it was still flying both air superiority and ground attack missions. From anecdotal evidence, i.e. random quotes from pilots on their missions, I see more mentions of 140 hp Clerget and some of B.R.1, few of the Le Rhône. I get the impression the Le Rhône was not as used for air superiority missions as the other two because of their lower performance.

 

image.png.5e2522a7af113ed0952c5c58fcdab807.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×