3 3
DJL

Electric Aircraft - The Thread

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, olofscience said:

We'll get electric aircraft the same way we got Caravans. 

The piston engine world may not have the time to wait. 100LL fuel has been targeted for elimination. Diesels have long been touted as the alternative, but despite a few semi-successes the don't seem to be going anywhere. I do believe that if battery electric can be made practical in a Caravan type aircraft it will be relatively easy to adapt it to a 206/182/172 type as well. There are thousands of these out there. Many operated by flight schools and by weekend pilots hobby pilots who don't often travel far. This will provide a tempting market for conversion companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The piston engine world may not have the time to wait. 100LL fuel has been targeted for elimination. Diesels have long been touted as the alternative, but despite a few semi-successes the don't seem to be going anywhere. I do believe that if battery electric can be made practical in a Caravan type aircraft it will be relatively easy to adapt it to a 206/182/172 type as well. There are thousands of these out there. Many operated by flight schools and by weekend pilots hobby pilots who don't often travel far. This will provide a tempting market for conversion companies.

A $10 part for a car costs $100 for a boat and $1000 for a plane.  Converting a plane to electric will be expensive and getting it certified will be really expensive. With a car, the research and development is spread across several million units, with a plane, a few thousand maybe.  A Jet-A powered Cessna 182 had a base price of $515,000 in 2012.  Now lets talk about a new design, what do you think a new 4 skydiver electric jump plane would cost to build and certify in 2020.  You can buy a 575 HP Corvette engine for $9000.  A used, overhauled Continental O-470-L engine costs $28,000.  It it is for an airplane, it is expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
51 minutes ago, Bigfalls said:

A used, overhauled Continental O-470-L engine costs $28,000.  It it is for an airplane, it is expensive.

I am well aware of that, believe me. It costs about $200/hour to run a c-182. Most of that is MX and most of the MX is engine related. That is exactly what may make it worthwhile to convert. But first viable proven designs need to be developed. If that happens I can not see why a conversion for a nose heavy wide body 182 to a lighter electric motor with batteries in the wings is a far reach. That is assuming a design and power to weight ratio C-208 is viable. It should be far cheaper than putting a PT6-21 into a c-206. There are lots of engine upgrades available via STC for 100 series Cessnas.

EDIT, if batteries in the wings end up not being the best place, there is room elsewhere.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, Bigfalls said:

A $10 part for a car costs $100 for a boat and $1000 for a plane. 

I'm also aware of this, I was directly involved in several civil aircraft certification programs.

27 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

If that happens I can not see why a conversion for a nose heavy wide body 182 to a lighter electric motor with batteries in the wings is a far reach

Problem is the wings might have been designed for fuel rather than batteries, so it will depend on structural margins. Much of the certification effort goes into the wing loads - luckily limit load scenarios are usually calculated as wings empty - maximum upbend, whereas batteries are always there and will provide load relief in that case. However scenarios such as steep dive and landing at MLW will become the critical cases to certify for.

So those will have to be checked, I'm not sure where the batteries are in the Harbour Air DHC-2s but I think conversions could be easier for those aircraft with batteries in bottom cargo like C208s or use the space in front where most of the old engine used to be.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I'm not sure where the batteries are in the Harbour Air DHC-2s but I think conversions could be easier for those aircraft with batteries in bottom cargo like C208s or use the space in front where most of the old engine used to be.

Yes, the more I think about it the less wings seem like a good place for batteries. Just opening them up to install them in between ribs and then re-skinning seems like a huge problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
21 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, the more I think about it the less wings seem like a good place for batteries. Just opening them up to install them in between ribs and then re-skinning seems like a huge problem.

They'd be a really good place for a clean-sheet design though. The load alleviation they'll add would come in useful. And if they can take any shear like Elon claims his new cells could, that would be even better.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, gowlerk said:

That's why I said "practical conversion". 

Right... I think everyone would agree that the change will take place if it becomes practical to do so. What we've been discussing is if and when that will happen.

 

20 hours ago, gowlerk said:

The may very well be cheaper than rebuilding piston engines.

If that happens then obviously people will convert. I think that's really unlikely to happen in the timescales we've been discussing.

 

9 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

it would make ferry flights really slow, but that's not a super big deal.

It might not, actually. The main reason for varying prop pitch is to keep the engine in the relatively narrow RPM band where it works best. Electric motors have a much wider band, and it may cruise just fine with a fixed pitch prop for the same reason it climbs good with fixed pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gowlerk said:

The piston engine world may not have the time to wait. 100LL fuel has been targeted for elimination. Diesels have long been touted as the alternative, but despite a few semi-successes the don't seem to be going anywhere. I do believe that if battery electric can be made practical in a Caravan type aircraft it will be relatively easy to adapt it to a 206/182/172 type as well. There are thousands of these out there. Many operated by flight schools and by weekend pilots hobby pilots who don't often travel far. This will provide a tempting market for conversion companies.

Most piston engine planes run just fine on unleaded gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
44 minutes ago, nwt said:

Most piston engine planes run just fine on unleaded gas.

MoGas STCs are available for some lower compression ratio engines. Including the O-470 most common in skydive vintage 182s. But there are quite a few snags that make using it in skydiving a little dicey. It is more volatile and above 5000 ft it can easily boil if heated by the engine. It frequently has ethanol in it, which is not allowed. And worst of all fuel companies do not certify it for flight because that would require special handling. Turbo charged aviation engines and most of the injected ones that we use can not run on MoGas. There is an ongoing issue with 100LL that will one day need to be faced. Fuel companies and engine makers have been working on it for more than a decade, but have not been able to agree on a solution.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-ethanol MoGas is reasonably available. My original DZ (now closed) had our own fuel tank & pump. We had a local fuel provider deliver fuel (non-ethanol) without any issues. A different DZ had a little fuel trailer. Basically a tank & battery powered pump. They would occasionally run to the local gas station (where non-ethanol was available, although I think it was premium) and fill up.


The STC for using MoGas is fairly easy to get.
I've jumped out of MoGas powered 182 a whole lot more than AvGas powered ones.

 

I'm not aware of any requirement that the fuel be certified for aviation use. But that may be a Canadian requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I'm not aware of any requirement that the fuel be certified for aviation use. But that may be a Canadian requirement.

This is starting to drift away from electric motors! As a holder of an Air Operations Certificate you need to have and follow an Operations Manual. That manual will state how you will source your fuel. Fuel companies will only certify AVgas as being unadulterated. They do extra testing and extra handling. You actually can use Mogas if you have a program for testing it both for ethanol and other contaminants, especially water. For us it is far simpler to use the commercially available Avgas at our airport. Not every DZ has that option though. If you move to a higher power engine than the standard O-470, like so many have done it is no longer an option to use MoGas.

(This is in Canada, in the US as you know skydive operators are not required to have an AOC)

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is.

Here in the US, part 91 operators don't need an Air Operations Certificate. 

So we don't have that requirement.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate on electric aircraft,,,

I would think it would be a hell of a lot simpler to modify an existing airframe to electric than to develop an entirely new plane. The certification process for a new plane is extensive (and expensive). Somewhat similar is the fact that most current skydiving rigs are made as 'updated versions' under the TSO of earlier model.

That modification could come from either a manufacturer or an outside shop.

Those 'modifications' could either be to existing aircraft (mfg or outside shop) or to newly manufactured airframes.
Having a 'brand new' electric powered 182 would be cool as all hell.
But expensive. 

Modifying an existing airframe to electric power would still be cool, but would probably be substantially cheaper than a new one.

To be honest, I would expect to see an outside shop do conversions before the manufacturer.
Stuff like Van's turbine 182, or the Basler DC-3 conversions are good examples. 

The process for Van's 182 was pretty well documented on here. Not simple, not cheap, not quick.

I got to see pieces and parts of the development of the Basler DC-3. It was an incredibly complex and involved process. I did my original flight training at Basler in the mid-80s, when it was happening. When I started, Basler was running freight in original DC-3's (radial piston powered ones). Part of the reason for developing the turbine conversion was because parts for the radials were getting hard to find. And the reliability wasn't all that great.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Modifying an existing airframe to electric power would still be cool, but would probably be substantially cheaper than a new one.

To be honest, I would expect to see an outside shop do conversions before the manufacturer.
Stuff like Van's turbine 182, or the Basler DC-3 conversions are good examples. "
 

Van installed a turbine on a C-206 not a C-182.  Ask him how long it took and how much it cost.

Electric jump planes are only 10 years away, and always will be.

Share this post


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

Electric jump planes are only 10 years away, and always will be.

That may be. Everything I have said about them depends on the current attempts to develop what are essentially shorter range island hoppers being successful. But if that can be done, jump ships can also be done. And there is serious development with working models going on right now.

Share this post


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

Electric jump planes are only 10 years away, and always will be.

You must have missed the electric C208 already flying:

Modified Cessna is the 'largest' electric aircraft to take flight | Engadget

In the UK and Europe the C208 is one of the most common jump planes around. MagniX are going to market it for cargo ops, which is pretty much the exact configuration for skydiving. The 3 DZs near me operate: C208, C208 (3 aircraft), PAC 750XL.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, olofscience said:

You must have missed the electric C208 already flying:

Modified Cessna is the 'largest' electric aircraft to take flight | Engadget

In the UK and Europe the C208 is one of the most common jump planes around. MagniX are going to market it for cargo ops, which is pretty much the exact configuration for skydiving. The 3 DZs near me operate: C208, C208 (3 aircraft), PAC 750XL.

That's really interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nwt said:

That's really interesting!

I'm surprised you haven't heard of it - when it made its first flight, lots of skydivers here noticed. Added link: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/all-electric-grand-caravan-makes-maiden-flight/138600.article

And the CEO of MagniX who make the motor, is a skydiver. He was interviewed by Pete Allum which I posted here earlier - https://youtu.be/oE1P84Qt2tg

 

Share this post


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

I'm surprised you haven't heard of it - when it made its first flight, lots of skydivers here noticed. Added link: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/all-electric-grand-caravan-makes-maiden-flight/138600.article

And the CEO of MagniX who make the motor, is a skydiver. He was interviewed by Pete Allum which I posted here earlier - https://youtu.be/oE1P84Qt2tg

 

Ooh very cool--I took a couple canopy courses with Pete!

Share this post


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

Van installed a turbine on a C-206 not a C-182.  Ask him how long it took and how much it cost.

Electric jump planes are only 10 years away, and always will be.

Oops. My mistake.

I know that it took a ton of time and even more money.

It's not a simple or easy or cheap project.

Again, I got to see the first Turbine DC-3 converted (sort of). It took several years.

At about the same time, they did a turbine Twin Beech. It included a large single tail to replace the twin tail. While it had serious potential, the project never went past the first one, in part because the first one was destroyed in a crash shortly after it started flying on a regular basis.

The biggest hurdle for electric is batteries. Weight, capacity and charge/discharge speeds. All three of those have come a looong way in the past couple decades. 

I don't know how long it will take before they are flying on a regular basis, let alone flying jumpers. But I'd bet it's coming and may happen in my lifetime. I won't bet it happens before I retire from the sport, but I think I'll see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 10/29/2020 at 5:26 PM, olofscience said:

And the CEO of MagniX who make the motor, is a skydiver. He was interviewed by Pete Allum which I posted here earlier - https://youtu.be/oE1P84Qt2tg

Even better.  I think one dropzone will be doing electric jump ships before this decade is out, now that electric transportation initiatives is going to get a big boost.

I dare say 2027 or 2028 as my guesstimate. Could even be earlier.  I hear whispers of 2025 for the "first" jumpship ops.

It will be 20-30 years before widespread probably, but the first dropzone will be sooner than many expect. Electric conversions are likely to quickly become cheaper than re-engining before year 2030.

In other news, an electric-propelled 300mph wingsuit BASE jump was successful just mere days ago!

Edited by mdrejhon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 10/27/2020 at 11:52 PM, billvon said:

We'll get electric aircraft the same way we got Caravans.  Someone else will buy them in huge numbers then sell them when they get too old to get the performance they want (in our case, range due to aging batteries.)

I think they'll come first via conversions -- like the Electric Caravan C208 conversion, and the founder of Magnix is a skydiver.

We can just replace the battery more cheaply than a re-engining. 

Also, by 2025-2030, electric conversions are rapidly going to become cheaper than a turbine re-engining.  Short-haul Twin Otters, too, will likely be electrified too.  Lots of airframes need to be re-engined in ten years sooner than electric hand-me-downs.

Estimate is $62/kWh by 2030 and $30/kWh by 2040.  Assembled cost is more, but you get the picture...

Battery pack prices have fallen from $1,183/kWh in 2010 to $156/kWh in 2019

Edited by mdrejhon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 10/28/2020 at 12:14 PM, olofscience said:

Problem is the wings might have been designed for fuel rather than batteries, so it will depend on structural margins. Much of the certification effort goes into the wing loads - luckily limit load scenarios are usually calculated as wings empty - maximum upbend, whereas batteries are always there and will provide load relief in that case. However scenarios such as steep dive and landing at MLW will become the critical cases to certify for.

So those will have to be checked, I'm not sure where the batteries are in the Harbour Air DHC-2s but I think conversions could be easier for those aircraft with batteries in bottom cargo like C208s or use the space in front where most of the old engine used to be.

Fortunately, we don't need that much battery weight for electric skydiving aircraft.  We only need enough permanently-built-in battery for one skydive plus 30 minute level flight emergency reserve capacity.  That battery, today, already appear to weigh less than a full fuel load, for some aircraft specifications.

This can be designed into a 25%-50% SoC discharge.   The emergency reserve capacity in a battery also doubles as a battery-longevity-increaser (20-year lithium battery) since you don't want to deep-discharge most lightweight lithium chemistries, unless you have to.

Chargers are now fast enough to replace 25% of a SoC by recharge in only 10 minutes between loads -- which is feasible battery recharging time from a future cheap modified electric road-truck charger, being installed at the dropzone.  Sure, those "superchargers" still can take 40-50 minutes for a 100% charge, but if you design the battery small for a 25%-discharge for only skydive, then you can slam the 25% back into the battery between jump loads.

You can strap down human-carryable suitcase batteries (large 5kWh - 10kWh lithium power banks) under bench seats for deadheading the electric airplane to faraway dropzones.  You don't need deadweight during regular jump operations.  Ferry flights, no problem. Those suitcase batteries will be cheap in 10 years, basically larger versions of existing kilowatt camping batteries. Such future batteries will be within 70 pounds (5kWh at conservative 200kWh/kg = 55 pounds, plus 15 pounds of battery frame/protection, for 70kg). But battery tech has already improved past that. Strap down a few cheap "battery baggage" under jumpship's bleacher seats, then only one or two charging stops is needed, and Skydive Perris can lend their future e-Caravan or e-Otter to Skydive Deland for the 2032 POPS record attempt, if they wish. 

Now, throw in the low-maintenance nature of an electric airplane, as well as the improved safety of happy instant stable torque for more comfortable emergency go-arounds (zero engine-spool up, it just instantly revs on a throttle slam-forward very stable without sounding bad, direct shaft drive, no gear box, less wear and tear). Get out of stall risks faster. With a 750hp Magnix outperforming a 900hp Garret becase of direct shaft drive + instant torque, both pilots & maintenance centres are going to be raving about electric airplanes. 

Regardless of your preferred political stripes -- the new administration will be very pro-electric -- some things at FAA will accelerate electric initiatives. Background buzz says SpaceX-style behind-the-scenes networking is already quickly occuring to eventually lubricate FAA introduction to the point where it's quickly cheaper (ETA 2030) for a dropzone to re-engine to electric than a replacement turbine. Many stakeholders will be anxious to trial electric in many markets, to the point where one early dropzone (ETA 2025?) will succumb to the irresistible carrot temptation of an electric trailblazer trial given Magnix CEO is a skydiver.

The micdrop of this matter is Magnix found that an electric flight normally requiring $300-$400 of fuel cost only $6 of electricity.  Even if off by an order of magnitude, $60 still represents an 80% savings on fuel even at current depressed fuel prices.

Jump tickets could fall by half, while still more than doubling profits for the DZO?

Anyone else who wants to co-write a Parachutist article from the skydver perspective -- see my offer in earlier post -- I have been published in skydiving magazines before. I have one tentative co-writer/proofreader already, but I would like additional for Google Docs. Purpose is to educate and mythbust incorrect preconceptions.  Maybe can also interview the Magnix CEO together via email or Zoom/Skype. And interview others too. I'm just a super enthusaic pro-electric with no profit or stake in all of this except to keep skydiving alive without becoming unafforable.

Edited by mdrejhon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
Quote

They are planning lithium battery prices planned to fall to $62 per kilowatt-hour by 2030, and about $30 per kilowatts-hours by ~2040.

I don't know how they calculated something like that. Most everything goes UP as time goes by, except the real-world value of money. When people quote numbers like that, what they don't tell you is that those dollars are 2020 dollars, not 2040 dollars. For example, if you use the Inflation Calculator tool, it will show you that something costing $30 in 2000 would cost you $45 today. 

Unless the money available to you goes up at the same rate, then things actually cost MORE from the money you HAVE available to you. 

Some folks don't understand how inflation works, and even I don't have the perfect answer, but this explanation has been given by economists sometimes. It's a simple way to understand the basics:

Let's suppose that a large group of people are in at a private auction bidding on a painting. And everyone has a bucket with $500 in it. This means that the painting cannot be sold for any more than $500. 

Now let's suppose that someone (the government) increases the money supply by dropping another $500 into everyone's bucket. The price of the painting can now reach a maximum of $1,000. That's kind of how inflation works. The more the money supply increases, the less value for purchasing goods it actually has...and prices go up as a result. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I don't know how they calculated something like that

Short Answer:
They said year 2018 dollars, inflation adjusted. Watch the Tesla Battery Day video, which quoted the future numbers.Currently cutting factory costs faster than inflation.

Long answer below:

Tesla is treating it as a technology cost-cutting problem; reducing cost via incredible Thomas Alvas Edision style technique ("Lighbulbs ought to be cheaper than candles") and Henry Ford technique (faster moving assembly lines).  

It's literally jaw dropping how fiercely Tesla is brutally chopping the cost of lithium battery manufacturing, as if it was just a technology-getting-cheaper problem. Prices are falling more than 10x faster than inflation.

Reputable battery researchers were impressed; they gave it 10 stars out of 10 stars. Panasonic is now adopting this.

Tesla found out ways to "Henry Ford Style" further automate the manufacturing of lithium batteries at 10x-100x speed. Running large-scale-battery assembly line like soda pop bottles in a continuous high velocity assembly line -- with one factory eventually able to manufacture terawatt-hours of batteries per year. 

Multiple reputable news sources:

They want to ramp up battery manufacturing by multiple orders of magnitude. Multiple terawatt hours of batteries being manufactured per year.

image.png.a64e83aa59546104c5d21092b388d653.png

image.png.3a8e6dc78a5e15f50a072fafda86897f.png

image.thumb.png.a2fa7ecc44f8636402b692e18cff08ac.png

Making these lithium batteries almost cheaper than flashlight batteries used to be! This fits inside an airplane wing:

image.png.b76be0bb6fcd1f0818381b4c18c69b08.png

Here is a YouTube video of Tesla batteries now being manufactured like soda pop bottles in a high-speed assembly line. Click play to see the assembly line:

They even said they were inspired by soda pop manufacturing (52:04 into video).

image.png.ad1c0ba94fe957e0e5466a0a5ad664bf.png

Combining "battery factory + printing press technology" to roll batteries faster. Combining "battery factory + soda bottle manufacturing" to zoom the entire batteries faster through the assembly line. Redesigning the battery to be quicker and easier to automate-manufacture as flawlessly as soda bottles. Etc.

And they are making lithium batteries cheaper (1:06:51 into video)image.png.9bdb51f985104178420d5d29bd66e518.png

There's enough lithium in Nevada alone to electrify all of America's cars (plus a lot of grid batteries too), and they're even removing conflict minerals such as cobalt from the batteries. Reducing cost, making future battery cars eventually cheaper than similar gas cars, etc.

You have to hand it to Elon Musk for the low lithium battery prices -- in making electric jump airplane conversions viable this decade.

Even ardent petrol users have to acknowledge these Henry Ford and Thomas Edision techniques in the brutal price reductions of lithium batteries far more than 10x faster than inflation! 

Battery manufacturers that need to survive, are now adopting the new Tesla manufacturing techniques to manufacture lithium batteries more than 10x more cheaply.

This battery factory video is amazing for electric airplanes:

image.png.d56a61371c388a3d3420edfe48c71aa2.png

Look at the aggressively roboticized lithium battery manufacturing tech!

There was no reason to manufacture terawatt-hours of lithium batteries until recently. Now lithium batteries are used in grid-scale storage batteries because it's a cheap way to reduce electricity prices during peak = more profit for electricity utilities.

If you see New Tesla Grid Battery Delivers Stunning WIndfall Profits For Electric Utility Company in Australia. Near gigawatt-size batteries for their electricity utilities are now viable now that battery prices have fallen enough to be profitable as storage batteries for an entire city! Even without subsidies.

Just like 1980s $5000 laptops became $500 today (even before inflation adjusting) -- Tesla has found ways to brutally slaughter the cost of lithium battery manufacturing profitably far faster than inflation.

The blue bargraph chart I posted earlier is real -- Tesla is single-handedly to blame for industry-wide price drop of $1183/kWh to only $156/kWh at-factory cost, in less than a decade.

They found out a path of how to manufacture batteries 75% cheaper at 10x manufacturing rate for the same factory floor space.

A single factory will eventually manufacture 1 terawatt-hour of lithium batteries per year!

image.png.6638fe7a1055a8d1a1360d1328b4aa1c.png

Packaging and retail costs extra (profit), but we clearly see Tesla treating battery manufacturing just like a technology problem, shaking up old manufacturing assumptions..

Simple first-year Economics 101 and Business 101 if one went to university...

____

P.S. The inventors of lithium ion batteries, just got a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2019 .. Originally invented in the early 1970s, lithium batteries are now powering the world's economy in applications originally undreamed of.

Edited by mdrejhon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Some folks don't understand how inflation works, and even I don't have the perfect answer, but this explanation has been given by economists sometimes. It's a simple way to understand the basics:

The money supply needs to account for value being created and destroyed all the time.

If you grow $5 of tomatoes on ground that there wasn't anything before, you need to increase the money supply by $5 . If someone steps on those tomatoes making them worthless, you need to decrease the money supply by $5 to keep the value of money constant.

Of course the Fed doesn't micromanage to this level, but they manage it since a small amount of inflation is much better than deflation (since deflation usually causes huge disruptions such as recessions and depressions).

So the dollar cost of things doesn't matter as much as the REAL value of things - and automation and electrification does indeed drop the cost of things. Electrics have a high acquisition cost right now, but their lower running cost and maintenance costs are definitely much lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3