New P3 Orion

A Possible Bug?

The problem with buying several aeroplanes (or cars) of the same age is that often the pieces that need replacement are that way because of simple wear and age. When all three vehicles are the same age, similar pieces are likely to be worn out so there may not be one that is serviceable condition. This is what I have found in automotive wrecking yards over the years.

I downloaded the P-3 Orion a couple days ago and finally installed and flew it.

Comments:
Roll rate seems a bit higher than I would have expected.
Since I have no flight reports on the Orion, I do not know if this is realistic, but it was unexpected.

I am pretty sure the animation for Propeller 1 is connected to the wrong engine (Engine 4).

Why did you choose to have square tip propeller blades?
That was a feature of the Electra, but all the Orion photographs I have seen show round tipped propellers.

There are a couple bleeds of the engine cowling through propeller blades when seen from the front.

The Instrument Panel looks to be pretty well coordinated.
Obviously I need to learn something about Turboprops if I ever intend to build a flight model for my version of the Orion.

Regarding DP files:
If there were three weapons, we would be pretty well set up:
8 x 850 pound Torpedoes in the Weapons Bay
6 x 1500 pound SLAM / Harpoon Missiles on the 2 Fuselage and 4 Wing Root Pylons
10 x 750 pound Maverick Missiles on the 10 Wing Pylons (Or perhaps it should be 12)

Some of the Pylons are duplicated here but this also adds up to much more weight than the aeroplane can handle which gives options to the Aircraft Commander.

- Ivan.

P.S. I believe the Propeller 1 Animation is the bug....
 
Hello Ivan,

A friend of mine who made one good Triumph Toledo out of two he got for next to nothing from the junkyard actually said the same thing about rebuilding cars from there - it´s only really any good if one of them is a crashed model which hasn´t been driven too long - then you get most of the good mechanical parts out of that and use the body of the old worn-out one.

Thanks for the bug report on the engine animation, the roll rate, and the weapon suggestions for the Orion. Yes, the animation for Engine No. 1 is wrongly coupled to No. 4. Too bad that the turboprop .air file animates all 4 engines at once - this sort of bug would not have happened with a CFS1 Piston engined .air file. Sorry about that! I´ll look into all this and upload a revised model + .air file - and a new Dp file once I sort out the weapons again. Hopefully Rami will be able to slip in the updates into the aircraft as he usually does.

I´d thought that the weapons layout on the model at present was what you´d suggested last time - i.e. 14 torpedoes in the bomb-bay, even if that would be exceeding the number of points inside, which are 8, and then 15 rockets, 5 more than available pylons - the reasoning behind this being a compensation of sorts for the DP/CFS1 weapons-type restrictions.

So the reasoning behind this change is to offer a larger-than-maximum selection as regards number of bombs (torpedoes) and missiles (rockets), so that the user can choose different proportions between rockets and missiles.

Regarding the suggestion now for the 6 heavier missiles and the 10 more normal ones, it would only serve to get some weights re-arranged, but you wouldn´t know when for example the large ones were going to be fired. Also, defining a missile selection in the weapons/fuel menu wouldn´t really allow a choice between two types of missiles, because they´s all rockets anyway, and although they have different weights in the DP files, they can´t be named any differently so as to appear as a choice in the weapons menu.

As regards the engine parameters in the jet .air file for the turboprop, there´s not really all that much to fiddle about with, except some fine tuning on idle and max. RPM, as well as exhaust and oil temperature , and fuel consumption, but not terribly much more.

OK, then, thanks again, and cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Aleatorylamp said:
I´d thought that the weapons layout on the model at present was what you´d suggested last time - i.e. 14 torpedoes in the bomb-bay, even if that would be exceeding the number of points inside, which are 8, and then 15 rockets, 5 more than available pylons - the reasoning behind this being a compensation of sorts for the DP/CFS1 weapons-type restrictions.
Click to expand...

Yes, with only two weapons, that seems to be the best choice considering the CFS weapons limitations....
But if there were three weapons types, we would be set!
Please don't misunderstand. I am NOT suggesting a change unless you figured out a way to allow three weapons types....
But it sure would be nice if we had more choices.

Other than the Propeller Animation, the rest is opinions. Build this project as you see fit.
I don't believe you need Rami's assistance to update your own uploads if that is what you choose to do.

- Ivan.
 
Dp limitations

Hello Ivan,
Thanks again for your clarifications!

Following your suggestion, I was looking into a possible 3-weapon option in Dp last night and this morning, and but I couldn´t find a way to make it viable so that you could choose to fire a SLAM or Harpoon missile from the pylons instead of a Maverick one at a given moment. This however, does not seem to be the only limitation here, because the limitations are more serious than that.

What happens is that although you can indeed define two sets of missiles in two different Dp Rocket windows, i.e. Maverick ones and SLAM/Harpoon ones, not only is it impossible to name them differently and you can´t differentiate them from each other because you only get the sum-total of both rocket types - but most importantly, all torpedoes (bombs) disappear completely from the CFS1 weapons menu!

So then I thought maybe I could define two different types of bombs, so as to at least have a choice between the heavy 2000 lb depth charges and 800 lb torpedoes, and then only put in one type of rocket, but this proved to be even worse: Only the rockets were shown, and all bombs disappeared from the weapons menu!

The order in which the rockets and bombs are defined in the numbered windows does not have any effect either. So unfortunately, I´m afraid we´re stuck with the previous options.

Too bad the Orion didn´t at least one huge cannon!
By the way, firing a rocket also gives a nice crater on the ground just like a bomb!

Re: lighter Roll axis:
What I remember now about the roll rate being a bit light, is that in combat mode without any guns, as you are unable to shoot at attackers, I thought I´d make it a bit less lumbering to at least be able to avoid enemy fire a bit better. That was the reasoning behind this. I´d done it at the beginning, and I´d forgotten about it.I´ll try it out some more and see if I leave it like it is, to give the player a chance, or to make it a bit heavier like I had it before.

Actually, what would be more realistic would be to use this Orion model in more realistic missions involving attacks on ships and/or submarines, indeed with anti-aircraft fire which would have to be avoided, but there wouldn´t be any enemy fighters - you´d need fighter escorts then (minions? ha ha!).

I´ll see... Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Correction!

Hello Ivan,

I must correct my previous comments on DP file limitations:

I have discovered that 2 sets of rockets can indeed be defined in Dp, which will not eliminate the bombs defined.

The 2 types are pre-defined in the Dp Guns Box window selection line ("Part Name") as "Port Rockets" (type -4) and "Starboard Rockets" (type-7). This will not eliminate the Bombs (type -21), which will still be available in the Weapons Menu. However, all the rockets will be grouped into one sum total, so it is still not of much practical use for wanting to define two different rocket types and weights.

Incidentally, the reason why it is not possible to define 2 types of Bombs, is that there is only one pre-defined "Bomb" instance available in the selection line "Part Name".

Update:
Further investigation has revealed that it doesn´t matter if all rockets are defined as "Port Rockets", or if only half are defined as such and the other half as "Starboard Rockets". When you fire them, they always get fired from pre-set wing positions, alternating right and left wings, and you can´t alter the positions. The Dp offset distance options from the centre line to define the firing positions are ignored, and you don´t get the possibility of placing the firing positions with the mouse as you do when defining machineguns or cannon.
Incidentally there are two items in the Dp weapon selection menu that seem to be ignored altogether: If the "Torpedo" (Key No. 5) Option is selected, or the other option strangely labelled 4???, these weapons will not appear in the weapons menu. Strange...

Re: square tipped propellers.
As you say, the Electra had these and in effect they are inherited from it. To make them round, they will require at least 2 if not 3 extra vertices per blade (32 or 48 more vertices in total), which could possibly hamper the degree of complication for AF99 compilation. For this model, this lies at 146% - actually quite close, as the model is at 144.6% at the moment.

Anyway, I´ll see it it lets me!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Hi again,

Unfortunately, AF99 hasn´t let me round off the propeller blades! ...even though the vertices were only increased by a total of 1 for each blade (adding 2 at the blade-ends to round off the corners, and taking one away at the blade-base centre to save a vertice per blade). AF99 will not allow compilation! It seems it doesn´t like the 16 extra vertices. Too bad! Apparently one can´t have everything one wants...

Queen sang: "I want it all, I want it now!"
Rolling Stones sang: "You can´t get everything, that you want! ...but I can try!"

Then, I tried making the roll rate a little heavier, but I felt it made the plane feel too sluggish, like an ungainly whale - It´s too difficult to evade enemy fire, so personally, I´d really prefer to leave it as it is.

Well, I´ll just upload an updated new model correcting the bug in engine No.1´s animation - of course re-SCASMing the virtual cockpit!

Thanks again, Ivan, for supervising the development of this plane!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Orion Engine No. 1 Animation Fix uploaded

Hello everyone!

I´ve just uploaded the corresponding fix, now correctly coupling engine No. 1´s propeller animation to engine No. 1. (not to No. 4!!). There´s also a new Dp file with 15 instead of 12 rockets, as the idea was to try and compensate to some extent the limitations in weapon choice.

Update:
The link to the bug-fix that was shown on this post is no longer valid, so I´ve edited it out as Rami has thankfully included the fix within the actual aircraft. Here´s the original link to the aircraft again, now containing the fix:http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...id=19&id=21077

I beg your pardon for the inconveniences caused! Thanks for your patience.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Orion Repaint uploaded

Hello!
Udo has just provided a repaint of the P-3 Orion: Unit VP-40 of the "Fighting Marlins" Squadron.


Here´s the link.
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=21120

The aircraft folder has a different name so that there won´t be any risk of overwriting anything, and the name in the Aircraft.cfg file is also different, but the actual aircraft files all have the same name.

I hope you enjoy the aircraft. Once again, Udo´s tailart is really great!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Congrats on your release. Awesome work. She looks amazing.

A little note on weapon load outs. Best to go by era. Your bird has the look of the 70's B model, so Torps, rockets (I'll have to ask about this one), mines and bombs would be the best bet. 80's would be the same but the Harpoons were carried in the mid to late 80's. 90's would see the Sidewinder AAM, Mavericks and HARMs. All external wing mounts for the last three. Not sure if mavericks were ever used. Also note that only the C model would have carried these. I can ask my Dad about anything extra that my have been carried or tested when he flew.

Only thing I see with the textures is the wing markings may be a little big. If this is an issue with CFS1 then ignore that. I know you're bound by the limits of the sim.

P3's did have round prop blades. Sorry you can get them to work the way you want. Again minor issue that doesn't take away from what you've done by any means.

Roll rate... I've seen her move. yes they seem to have a light roll. mind you its not the same as a fighter but she could turn on a dime if needed. I remember watching them when I was a kid. A true site to behold. She had the glide path of a brick without power. so all approches should be under power.

If I can find out any more info I'll pass it along. I'll have to pick my Dads brain to get it.

I've enjoyed watching this one develope. For one of the older sims, its done her justice. Awesome work again.

'til Later,
John
 
Hello, Blood Hawk,
Thanks for your visit and thanks for your good words!

Unfortunately, as you will know, there are only two options for weapons in CFS1 other than guns and cannon: Bombs and Rockets. Torpedoes would classify as Bombs and would go in the bomb bay infront of the wing leading edge, and the Missiles would classify as rockets and would go on the pylons.

After much speculation with Ivan as regards what would be more convenient, we decided on 14 bombs and 15 rockets, which could be interpreted quite flexibly as to exactly what weapons they represent. The excess of 6 torpedoes in the bomb-bay and 3 to 5 missiles on the pylons was decided upon so as to compensate for CFS1 weapon limitations.

As regards roll rate, I have read that as an evasive manouever the P-3 was capable of flipping on its side or even doing a barrel roll in an emergency, so for CFS1 manoeuverability, I decided to keep the roll rate a bit on the light side. Then, probably, the model´s dead-stick glide path would coincide with your comment.

Yes, too bad about the square props! Unfortunately out of model-compilation reasons, the programme absolutely refused to accept the extra vertices to make them rounder. Although maximum parts is 150% (1200 parts), at the moment anything above 144.6% (1157 parts), won´t compile, so I´ve had to leave it there.

I´ll have a look at the size of the wing markings and ask my painter about that.

OK, thanks again for your valuable feedback, enthusiasm and interest!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp.
 
Small, unaviodable bleeds

Hello Ivan,
I´d meant to answer about the small engine-cowl bleeds, but it slipped my mind. Sorry!

I´m afraid they are unaviodable - I found no other way of getting the engine forward-component to tuck in a bit on the sides under the upper scoop, and I was quite surprised that it did work quite well!

Also, there is another small bleedthrough at the exhaust when seen from a forward position. The horizontal rear part that portrudes from the trailing edge bleeds through the rear part of the nacelle top, and I can´t find a way of avoiding it. Such are the limitations. Either mine or AF99´s...!

Anyway...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
The Orion continues...

Hello Ivan,
Catering for the possibility that your own rather nice and clean-looking Lockheed Orion build will eventually see the light of day, we could use this thread to continue the discussions on topics that may arise.

For the moment, the issue is the possibility of adapting a CFS1 piston engine with a convenient single-speed, single stage supercharger, to emmulate the Orion´s 4600 Hp Allison T-56-A-14 Turboprop turbines´ capability of maintaining power at altitude.

A possible engine candidate could be a hypothetical souped-up version of the 28-cyl, 4300 Hp Pratt&Whitney R-4360-51-VDT Wasp Major radial engine (155.8 cu.in. per cylinder, 6:7 to 1 compression ratio), with 2 more cylinders (3 rows of 10 cyl instead of 4 rows of 7).

This would almost exactly give the 4600 Hp needed per engine. The Orion´s Props did 1020 rpm, gearing down from an engine RPM of 2500 or 2800 RPM would get us there.

An interesting experiment, perhaps? ... or is it too crazy to be a serious venture?

Cheers for now!
Aleatorylamp
 
Orion Engines

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I don't believe that is really the right direction to go.
First of all, there isn't an AIR file that I know of that actually has a R-4360 Corn Cob engine.
Next, I believe you are misunderstanding what 4600 HP from the Turbo Prop really means.
The actual shaft horsepower of the engine is quite a bit under 4600 HP.
The actual HP is quite a bit lower: perhaps around 3700 HP or so.
I don't recall the exact number because I wasn't really looking to build an AIR file at the time.

The engine puts out the EQUIVALENT of 4600 HP. There is a substantial amount of exhaust thrust which is what makes up the difference.
My plan was to adjust the propeller efficiency to make up for the exhaust thrust.

This by the way was also my intent when rebuilding the AIR file for the A6M5 Type Zero.
Note that the A6M3 and A6M5 have the same engine but the exhaust stacks are different.
The ejector stacks apparently add enough thrust to make the aeroplane substantially faster.

The same idea will be used for the FW 190D whenever I get around ot building it.

At the moment, I am just thinking about the model because it is so easy to improve.
It is still low on the priority list.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
No matter, it just occurred to me as a possible suggestion in answer to your question on the .air file.
I realize you have plenty of other things and projects on your hands at the moment, and that this is not an immediate issue.
OK, then!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Turbo Compound turned into Turboprop

Hello Ivan,

As the subject has tickled my curiosity, I looked into the possibilities offered by a CFS .air file that would be better for a turboprop than the conventional approach of using the FS98 jet .air file, and found that the results are quite interesting.

Perhaps you will find them interesting too. As far as I can see, there is not much else one can do other than to go for a Corn Cob engine, like you call it – in the museums it even looks like one with big chunks bitten out!

So, I have been experimenting a bit with .air file entries to cater for the large numbers of cylinders, convenient cylinder displacement, compression ratio, maximum manifold pressure and boost gain entries.

The propeller I used was the 13 ft one from the stock P47D, enlarged to 13.5 ft, geared down to 1020 Prop RPM.

I realize the P-3A Orion´s Allison turboprops give 4300 eshp, and the P3-C, 4600 eshp, and that about 300 Hp of this comes from exhaust thrust.

There was a guideline necessary, and for the moment, I went for the 28-cyl Wasp Major I had mentioned, in its Turbo Compound version (I didn´t have to add any further cylinders!), and made convenient Torque Graph, Friction Graph and Drag adjustments to the .air file. Your Japanese A6M3 or A6M5 engine has the advantage of a greater compression ratio of 7:1, to get some more power out of the cylinders, so that can be taken into account too.

The Wasp Major Turbo Compound had 1 supercharger and 2 variable discharge recovery turbines, so I thought it would be good to go for at least the higher Max. MP settings in the stock CFS aircraft, like the P38, for example, that has 62 Hg.

I discovered that higher ratings of 60-64 Hg were good for maximum power, and that more normal values of 58 Hg were convenient for continuous power.

Then, a Goost Gain of about 5 seemed to work well for the 15000 ft 4600 max. Hp specification with 411 mph max speed and a practical ceiling of 28300 ft, (although the aircraft is able to perform at 32000 ft under certain circumstances).

Continuous Power would be at 87% Throttle in reality, and at 90% in CFS, I suppose, give the practical Key "9" possibilty - this would give a High Speed Cruise of about 370-380 mph.

Engine RPM came out surprisingly good at 2785 RPM, very near to the 2800 RPM I was aiming for, and I found a small jet-prop sound file that works for piston .air files, although I miss the growl of the large turboprops.

So, using 58 Hg as a max. MP setting , and given the peculiarity of the CFS power curve shape, I found that the low 4000 Hp I was getting at sea level could be nicely compensated with 6 Hg of WEP to give me the 4600 eshp for take-off. This way, without any further use of WEP, with 58 Hg, at 15000 ft these 4600 eshp are also available. No further use of WEP is authorized, otherwise power goes up to an unreal 5000 eshp!

So, I suppose this goes to show that it is possible to make a better turboprop with CFS than with FS98, and I am sure that with your expertise in .air files, you will be able to provide a greatly improved version!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Power and Thrust readings

Hello Ivan,

Just to complete my previous post, a short comment on Thrust readings with the Beckwith Gauge Stack.
I was comparing Thrust readings from the P-3 Orion´s FS98 jet .air file to those in the experimental CFS .air file one I was trying out, and as I´d expected, they differ a lot: CFS Propeller thrust is much lower than FS98 flb Thurst, so this is not even good for comparison purposes.

Then, I read some time ago in an Airliner´s Net Forum, that someone who seemed to be in the know, mentioned something to this respect on the Lockheed Electra 501-D13's, the civilian Version of the Allison T56, saying "thrust from the propeller was 3460 Hp (8000 lbsf) and thrust from the exhaust 290 hp (726 lbsf)".

Thus, an approximate power to thrust conversion could be 2.3 to 2.5 multiplied by the Hp, but of course, this indeed would be comparing beef to bricks.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

Here is where life gets fun.

There ISN'T a direct conversion of Horsepower to Pounds Thrust.
Actually there is, but it depends on what the True Air Speed is.

You already know about the propeller efficiency and how only at most about 80% of the Engine Power gets transformed into propulsion and that is pretty much a best case. Often the efficiency drops quite a bit lower but seldom gets higher than 80%.

Lets say you happen to have a 1250 HP Engine and a Magical Propeller that always gets 80% efficiency.
The Horsepower available for Propulsion would be 1000 HP at all times.
One Horsepower is equal to 550 Foot Pounds / Second so you would have 550,000 Foot Pounds / Second available for Propulsion.
At 100 MPH, or 146.667 Feet per Second, you would have 3750 pounds of Thrust
because 3750 Pounds * 146.667 Feet / Second = 550,000 Foot Pounds / Second.
At 400 MPH, or 586.667 Feet per Second, you would only have 937.5 pounds of Thrust
because 937.5 Pounds * 586.667 Feet / Second = 550,000 Foot Pounds / Second.

There is also a practical limitation on Jet / Rocket Thrust because of the speed of the exhaust gas, but it isn't quite as severe at low speeds.

Hope that makes sense.
- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,

Thanks for your information. As you say, here´s where the fun starts... at least it´s fun to try out things!

OK, it does make sense, how the result of the thrust calculation with respect to Horsepower varies with speed, the fact that the Hp stays constant and how the jet exhaust speed limits aircraft speed.

I know it is not in your plans to start working on this subject yet, and probably what I am finding out with my experiments will seem quite expected and predictable to you, because you have more experience with super/turbocharged CFS .air files.

Anyway... I observed the behavior of the FS98 jet engine .air file, which of course makes a more uniform curve, as it simply relies on a maximum thrust entry which makes max. thrust vary with altitude and speed.

With the experimental CFS .air file it is obviously more complicated to get right.

As I´d said, with a MP of 58 Hg, I got the desired max. 5-minute 4600 Hp and 411 mph at 15000 ft, with the problem at S.L. of needing a MP of 64 Hg (6 Hg WEP) to get this max Take-off power – but this was to be expected.

What was also to be expected, but I hadn´t tested it yet, is the typical unwanted power+speed peak further up: 5000 Hp at 22000 ft, with 425 mph, despite this being without WEP at only 58 Hg.

Incidentally, at 22000 ft, WEP only gives 60 Hg, and soon afterwards, it starts to be ineffective, so it perhaps the whole plan has to be re-thought and set up with an even higher max. MP value. But which?

I believe the Turbo Compound needed a super/turbocharger manifold pressure limitation as damage protection, perhaps between 60 and 62 Hg. A turboprop´s compressor stage could handle considerably higher pressure before blowing up, but I haven´t found any information as to how much. Maybe I should increase max MP to 66 or 68 hG, although this may make the unwanted bulge worse.

Anyway, the same as with other CFS super/turbocharged .air files, certain adjustments will be needed to achieve a more correct power curve. ...although this was of course also to be expected!

Anyway, all in good fun!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

WHY are you even worried about Turbo-Compound Engines?

If you are doing a CFS AIR file, you have the CFS resources which make no distinction as to Turbo or Mechanical Superchargers or Turbo-Compound.
You don't get any more resources just by declaring it to be Turbo-Compound....
....and besides, it is not a Turbo-Compound anyway.

My suggestion is to find some more information on the T-65 Turboprop.
I am pretty sure the power curves will surprise you.
At Take-Off, I am pretty sure it does not have the equivalent of 4600 HP; It is probably quite a bit lower.

I will eventually get to working on this AIR file but there is still the Model to do first and also there are a couple projects ahead of it.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,

Well, for that matter, in CFS it isn´t even a turbo-prop anyway!

The matter is, what kind of a piston engine developed anything close to the 4600 eshp of the Allison T56? No normally supercharged or turbocharged radial or in-line engine got anywhere near that. The most powerful non-turbo-compound version of the Wasp Major was 500 Hp under the 4300 Hp Turbo-compound version.

So, in reality, what makes me want to use the turbo compound as some kind of guideline, is the fact that it is the kind of piston engine that has the greatest proportion of power derived from its turbines compared to other supercharged engines of similar cylinder capacity without these turbines, and so had significantly less power.

CFS has the resources to provide a convenient turbo-prop emmulation using its super/turbocharger parameters, that´s the whole point, and of course it doesn´t specifically "understand" turbo-compounds.

The turboprop being driven by a turbine, would I thought make it more similar to a turbo-compound than a normally supercharged radial, so possibly, in the .air file parameters, the supercharging option would be very much more enhanced than in any other kind of more "normal" engine.

Power curves of turbine-driven props are different from piston-driven prop curves, and jet engine curves are different from both. That is precisely the question.

So the problem I was thinking about was how to decide on the magnitude of the supercharged power in all the available parameters that manage this option in the CFS .air file.

Thank you for the indication about Take-off power being significantly less than 4600 eshp, so that will help! I can probably balance it out a little better this way.

For a long time, I have been trying to find more information on the Allison T56 Performance Curve, but have only found some general comparison graphs for prop- turboprop- and jet engines, about thrust and power compared to speed, which are of limited help, because it is altitude comparisons more than speed, that I was looking for.

Incidentally, the performance curve of the FS98 jet engine .air file gives a very linear jet-airplane-like performance curve smoothly ranging from 400 to 411 mph throughout the altitudes from S.L. to ceiling, with the 411 mph peaking at 15000 ft.
This is of course no good for a turboprop!

Anyway, I know you are not going to start working on this issue for some time, and there´s no hurry anyway, so we can deal with the problems at a later point in time. No problem!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top