Junkers Ju-52/3m

Armed Ju52/3m WIP

Hello Smilo, Ivan,
At the end, I´ve attached the armed Ju-52 transport/bomber version,
to this post, in case you have the gumption or time to have a look at
it sooner
than expected.

I am well aware that you both have a lot to do and may not have the
time for at least a couple of days or perhaps a week or more.

No hurry, and thanks in advance for any obervations, suggestions or
corrections!

Source files are included, but please take into account that the AF99
model is incomplete, also having incomplete elements, because the
finishing stage of the model via SCASM entails a virtual cockpit, a crew
of 2 in the transparent external-view cockpit, as well as completion of
the incomplete elements.

Second thoughts on the canopy display issue in my previous post:

It could also well be normal for transparent surfaces to disappear

depending on the lighting conditions. Normal textures have differnt
colour intensities depending on how the light shines on the surface,
but transparencies probably don´t reflect any light when they are
in a shadow, and become totally transparent.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Disappearing Windows

Hello Smilo,

Congratulations on your Daughter's upcoming Wedding.


Hello Aleatorlamp,

I can't visualize what you are describing and also have a few things to take care of this evening.
Could it be that the Parts of your Window Component are non-planar?
Non-planar Parts disappear when seen at shallow angles.

I actually try to do as little as possible in SCASM code changes from the disassembled AF99 model and try to make those changes very modular so that they are easily found and repeated on the next AF99 build if necessary.
The chances of messing something up in SCASM is quite high for me which is why I try to work there as little as possible.

My apologies for not being more help, but with 3D design, other than general techniques, just about everything depends on being able to see what is wrong, and I don't at the moment.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Re. the disappearing windows: I think I jumped the gun here. Sorry!

I thought it was something to correct, but it appears to be normal.
I had noticed it on other models, doing a wing-tip height visual sweep from one side to the other, passing in front of the aircraft. I´ve just checked, and it happens on all aircraft, so there´s nothing to correct! It may even be something that my graphic card does, and does not happen on other computers.

Re: the amount of SCASM alterations in the Ju-52:
I´m afraid there was no other alternative for the numerous changes.
The parts count was already quite high (146.7 to 149.8, depending on the model), and to put in about 16.5% extra parts (131 parts) for cabin crew, floors and aft wall, I had to make space by simplifying other elements, which then had to be completed. At the end the total parts count is about 164%.

As you have explained on prior occasions, you would have done it by adding the code to the end and calling it from convenient places, without altering existing code, but that was a bit too complicated for me.

Once I had identified where the parts were, I found it easier to follow, to use the existing routines and substitute the code within, than to add others. This of course involved quite a few Call instructions that had to be changed to Call32.

I expect that the other system of bypassing existing code and adding new code to the end would also need quite a few Call32 instructions.


Anyway, the good part of all this is that the models all work and look clean.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

Glad you figured out the window issue.
Obviously your method of SCASM modifications works for you.
I still prefer my method because it seems clearer to me to have all the new code in once place.


Hello Smilo,

The Floating Fallschirmjaegerbomben might not actually require modification to CFS code.....
I am pretty sure that it is within the capabilities of the simulator if you do things correctly!


Thinking about it????


Good!


Now think about this:
Many CFS models especially stock, have breaking parts.
When your wing breaks off, you get the aeroplane spiraling out of control AND you get a broken off wing section flopping around and falling.
Now what happens if the original aeroplane spawns off a broken piece that looks like a paratrooper and also does not lose control?

Ain't that a cool idea?

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
To have all the new code in one place is a very good argument, and very practical.
Maybe I´ll adopt that method too, as once the old code is identified and conveniently
marked, inserting a call to the new code there, or where the call comes from, should
be about as easy as actually substituting code. I´ll see.

I didn´t know about broken wings spawning off airplanes being shot at! So, if one were
to climb into a stock Spitfire or Messerschmidt, and do a quick combat against 12 ace
opponents, to get myself shot down, I could have a look at what happens.

Well... then the thing to do, if the following information could be obtained, would be
a) to see what and where the flag is, that triggers the display of the broken-off wing,
b) how to trigger it, and
c) to see if more that one can be triggered.

Where the CFS1 bitmap is, and changing it into a Fallschirmjäger one, would probably be a
comparatively easy part. There are a few different wing texture bitmaps in the CFS1 texture folder. One would only have to identify which one to call and how to call it.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

Instead of getting your own aeroplane shot down in which case you get to see just ONE case of aircraft destruction (and it isn't even guaranteed that a part will come off instead of the whole aeroplane just 'sploding), why not go against 12 novices and see how THEY get blowed up?

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
I got as far as watching pieces getting shot off my Spitfire in successive
attacks until it exploded.

Trying it the other way around, I´m not very good at being a fighter pilot,
but I did get some hits in, and saw sparks of where I was hitting, and pieces
flying off the enemies.


Then, I had a look inside COMBATFS.CFG searching for a clue for any
way to control or use this feature but I didn´t get very far.

As far as possible bitmaps to be used are concerned, it seems like the pieces
flying off the planes are just real-time generated untextured polygons and lines.
What remains textured, is the aircraft itself without a wing, falling out of the sky.

Well, we´ll see...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
just a thought or two,
i recall seeing wings and such flying off bombers.
try this, in quick combat, select a docile adversary.
the c47 is perfect...slow, unarmed and flies straight.
aim for the engine or wing root.
 
Hello Gentlemen,

Smilo is right. I was trying to describe having large pieces such as a wing fall off the aeroplane, not the silly little squares of junk.
I know it can be done. I just don't have the drive to do the research and experiments.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Smilo, hello Ivan,
It sounds like a great idea, to take advantage of this feature and turn
a large chunk of shot-off wing into a parachutist, which would spawn
off your plane without it being damaged, and then merrily float to the
ground!

However, and needless to say, I´m afraid I haven´t the slightest clue
as to how to go about such a thing!

So, for the moment at least, I´d be in favour of keeping it simple and
practical, and use the CFS1/Dp-file bombload feature.

This way at least the simmer can decide the how many paratroopers he
wants to load, and then drop them somewhere.

Alternatively, the plane could also be defined as a simple troop transport,
for upto 18 or 19 troops to be landed somewhere - not dropped, so at least
they won´t explode!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Tweaking the different BMW132 engines for Auntie Ju

Hello Ivan, hello Smilo,
I am still not quite satisfied with the engines in the .air files of the different Ju52 models. Although maximum power and performance is quite OK, continuous power and performance seems high, so I´m going to improve this, but first I checked for more exact information on the different engines, and stumbled upon some problems which don´t exactly help.

Some time ago, we put in the engine parameters for the FW200A Condor, aiming for the specified 720 Hp at 2050 RPM at S.L. We had found reliable data as to the 6:1 compression ratio, and the 1.2 ATA max. MP from the FW200A operating manuals. The engine type was referred to as a BMW132A or BMW132G-1. This engine is the same type as on the early Ju52/3m g3e and g4e versions, that had 660 Hp BMW132A and 725 Hp BMW132A-3 respectively, both rated at 2050 RPM at S.L.

Engine power on later military versions of both aircraft (FW200A and Ju52/3m) increased, as the BMW132 series was improved, Hp reaching 850 and over, and RPM going up to 2400.

I have always been intrigued as to how exactly the power increase was achieved. Apart from more better materials, more efficient cams, lubrication and refrigeration, the obvious candidates are compression ratio, and manifold pressure. However, there is surprisingly little detailed information on these facts.

So where did the 65 Hp difference between the 660 Hp and 725 Hp engines come from?
Some sources state different compression ratio, giving 6:1 and 6.4:1 respectively, although most quote the same 6:1 for both. Then, one source even mentions a MP value of 1.25 ATA instead of 1.2 for the 725 Hp engine.

Updated paragraph: Incidentally, some sources state the A-3 as giving 715 Hp, which is curious, because ifan .air file regulated to 660 Hp, with 6:1 compression and 1.2 ATA max. MP, were to be modified by increasing compression to 6.4:1 and MP to 1.25 ATA, we get 717 Hp.
Well, so maybe the militarized Ju52/3m 725 Hp engine needed more MP and compression ratio to get the 725 Hp, whereas the Condor´s civil engine, being newer, gave almost the same power with lower compression and MP?

Nevertheless, it is not serious, because the .air file can be made to give correct performance in both cases. I could just leave it as it is, given the fact is that the FW200A´s 720 Hp engines had 6:1 compression and 1.2 ATA.

When the aircraft was later further improved to the g5e version, the 830 Hp BMW132T-2 engine was used. Here, I had overlooked the 6.5:1 compression ratio!
At least I have one realiable piece of information to make the necessary corrections.

All BMW132 engines with 800 Hp or above had 6.5:1, and power ranged from 800 Hp on the -L version to 850 Hp on the -Z Version. This last one also had direct injection and 3-bladed CV propellers. Apparently the use of CV propellers increased RPM to 2400 on these engines, which only did 2300 RPM with the 2-bladed 2-pitch props. There was even a civil version, the BMW132-Dc, that gave 868 Hp and had a compression ratio of 6.93:1.
Possibly manifold pressure also increased, but I have found no reference to this.

Update No. 2:
As an afterthought, if the difference in power from the 660 Hp to the 725 Hp engine came from increased compression and MP, how would one account for the further increase of 105 Hp for the 830 Hp engines? ...apart from just increasing the Torque graph, of course!
confused.png
...or shall we just forget the whole issue?
positive.png
Also, it´s quite doubtful whether it´d be noticeable when flying.

Anyway, I´m managing to tweak the propeller tables in order to tone down normal performance a bit, and it´s going OK.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Hello Aleatorylamp,

I know nearly nothing about Tante Ju or her engines at the moment so this is pure speculation.
Could it be a supercharger change?
Do you have any particular model numbers of the aeroplane and engine combinations you are particularly interested in?
I MAY have collected data in passing, but I would need to know what I am looking for.

If you happen to have graphs of power versus altitude, you could probably make a pretty educated guess as to the changes.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your reply. I was worried that you perhaps wouldn´t have any suggestions,
as you normally deal with fighters´ twin-row radials with twice the power.

Nevertheless, I´m glad that apparently there´s some hope.
It seems then, that there is a possibility of there having been different blowers.

The Ju52/3m g4e with the 725 Hp BMW132A-3 engines in question is the one recovered from the Norwegian Lake Hartvigvannet, at present restored and on display in the Norwegian Museum Forsvarets Flysamling Gardemoen: Model Number (Werknummer) 6657 with registration CA+JY.
Another candidate for this one could be a g4e at Wunstorf Museum, Germany: Werknummer 6693, registration DB+RD, also recovered from the same lake in 1986.

Basically, there are 2 questions:
a) whether this model had a 1.2 ATA supercharger like the FW200A Condor had, or if, being a military machine, the supercharger was stronger and gave 1.25 ATA.
b) Whether the compression ratio was the civilian normal 6:1, or if it was 6.4:1, having been militarized.

Attached is also the Performance/Altitude diagram for the BMW132 series I have. The visible .jpg picture is the same one as in the .zip file, for resolution reasons. I hope it is understandable.

Then, I will try and find a model number for the other plane in question, the Ju52/3m g5e with the 830 Hp BMW132T-2 engines that had 6.5:1 compression ratio, just in case it were possible to find out if this one had an even stronger blower, giving perhaps 1.35 ATA.

Update:
I found out that Werknummer 6935 was definitely a g5e, and then, probably also 6811 and 6855. Apparently only 231 of these were built, but the engines were the same for the g6e and g7e.

Perhaps you could have some information on these, that you collected in passing.
Thank you very much indeed, in advance, for your help!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Hello Ivan,
Analysing the performance chart a bit, it seems like a generic one relative to the group of engines in the BMW132A series. BMW mentions low-altitude and high-altitude engine series, so this one would be the 6:1 compression low altitude series.

Interesting to note is the 1.2 ATA curve, which starts with 690 Hp at S.L.
It reminds me of one specification for this engine, that states exactly this, whereas a number of others mention 725 Hp at 2050 RPM for take-off, some also adding 780 Hp at 2900 metres.
This would confirm your comment relative to possible supercharger changes.
Looking at this chart, one could possibly interpret that the 725 Hp engine did indeed have a bigger supercharger, possibly 1.25 ATA.

The source that mentioned this, is a member of the Sturmovic forum, talking about a military Ju52 manufacturers power chart, quoting different ATA settings for different powers and altitudes, which would consequently lead me to believe that this information is accurate:

>Quote

According to the manufacturers power chart:
1min - 2050rpm/1.25ata - 725PS@0m
5min - 2050rpm/1.13ata - 640PS@0m, 660PS@900m
30min - 1975rpm/1.06ata - 575PS@0m, 600PS@1400m
max. continuous - 1930rpm/1.02ata - 535PS@0m, 565@1700m
cruise - 1860rpm/0.96ata - 485PS@0m, 515PS@2200m

>Unquote

Note: 725 PS would be 725 metric Hp and 715 Brake Hp.
I wonder what Hp measurement is used by the Beckwith Gauge Stack...

I know that there are pilots´ and operation manuals available on the net, but all have to be paid for. The only free one is a BMW official extensively descriptive document on the low and high altitude engine series, that however makes no reference to any performance or ATA values.

Then, for the more powerful 800-850 + Hp engine series with 6.5:1 compression, the same criteria would apply, but would presumably have a different performance chart.

Sources quote 790 Hp for take-off for one specific engine model, and the higher 800, 830, 850 and 880 Hp also mentioned for other engines in this series would then also depend on the superchargers that were installed.


With the improved propeller tables, the simulator itself seems to be a useful tool to test speculations as to the blowers used on the different engine models.

Anyway, these are my deductions and reliable data so far, and I´m still searching for the high-altitude series chart.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Superchargers versus Manifold Pressure

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe you are working under a few misconceptions.... Or perhaps I am.
Here is my view of the way superchargers work:

Some basic background (which I am sure you know, but others may not).
Basic Engine Parameters:
Compression Ratio
Displacement (In CFS, we don't distinguish between long stroke and short stroke engines.)
Maximum Boost / Manifold Pressure

Then we have the Supercharger
We can have single stage, two stage, or even more stages.
This generally affects to what altitude the supercharger can maintain sea level boost pressures.
We can have single speed, two speed, or even more speeds in real life but in CFS, we can only simulate power curves for SINGLE SPEED superchargers. I believe I discussed this in the Engine Tuning Tutorial.
The issue here is that we can't really duplicate the power drop or "Jag" in the power curve from blower gear changes.

The point that I believe you are confusing here is that the static compression ratio really has nearly nothing to do with altitude performance.
Note that the Merlin had a 6.0:1 compression while the Allison had a 7.0:1 compression but the big difference was that the Merlin got a better supercharger earlier and then a two stage supercharger while the Allison usually had only a single stage and smaller supercharger.
Thus the compression ratio of a particular BMW 132 doesn't really tell you anything unless you know there is a historical link beyond what has been stated.

Note also that maximum boost pressure or manifold pressure also doesn't have much to do with altitude performance.
When the P-51A (Mustang Mk.II) got a two speed supercharger for its Allison engine, it had better altitude performance than earlier Mustangs even though the maximum manifold pressure was lower. The speed at Sea Level was lower because the maximum boost was lower but it could maintain that boost pressure to a much higher altitude (about the same as the Single Stage Merlin engines).
Thus a 1.20 ATA versus 1.25 ATA is also no real indication of a more capable supercharger or better altitude performance.
It is actually more likely an indication of improved engine parts and strength.

Some Ju 52 manuals are available on the Internet without cost, but so far, I have not been able to find anything useful in the ones I have accumulated. They are listing engines in the 620 PS range and happen to be very early manuals. I would send you a copy of what I have, but it is a bit too large to email and really doesn't provide the information you want anyway.

I checked in my copy of Jane's 1946, but found nothing at all on the BMW 132.
I have a very similar need for information for one of my own potential projects at the moment.

Regarding your comments about the kinds of engines I have been tuning:
I have actually spent more time tuning engines for your projects recently than for my own projects!

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Thank you for your consideration and your preoccupation with this subject, not only
regarding your reply but also your on-going support relative to the engines on quite
a few of my projects.

I´ve just been observing exactly what what you mean regarding the effects that different
engine parameters like compression ratio and boost pressure have, or don´t have, on certain
areas of the power curve during my current trials for the 1.25 ATA blower on the 725 Hp engine.

Not everything had the expected effect, but I have understood it enough to be able to get the
envelope quite acceptably close to the latest reliable data that I found.

Even the discrepancy with higher altitude results compared to low altitude ones is getting
better, as I´ve managed to improve propeller table 512 a bit more to get the normal operating
performance better as well.

As in your case, regarding information available for newer 800 Hp+ BMW132 engines, I have
found no useful data other than Hp and RPM values, so I think a good way to go about it,
will be to extrapolate data from the 725 engine, which is the newest one with reliable
power-curve data that we have.

In the same fashion data from the older 620 Hp and 660 Hp engines compares to the
725 Hp one, extrapolations could be made for the 830 Hp one, perhaps arriving at a
conclusion that a blower for this one could produce 1.35 or 1.4 ATA.

Once I get the envelope for the 725 Hp engine nicely smoothened out, I´ll post the results!

Certainly an interesting exercise, I must say!
I hope your own projects will benefit from the information that you find searching around for
my projects! In some cases, your and my projects seem to overlap to some extent.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Acceptable results with strange graph shapes.

Hello Ivan,
The specified Max. Power and MP settings for the 725 Hp BMW132A-3, at S.L. and altitudes upto 7200 ft as posted a few days ago:

1 min: - 2050rpm / 1.25ata - 725PS @ S.L.
5 min: - 2050rpm / 1.13ata - 640PS @ S.L., 660PS @ 2952ft
30 min: - 1975rpm / 1.06ata - 575PS @ S.L., 600PS @ 4600ft
max. cont: - 1930rpm / 1.02ata - 535PS @ S.L., 565PS @ 5600ft
cruise: - 1860rpm / 0.96ata - 485PS @ S.L., 515PS@ 7200ft

I have managed to get some more or less satisfactory results by making adjustments to the propeller table 512, which however also included some adjusments to the torque graph, where I have put in a "hump" before the 2050 RPM point, in order to to increase Hp for the lower RPM settings. This "hump" is probably not very orthodox, and may be questionable.

I found I could avoid it by compensating in Propeller Table 512, but the graph shape got very obnoxious, requiring a strange "valley" shape at J=0.4, also affecting J=0.6 a bit.

The "valley" in Propeller table 512 looks just as obnoxious as the "hump" in the torque graph.

Anyway, a summary of the results:
Results at S.L.:
---------------
Max. Power Hp and RPM are exact.
At lower throttles, Hp results are exact, but RPM tend to be 60-70 RPM lower than desired.

Results at 3000 ft:
------------------
Max. Hp and RPM are fine at 2952 ft.
5 min. power throttle is 9 Hp and 13 RPM low, but may be acceptable.

Results higher up, upto 7200 ft:
------------------------------
Hp and RPM tend to get progressively higher than desired with altitude, upto 34 Hp. and 200 RPM.

Well, I suppose it was to be expected... I wonder if you would have any comments.

Perhaps this can be regulated by reducing Boost Gain, which I haven´t tried yet.
Possibly the increase from 1.2 ATA to 1.25 ATA, which increased overall engine power, would require an equivalent reduction in Boost Gain.

Update: Reducing Boost Gain may be a way to fix the excessive power at higher altitude, but it may go against specs.
I´ve just checked the model: Specs say full ATA is maintained upto 5900 ft, and in this case, MP starts going down a little before, just like on the 1.2 ATA model, so at least it can´t be said to be excessive.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Musings on Power Graphs

Hello Ivan,
Transferring the different ATA and Hp values given by the power chart values for the
Ju52´s 725 Hp BMW132A-3 engine into the BMW132 Power Chart graph, I noticed that
the graph angles are consistently not as steep as the existing ones.
The performance graph refers to the BMW132 engines in the context of the FW200A Condor.

So here, the airframe could be an extra factor to be taken into account.
The power chart values for the 725 Hp engine are given in the context of the Ju52, an
aerodynamically much slower aircraft than the FW200A Condor.

The lower speed would allow lower RPM on the 2-pitch position props, and hence reduce Hp,
which would presumably give a shallower graph angle on the performance graph for any given
ATA value at any given altitude.

Also, it´s a pity that there are no performance details for the 725 Hp engine for altitudes above 7200 ft, and for the Ju52 in general, so a lot of speculation is called for!

The deduction exercise is then a bit more complicated than I´d expected, but still, maybe not
impossible...

Update:
At first, I thought that the A) unnatural looking "hump" in the torque graph, or alternatively the "valley" in table 512 which are needed to boost performance lower throttle settings (70-90%), and B) the higher performances that come out in the simulator for higher altitudes, could indicate that the data I´m currently trying to use for the 725 Hp engine was wrong.

HOWEVER, after inserting the performance data from the previous 1.2 ATA data into the performance graph, this made the graph angles far too steep to be of any use, so
it turns out that the performance derived from the new data is after all, much more accurate, and makes for a more realistic flight model than before.

Thus, it seems that a shallower angle on the performance curves would be correct for the Ju52, and would represent a feasible working hypothesis to go by.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
New 725 Hp engine for g4e

Hello Folks,
Looking at the BMW132 power vs altitude graph, it is safe to assume that the BMW132A-3 engine worked with a max. manifold pressure of 1.25, delivering 725 Hp at 2050 RPM for take-off.

Performance is as close as possible close to specification in as many positions along
the curve as possible.
Altitude performance is very similar to the previous .air file.

Results, compared to manufacturer´s power chart S.L. - 7200 ft:

1 min power: 100% throttle, 1.25 ATA
------------------------------------
S.L....: 2052 rpm (+2 rpm), 725 hp (OK!), 165.6 mph (+0.6 mph)
2952 ft: 2153 rpm ( OK! .), 771 hp (OK!), 173.5 mph (+1.5 mph)

5 min. power: 89% throttle, 1.13 ATA
------------------------------------
S.L....: 1971 rpm (-79 rpm), 639 hp (-1 Hp), 160.5 mph
2952 ft: 2037 rpm (-13 rpm), 651 hp (-9 Hp), 165.3 mph

30 min power: 84% throttle, 1.06 ATA
------------------------------------
S.L....: 1903 rpm (-72 rpm), 575 hp ( OK! .), 154.9 mph
4600 ft: 2028 rpm (+53 rpm), 612 hp (+12 hp), 164.8 mph

max. continuous power: 81% throttle, 1.02 ATA
---------------------------------------------
S.L....: 1865 rpm (-65 rpm), 539 hp (+ 4 hp), 151.6 mph
5600 ft: 2023 rpm (+93 rpm), 590 hp (+25 hp), 165.4 mph

Cruise power: 76% throttle, 096 ATA
-----------------------------------
S.L....: 1797 rpm (-63 rpm), 485 hp ( OK! .), 146.2 mph
7200 ft: 2005 rpm (+145 rpm),549 hp (+34 hp), 163.1 mph

Restly altitudes:

10000 ft:
---------
100% Throttle 1.02 ATA: 2177 rpm, 644 hp, 176.0 mph
_83% throttle 0.90 ATA: 2053 rpm, 524 hp, 165.2 mph

19000 ft:
---------
100% throttle 0.72 ATA: 2073 rpm, 419 hp, 164.7 mph
_83% throttle 0.63 ATA: 1956 rpm, 350 hp, 156.3 mph

It isn´t perfect, but it´s as good as possible a balance achieved with micro-adjustments
on tables 512 and 511, as
well as a convenient Torque graph shape.

Of course, as always, any suggestions will be welcome. If anyone were to be interested
in seeing or should have
the time and gumption to try out the.air file, I will gladly attach
it to a post.


Re: 830 Hp BMW132T-2 engine for the g5e
Looking at the BMW132 power vs. altitude graph again, for this more engine of the g5e,
it seems safe to assume that the manifold
pressure for take-off power would be 1.35 ATA.
I am adapting performance accordingly. As before, any warnings or suggestions will also be welcome!Thank you very much for your interest.

Here´s another screenshot of the g4e just for eye-candy.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • CA+JY.jpg
    CA+JY.jpg
    40.9 KB · Views: 2
Back
Top