Jump to content
Voyager

(P-47) Entry conditions of the power on Split-S?

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this is the correct forum for it but I've been poking around in various training documentation for the P-47 (waiting for bodenplatte....) and ran into a bit on how Split-S maneuvers below 15,000ft were not allowed due to intersection with the ground. I recall seeing that before, and loaded up some various sims to try it out. What I saw in most of them was that it was generally doable, but generally took several thousand feet of altitude and was usually a very high G maneuver on the edge of acellerated stall. Not something one would do for blips and giggles, but doable(?)

 

That leads me to the real question; does anyone know what assumptions would have been used in generating those guidelines? I'm assuming they didn't just have a bunch of test pilots do Split-S maneuvers until one of them impacted, but I'm also guessing they didn't issue pilot directive using 9G pull outs as a standard. I'm also wondering if there could be an aspect of high speed flight that was, either not being estimated correctly in the pilot manuals, or being accounted for in most flight sims? The one I found it in was based on the earlier razor back models, so could it have been a hold-over from the issues the P-47B model had at high speed? 

 

Curiosity killed the voyager, I know, but I am curious... 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the T-38 and it’s terrible wingloading can do a split S in 10,000 ft, I’m confident a P-47 can make it happen. There’s probably more to the story than “you will impact terra firma if you split S below 15k.”

Share this post


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

If the T-38 and it’s terrible wingloading can do a split S in 10,000 ft, I’m confident a P-47 can make it happen. There’s probably more to the story than “you will impact terra firma if you split S below 15k.”

 

Sure it may have a higher wing loading, but it'll also have excellent energy retention. Combined with props that were designed to provide thrust over 50% of the wing area and some fowler flaps, it should be one of the more maneuverable aircraft of BOBP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wont find guidelines in the POM for anything like that, as it was considered unsafe to do so. Simple as that.

 

After a number of fatal dives in NY by P-47 training squadrons, Charles Lindbergh was hired by the DoD and had a big part in setting the dive restrictions on the plane - which were overly optimistic from the factory. 

 

The P-47 is probably the most misunderstood aircraft of WW2 when it comes to diving. It no doubt had a great zoom climb after a dive - but the dive itself - the airplane is really nothing special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

but the dive itself - the airplane is really nothing special.

Odd considering that every P-47 pilot seems to disagree with you.

 

Diving is more than just top speed, if it was only about top speed the spitfire would beat everyone. The P-47 was considered a good diver by all accounts.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Odd considering that every P-47 pilot seems to disagree with you.

 

Diving is more than just top speed, if it was only about top speed the spitfire would beat everyone. The P-47 was considered a good diver by all accounts.

 

Every P-47 pilot? Sure about that? We are unable to speak to the ones that didn't survive graveyard dives with the P-47 and there were many of them I'm afraid.

 

Don't take my word for it. It was the conclusion reached during actual testing by Charles Lindbergh in the US, acting as an independent contractor for the DoD - it was the conclusion of Eric Brown testing in Britain and it was the conclusion of the Joint Fighter Conference which tested after the war.

 

And nobody said the P-47 wasn't a "good diver" so please don't start with that. Simply that it's legendary diving performance in comparison to other aircraft is largely a myth.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is, do we know which model was Lindburg was testing on?

 

I recall there were problems with the fabric covered control surfaces failing to be effective past a certain speed, and some issues with the tail coming off that ended up limiting the Vne on B models to be pretty low. 

 

I also seem to recall a post war dive performance test referenced in a USAAF fighters encyclopedia I had that indicates that the P-47 and P-51 were the best divers in the US inventory, but that both had the same terminal speed, with one reaching it about 100ft ahead of the other. Oddly, I seem to recall that it was the P-51 that got there first. I'll have to go looking for it next time I'm at the folks. 

Edited by Voyager
Curse you autocorrect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Voyager said:

I'm assuming they didn't just have a bunch of test pilots do Split-S maneuvers until one of them impacted, 

 

You do realize that an aircraft can tested at a higher altitude and maneuvers performed where impact isn’t a problem - yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

And nobody said the P-47 wasn't a "good diver" so please don't start with that. Simply that it's legendary diving performance in comparison to other aircraft is largely a myth.

 

Well... physics are physics and the Jug will carry more potential energy for the given altitude than any other single engine fighter. That's because of Thunderbolt enormous weight. Not only that; thanks to the turbo the P-47 can cruise at higher altitude than most of the opposition increasing the potential energy advantage even more.

 

How it will reflect in the sim I'm not sure, yet. However, the heavier fighters (like the P-40 or the 190) have an advantage in maneuvers like shallow dives. It's how you can escape from 109s in the Kittyhawk; something which wouldn't be possible otherwise.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ehret said:

 

Well... physics are physics and the Jug will carry more potential energy for the given altitude than any other single engine fighter. That's because of Thunderbolt enormous weight. Not only that; thanks to the turbo the P-47 can cruise at higher altitude than most of the opposition increasing the potential energy advantage even more.

 

How it will reflect in the sim I'm not sure, yet. However, the heavier fighters (like the P-40 or the 190) have an advantage in maneuvers like shallow dives. It's how you can escape from 109s in the Kittyhawk; something which wouldn't be possible otherwise.

 

Yep - Hard to beat a Jug in a dive - even the 190 pilots knew this. (see Willie Heilmann’s book)

Share this post


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

Question is, do we know which model was Lindburg was testing on?

 

I recall there were problems with the fabric covered control surfaces failing to be effective past a certain speed, and some issues with the tail coming off that ended up limiting the Vne on B models to be pretty low. 

 

I also seem to recall a post war dive performance test referenced in a USAAF fighters encyclopedia I had that indicates that the P-47 and P-51 were the best divers in the US inventory, but that both had the same terminal speed, with one reaching it about 100ft ahead of the other. Oddly, I seem to recall that it was the P-51 that got there first. I'll have to go looking for it next time I'm at the folks. 

 

You are probably thinking of the Joint Fighter Conference held after the war? There is an extensive coverage of it in the back of Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand. If you don't have that book, it is highly recommended - pretty much a Bible of sorts on US fighter aircraft of WW2.

 

All variants of the P-47 were tested extensively regarding diving - there is a reason dive recovery flaps were fitted to the later versions. Needless to say, a power dive from 15,000ft was not a recommended maneuver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Well... physics are physics and the Jug will carry more potential energy for the given altitude than any other single engine fighter.

 

Yes, and the physics also tell us that potential energy turns in to kinetic energy that quickly carries us into compressibility - a double edged sword for the Thunderbolt. This is what was borne out by pretty much every P-47 dive test, ever - and it's really why the P-47 was not considered a remarkable aircraft tactically with regard to diving.

 

The physics advantage of the P-47 and it's heavy weight will be not so much the dive as the zoom climb following the dive. 

 

As far as how that will translate in the sim - we can see something similar in dives and zooms with combats between heavier and more powerful FW-190 against lighter Yak-1/7 and in the sim the advantage is not much at all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

[...]

All variants of the P-47 were tested extensively regarding diving - there is a reason dive recovery flaps were fitted to the later versions. Needless to say, a power dive from 15,000ft was not a recommended maneuver.

 

And yet, even in highly regarded sims, we do it all the time. Why the discrepancy? Were the guidelines overly conservative? Is the sim setting leading to behavioural differences? Is there a bit of physics that we are all missing? 

 

Things I'm curious about are:

 

Do we still have Lindburgh's report, and does it include the tests and analysis? 

 

Does available pilot stick force decrease with G loading? 

 

How does the prop-wash related lift change with airspeed? What is its contribution to maximum turn rate? Does it drop off as the aircraft pokes the near transonic region? (Has any research on this even been done?) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Voyager said:

 

And yet, even in highly regarded sims, we do it all the time. Why the discrepancy? Were the guidelines overly conservative?

 

We do not die when we make a mistake in sims.

 

Also yes - no doubt POM will be somewhat conservative and actually aircraft can exceed those limits - we see this all the time with dive limits and in fact this is why the developers decided to exceed published dive limits in most (all?) cases.

You will find more detailed information in AFDU tests with RAF (As shown in Testing for Combat) and tests during Joint Fighter Conference which you can find summary in Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note: looks like the update is out now, and includes compressability, and the P-47D-28.

 

 

Anyone had a chance to test them and see what happens in this one? From the descriptions of the impacts of compressability I am very curious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Krupinskii said:

 

Sure it may have a higher wing loading, but it'll also have excellent energy retention. Combined with props that were designed to provide thrust over 50% of the wing area and some fowler flaps, it should be one of the more maneuverable aircraft of BOBP.

 

I was referring to the T-38, an aircraft I have 200+ hours in and which is very similar to an F-5. It has the worst performance in vertical maneuvering of anything I’ve flown, and was designed to train pilots in the 60s and 70s to fly the Century series fighters (fast but with poor energy retention, maneuverability, etc). 

 

Theres obviously very little in common between said jet and the P-47; I just don’t buy at all that a P-47 will hit the ground when initiating a Split S at 14,999 ft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

We do not die when we make a mistake in sims.

 

Also yes - no doubt POM will be somewhat conservative and actually aircraft can exceed those limits - we see this all the time with dive limits and in fact this is why the developers decided to exceed published dive limits in most (all?) cases.

You will find more detailed information in AFDU tests with RAF (As shown in Testing for Combat) and tests during Joint Fighter Conference which you can find summary in Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand

Well, what America´s Hundred Thousand says about the jug diving characteristics start with:

"Probably the most outstanding and most remembered capability of the P-47 airplane was its diving performance. What it lacked in climb it made up in diving, and with a turbosupercharged engine it could easily start the dive from a high altitude". Then presented a couple of pilots quotes about their impression on the 47´s dive:

"I have never seen a plane that could get rid of such appalling hunks of altitude in such short time" and

"Our evasive action (in combat) was to dive until you saw 500mph IAS and you could be sure there was no one behind you any longer"

 

The P-47 diving fame didn´t come out of the blue. Was due to the high altitude performance together with its heavyweight (big inertia) and good controllability at high speed. Acceleration in the dive was very high and that was recognized by both users and foes.

The main problem the P-47 had with the dive was that it has a modest mach number (until the new wing was introduced with the P-47N)  that coupled with that phenomenal acceleration in the dive made it getting into compressibility quite easily at high altitude. If you added an angle of dive too high, then is when you got into trouble. That was recognized and the reason for the introduction of the dive flaps (no longer needed with the -N).

The most important thing is that the p-47 diving characteristics compared favourably against its usual adversaries (me109, Fw190A, Zeke, ki-61). Even if some allies had same or better diving characteristics (all big planes). The ultimate champion in that regard was the Tempest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And are we talking about a Split S, or a dive? Lots of experts chiming in who are using the two interchangeably, when they are NOT the same thing. 

 

If I start a Split S in the Jug at 15k and 200 KIAS, and apply full power, and then roll 180 and increase aft stick pressure as required to maintain 200 KIAS, I will never encounter compressibility and will certainly complete the maneuver above ground level. Probably not far off from 10k’. 

 

Can someone please post the exact verbiage from the warning brought up in the original post? Something is wrong here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Go_Pre said:

And are we talking about a Split S, or a dive? Lots of experts chiming in who are using the two interchangeably, when they are NOT the same thing. 

Yes,  a split ess is not a dive. It's simply using the vertical instead of the horizontal to change your direction. You roll the airplane onto it's back and pull back the stick, essentially doing an upside down loop. You don't hold it into the dive. There's no way it loses 15,000 feet doing that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Yes,  a split ess is not a dive. It's simply using the vertical instead of the horizontal to change your direction. You roll the airplane onto it's back and pull back the stick, essentially doing an upside down loop. You don't hold it into the dive. There's no way it loses 15,000 feet doing that.  

 

A half-loop, or possible a half-Cuban (in the aerobatic sense). The problem may well be less about the loss of altitude from a continuous, controlled manouevre and more about the effect of gaining speed at high altitude and then entering denser air close to a Vmax without realising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

Yes,  a split ess is not a dive. It's simply using the vertical instead of the horizontal to change your direction. You roll the airplane onto it's back and pull back the stick, essentially doing an upside down loop. You don't hold it into the dive. There's no way it loses 15,000 feet doing that. 

 

 

The example given in the training film (at 18:00) indicates that when entering a split ess at 15000 ft at 250 power-on you will not have enough altitude.  My take on that is that the plane very quickly gets into compressibility, probably before vertical, and it becomes impossible to pull out of the dive after that.  Assuming one cuts the power as soon as compressibility is reached I would think it might take *a period of time* before one can level the plane but I wouldn't be able to guess the time or altitude loss resulting from that scenario.  One thing not specified is the G-load of the maneuver and the difference between, for example, 3G and 5G would be HUGE.  It will certainly be fun to attempt to recreate the chart, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, chuter said:

he example given in the training film (at 18:00) indicates that when entering a split ess at 15000 ft at 250 power-on you will not have enough altitude.

Oh!!  With full power on! Well, yeah. Who'd be stupid enough? I never even thought we were talking about pulling that maneuver without pulling the throttle back. I wouldn't have even done that in my little SONEX. I would have been worried about overstressing the airplane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 250 kts is above corner velocity for the P-47? Surprising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, no. 

 

I believe the idea is that the aircraft will increase speed sharply when initiating a dive under power.  At 15000 ft 250 the TAS is ~325 and the aircraft will accelerate from there with the P-47's critical Mach being a True of about 375 at 10000 ft.  That's not a lot of room speedwise when talking about going straight down under power in a Jug.

 

Interestingly, in contrast to the P-47, the Wildcat could be dived under power and its stubby little airframe would prevent it from reaching an airframe endangering speed at any altitude, hence no redline on the speedo. 

 

(In IL2 1946 the Wildcat would fall apart like every other plane in the game.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, chuter said:

well, no. 

 

I believe the idea is that the aircraft will increase speed sharply when initiating a dive under power.  At 15000 ft 250 the TAS is ~325 and the aircraft will accelerate from there with the P-47's critical Mach being a True of about 375 at 10000 ft.  That's not a lot of room speedwise when talking about going straight down under power in a Jug.

 

True. I also think that the Gs applied in doing the split-s also influence the buildup of speed. I wonder if there was a standard way of doing the manoeuvre that led the plane to hit compressibility while going vertical.

I made a crude test in kuban, autumn, no winds, 4500m (about 14800ft) and wait until reaching 250mph ias (autolevel) at full power (100% throthle and turbo, 2700rpm, closed radiator, neutral oil and intercooler, autorich) before doing the split (at full power). I refrained from applying much pressure on the stick and still recovered at about 9000ft doing about 400mph ias (safe diving speed according to POH at that altitude is 450mph). Can´t tell if the dive acceleration is wrong, compressibility effect weak, elevator authority too good (don´t think so this one) or the recommendation didn´t reflect reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

I made a crude test in kuban, autumn, no winds, 4500m (about 14800ft) and wait until reaching 250mph ias (autolevel) at full power (100% throthle and turbo, 2700rpm, closed radiator, neutral oil and intercooler, autorich) before doing the split (at full power). I refrained from applying much pressure on the stick and still recovered at about 9000ft doing about 400mph ias (safe diving speed according to POH at that altitude is 450mph). Can´t tell if the dive acceleration is wrong, compressibility effect weak, elevator authority too good (don´t think so this one) or the recommendation didn´t reflect reality.

 

As expected in terms of ingame mechanic; the ingame Lagg3 also needs less altitude to recover from a dive if we compare it against real life reports.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Edited by Willy__

Share this post


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

 

As expected in terms of ingame mechanic; the ingame Lagg3 also needs less altitude to recover from a dive if we compare it against real life reports.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Do we know all the details from the test? Entrance speed, engine setting, altitude, type of manoeuvre (another split s), Gs applied....?  I think that can influence every test vastly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been digging through a P-47N manual I found, and it has some interesting notes on compressability behaviours. First is that one should *not* try to trim out of a dive. Apparently it doesn't do anything until after you are out of compression, at which point it causes a violent pull up.

 

Second thing is, they report the plane becomes nose heavy in compression, and that reducing power pulls the nose down further. Part of recovery is to increase engine power to help pull the nose up. 

 

I'm also suspecting they are assuming a lower strength pull-out. The Immelmann turn it has cites entering at 300mph and a potential for reaching the top at 150mph,so we may be able to figure out the low end of their stick force from there. 

 

I'll see if I can post the manual to the forums. 

 

Ok can't; it's over 5mb. I'll have to try and find the link I got it from

Edited by Voyager

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Voyager said:

Been digging through a P-47N manual I found, and it has some interesting notes on compressability behaviours. First is that one should *not* try to trim out of a dive. Apparently it doesn't do anything until after you are out of compression, at which point it causes a violent pull up.

 

Second thing is, they report the plane becomes nose heavy in compression, and that reducing power pulls the nose down further. Part of recovery is to increase engine power to help pull the nose up. 

 

I'm also suspecting they are assuming a lower strength pull-out. The Immelmann turn it has cites entering at 300mph and a potential for reaching the top at 150mph,so we may be able to figure out the low end of their stick force from there. 

 

I'll see if I can post the manual to the forums. 

 

Ok can't; it's over 5mb. I'll have to try and find the link I got it from

Here: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/republic/p-47thunderbolt/aaf-51-127-4-pilot-training-manual-for-the-p-47n-thunderbolt.html

 

That nose over effect is mach tuck, I don't think it's modeled in-game unfortunately.

One of the reasons to always start a dive with power back and not full forward, so you can get out of the dive, same reason it is said to trim the aircraft nose up before entering the dive.

 

Compressibility isn't a death sentence, it was determined to not be as dangerous as once believed you just have to use the proper procedures to get out of it.

That being said, I'm not sure how detailed compressibility is modeled in-game, I've never experienced mach tuck yet so I'm not sure if it's in the game or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trimming out of dives is a fairly common-sense instruction so I could imagine it applied also to the P-47.

 

If Mach tuck is not in the game, what compressibility elements are modelled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Not trimming out of dives is a fairly common-sense instruction so I could imagine it applied also to the P-47.

 

If Mach tuck is not in the game, what compressibility elements are modelled?

Flutter is about all I notice and stiffening of the controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Legioneod said:

Flutter is about all I notice and stiffening of the controls.

 

Looks like I need to dive more, I barely noticed the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Looks like I need to dive more, I barely noticed the difference.

I usually get really stiff controls past 500mph, funny enough the 109 actually has better conrtol past 500mph from the few test I've done. It can also reach higher speeds without losing any parts, realistically the P-47 never reached speeds at which it suffered structural failure (save for the very early models) so loss of ailerons shouldn't be modeled.

Share this post


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

I usually get really stiff controls past 500mph

 

Happens to the best of us, old chap.
 

Quote


funny enough the 109 actually has better conrtol past 500mph from the few test I've done. It can also reach higher speeds without losing any parts, realistically the P-47 never reached speeds at which it suffered structural failure (save for the very early models) so loss of ailerons shouldn't be modeled

 

 

Well I might comment on the notoriously heavy-controls / light-structure 109 enjoying such aspects at but this thread would not doubt get locked for no apparent reason. At 800kph the 190 suffers - as far as I recall - no ill-effects so really the Jug should not be laden with early break-up issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, chuter said:

well, no. 

 

I believe the idea is that the aircraft will increase speed sharply when initiating a dive under power.  At 15000 ft 250 the TAS is ~325 and the aircraft will accelerate from there with the P-47's critical Mach being a True of about 375 at 10000 ft.  That's not a lot of room speedwise when talking about going straight down under power in a Jug.

 

Interestingly, in contrast to the P-47, the Wildcat could be dived under power and its stubby little airframe would prevent it from reaching an airframe endangering speed at any altitude, hence no redline on the speedo. 

 

(In IL2 1946 the Wildcat would fall apart like every other plane in the game.)

 

If you are responding to me, you don’t understand what corner velocity is. 

Can someone do this in the game so we can put this nonsense to rest? A Split S is certainly doable in a P-47 starting at 15,000’. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GP, the drag-characteristics in buffet are different for warbirds than for jets. The aspect-ratios are greater and there's a different spanwise-flow (no sweepback), so there's less drag at high AoA. I do agree there's something missing in that report. Maybe it's linked to constant backpressure on the stick or something the likes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 11/22/2018 at 5:18 AM, Go_Pre said:

 

If you are responding to me, you don’t understand what corner velocity is. 

Can someone do this in the game so we can put this nonsense to rest? A Split S is certainly doable in a P-47 starting at 15,000’. 

 

If you mean the minimum speed at which maximum G can be pulled?  You're right, I have no idea.  How does this apply to a throttle open split ess?   Is there an assumption that the aircraft will have enough drag to not accelerate into compressibility if max G is maintained from the start?  I'm not sure I can make that assumption and the training film and pilot's manual give no clues in that direction.  In IL2 1946 there were no problems doing high speed split esses from less than 5000 ft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 10:41 AM, chuter said:

 

 

If you mean the minimum speed at which maximum G can be pulled?  You're right, I have no idea.  How does this apply to a throttle open split ess?   Is there an assumption that the aircraft will have enough drag to not accelerate into compressibility if max G is maintained from the start?  I'm not sure I can make that assumption and the training film and pilot's manual give no clues in that direction.  In IL2 1946 there were no problems doing high speed split esses from less than 5000 ft.

 

If you’re below corner, you can’t over-G as you mentioned. 

 

Applying sufficient aft stick pressure once you start the split S will hold the airspeed constant — induced drag will prevent the airspeed from increasing, yes even at open throttle. This is well short of the AoA required to enter an accelerated stall, in case that was a concern.

 

(If you have a FF stick or could feel the buffet on the airframe, it would feel like a constant rumbling on the stick / in the seat. Even without FF and real life cues, you can hear it in the sim.)

 

So, unless you’re cruising around at compression speeds and that speed is also above corner velocity, you won’t suddenly lose control when entering a Split S. 

 

Edit: it’s likely even possible above corner to a certain extent, but not a guarantee in this thought experiment. 

Edited by Go_Pre

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

×
×
  • Create New...