Heinkel He-162 "Spatz", 1944 - Page 6
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 174

Thread: Heinkel He-162 "Spatz", 1944

  1. #126
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    Yes, the Messerschmitt 262 is a possibility. I just have so many other projects that are ALMOST done that I feel that I should complete them first. Many have been stuck for years. I figure that if I complete the gauges for the Lightning and Mitchell, then I will actually have learned something which is my main goal these days. There are also t least three others that are ready for release but for some tedious texturing tasks....

    Regarding weight of fuel, just remember: This is YOUR aeroplane. It isn't mine. I do what I want. You use what parameters you believe to be correct. The sources I found were done pretty quickly and I barely skimmed over the report you are quoting from.
    The Russian video actually gives much different numbers than the others, so with all the conflicting sources, you get to decide which is correct. It has to be whatever you are satisfied with.
    If this were my project, I would be using a notes / data document. You know the format I typically use. I obviously have not done that here. What do you notes say? Which sources are in agreement and which are in conflict? Can you deduce something from other weight data such as basic and take-off weights?

    In some areas of this project, I believe I can give some pretty good advice such as in AF99 problem solving or in how to tune Flight Models, but what to include in the projects is you decision.

    - Ivan.

  2. #127
    Hello Ivan,

    Thanks for your comments, and thank you very much for your continued and effective advice!
    There is not really much difference in weight anyway, so it´s not an important issue.

    I´ve just put in the new brakes ( -17500) which, at least for German standards, were great, and the effect is really striking! You can see the nose coming down on the front gear suspension. A very nice discovery.

    Finally, I´ve been able to achieve several improvements on the model, some of which you had conveniently pointed out: Canopy glass colour, canopy frame, engine base and exhaust nozzle bleedthroughs, and everything is quite satisfactory. The build has come out much cleaner than before. Parts count is now at 115.4%.

    Here´s a collection of screenshots as eye-candy meanwhile.

    As regards performance tuning, I´ve managed to get max. Boost thrusts and speeds for Sea Level and for 20000 ft exact, and also, the normal S.L. speed is only 5 mph over, so the performance envelope upto that altitude is quite satisfactory.
    Not so much at 36000 ft, hwoever: Max. boost speed is 37 mph slow, and normal speed is quite a bit slower, but there´s nothing much to be done about that.


    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails newpic1.jpg   newpic3.jpg   newpic5.jpg   newpic7.jpg  
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; September 14th, 2016 at 11:24.

  3. #128
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    Hi guys!
    It took me one day to update my three W7 machines, so I have, as always, some catch-up to do.


    Ok, I've pretty much found what I needed for the fuel gauge capacity and I will pass along the information as it could help for the AIR file. All results are in Litres (or Liters for Americans) and are converted in US gallons. I have used many methods to get those numbers; readings in capacity, weight and volume. First hurdle was to determine the specific weight of J2 Kraftstoff. The most useful information came from a Polish-speaking forum where such a discussion took place at http://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?p=1387723#p1387723, which comes to prove that splitting hair is an international sport. By dividing the fuel weight by the capacity of the fuel tanks of a Me 262, they came to 0.82Kg/L (even more precisely 0.81725883Kg/L), so J2 was a heavy kerosene-parafin (0.78–0.81Kg/L in Wikipedia) or a light diesel (0.832 kg/L in Wikipedia). Acording to http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prima...onclusions.htm; "Jet fuels were being produced in Germany at a rate of ca. 1,000 barrels per day in 1944. The fuel was a mixture of gasoline and diesel oil fractions. The specifications for jet fuel were lenient; no unusual quality was demanded and no unusual specifications were forthcoming.".


    Funny tidbit of quirky info; the Spatz was to use B4 aviation fuel for logistic simplicity but, due to shortages of aviation fuel, it was "converted" to jet fuel as the first production aircraft were about to be delivered! (NASM, 3391/16, Technische Direktion: 162 Wochenbericht vom 26 Februar–4. März 1945.).


    First, the now (in)famous He 162 Bedienungsanleitung.
    Maximum fuel load was 1520 L (401.5415 gal) and "light" load 750 L (198.129 gal). I doubt that the maximum load was a current practice for weight and balance reasons. The aircraft "wet wing" concept was troublesome and overloading them was a recipe for disaster as they continually leaked despite all efforts to remedy the situation. The extra inflatable reserve was for long-haul ferrying. The filling method is revealing; from the fuel cap on the upper left wing! So, whatever how much you put in it, you had to fill the main tank before getting any fuel in the wings. Let's leave it at that for now.


    Second, the Wikipedia, at 695 Litre (183.5996 gal). I sensed a "main tank only" in that unexplained data.


    Third. From WW2 Warbirds (http://www.ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/heinhe162.html), at 950 Litres. It only says "internal capacity" without tanks' position.


    Fourth. Wings of the Lufwaffe by Brown, at 875 Litres (231.1505 gal). That measure is not verbatim but mentionned in the cut-away schematic's list. He flew himself the bird with "only" 450 Litres (118.8774 gal).


    Fifth. Monogram Close-up 11, at 980 Litres (258.8886 gal). It not only indicates the tanks' capacities, but also shows a schematic side view with their position, size and piping connection. Well researched but with a few mistakes (like the non-existant flap indicator). Calculating capacity by using a composite of this source with a Polish book gave me impossible numbers for the main tank, so far-off that I scrapped everything before even trying to measure wings' capacity.


    Sixth. From http://www.bredow-web.de/RAF_Museum/...el_he_162.html, which gives 475 Kg. Assuming that the "middle of the road" mention of 0.82 Kg/L of the Polish forum is correct (and I think it is), it makes for 579 Litres (152.9556 gal).


    Seventh (and final). Ivan educated guess at 675 Kg, or 823 Litres (217 gal).


    THe first number should be, logically, the right one but, quite frankly, I can't believe that the wings could hold 700L on top of the 650L (+170L if the reserve is installed). A bit of "theoretical wishful thinking" must have taken place here!


    So, in conclusion, I will try to find a suitable 700L gauge and I think that, "filled to the rim", it shouldn't go more than 950L.


    Still an educated guess, but a "ball park" figure.


    Regards,
    Hubbabubba


    P.S.- While waiting for the uploads, I was still working on the panel. The AFN2 is almost ready, and as close as I could go to the real deal.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  4. #129

    Exclamation

    Hello Hubbabubba, Aleatorylamp,

    The German site for the RAF Museum is the same one as I posted earlier and is where I believe the data confirms my guess as to the fuel load.

    Please pardon my very mediocre German. I am sure Aleatorylamp can read these data better than I can.

    Note that the Abfluggewicht (Away-Flying Weight or Take-Off Weight) is listed as either 2495 KG in one table entry and for performance specifications is listed as 2500 KG (probably rounded off).

    Note further on that at a Take-Off weight of 2700 KG, there is 200 KG of additional fuel (Zusatzkraftstoff). For there to be no additional weight for other equipment would imply that only an internal tank(S) was filled that was left empty at 2500 KG.

    From your 0.82 KG / Liter value, that would be 825 Liters of fuel for 675 KG which is not too far from what is stated in Wings of the Luftwaffe. Then again, perhaps the tanks could hold more fuel but it was just never filled to capacity as it typically was not in the P-51D Mustang.

    To me, the light fuel load of 475 KG sounds like it would be with just the fuselage tank filled and if that is the case, the capacity would be 581 Liters. This seems like a strange number to someone expecting something nice and even but eve with the 0.771 value I guessed, it would be 616 Liters which is still not even....

    Since there was only a fuel gauge on the main tank, it seems to me like 580 or 600 Liters would be sufficient for a gauge.

    - Ivan.

  5. #130
    Hello Ivan, Hello Hubabubba,
    Thanks for your research efforts. Excellent!
    So we have the density of J2 at 6.82 lb/gal, and that the tank capacity accounted for fuel used for warming up and taxiing prior to take-off, and that these two weights were reflected in some of the inspection sheets.
    Then, from what both of you are saying, I gather that the tank capacity in the .air file would be OK at 231 USG - correct me if I´m wrong!
    I´m looking forward to the panel! No hurry, of course!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  6. #131
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    Well, it should be 231.1505 USG but I will let it go...

    But not the density, it should be 6.843232, go see http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/kg_llb_galus.php

    btw, this site is now in my favorites - http://www.endmemo.com/convert/

    Funny thing is that, liter for liter, J2 got a better "mileage" than B4, the thrust being slightly less but the burning being much longer, which translated in longer flight duration. The only disadvantage was longer throttle response.

    Actually, German jet engine could burn pretty much anything, alcohol, turpentine, you name it!
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  7. #132
    Hello Hubbabubba,m
    OK, thanks very much for confirming. Nice converter site!
    I´m a bit confused as to the density:
    I entered 0.81725883 Kg/L that you said was more exact, and I got 6.820355 lb/USG...
    Anyway, 0.02 is no big deal!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  8. #133
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    I was using 0.82Kg/L. I'm not that confident about the Pols' calculation, and the precision of what was basically a very half-hazard fuel formula.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  9. #134
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    Contradictions, Aleatorylamp? What contradictions?

    In a document dated mid-october '44, Heinkel (Baubeschreibung) the fuel tanks were to be of 640L in the fuselage and 325L in the "wet wing". But Wikipedia says that the wing tank was never put on production and the main tank increased to 695L. All fine...

    ...then: why does Eric "Winkle" Brown does clearly mention that the aircraft he flew had the wet wing? The fuel cap is even depicted in the schematic cut-away... naturally in the wing.

    Geeee...

    P.S.- How come brown knew that his wing tank was emptied? He says he saw the fuel gauge needle declined, simple?
    Not so simple; he took off with 450L in an aircraft having a main tank containing 695L, the wing tank feeding by simple gravity the main tank. See where it doesn't make sense? Well, now, I do.
    If I had hairs to spare, I would be pulling them right now!
    Last edited by hubbabubba; September 17th, 2016 at 22:36.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  10. #135
    Hello Hubbabubba,
    Well, I´m afraid I can´t quite follow your line of thought.
    We know that apart from the 2 different main tank sizes, which must have had their correspondingly different fuel gauges, there were also wing-tanks, because Eric Brown was testing a unit with a small main tank and two wing tanks.
    Could it be that the initial centre wing tank was the one that wasn´t built, and that each wing had a small tank, prior to the planned completely wet wings that were never used?
    So what total fuel capacity would you suggest we implement for the little bird?
    I wonder...
    Cheers,
    Aleatoryulamp

  11. #136
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    If the main tank had a capacity of 695L, then a 450L fuel load would be all in the main tank. Wing tank, no matter its capacity, was only feeding the main tank by gravity. So anything under 695L would mean an empty wing tank. See it now?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails tankhe162.jpg  
    Last edited by hubbabubba; September 18th, 2016 at 14:22.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  12. #137
    Hello Hubbabubba, Aleatorylamp,

    just throw a bit more confusion into the mix:

    Eric Brown's book Wings of the Luftwaffe states that the fuel for the Me 262 was mostly 87 Octane (probably B-4 fuel) with 5 percent lubricating oil.
    The Riedel starter ran off of the same fuel... That is not quite the same (Kraft)Stoff that was used in the He-162, so perhaps the Me 262's fuel specifications have less relationship to the He-162's fuel than first thought.

    I figured if I was to consider building a Me 262, I should probably do some reading there.

    - Ivan.

  13. #138
    Hello Ivan, hello Hubbabubba,
    Interesting that the J2 compared to B4 gave more range and less power. Like diesel and gasoline does in cars.
    It appears that if J2 wasn´t available they coud take B4 mixing in some with lubricating oil.
    Anyway, Eric Brown´s 450 Litres won´t help me very much as regards tank capacities. When I read his report, I thought or he was flying on partial fuel capacity, or the plane had the small main tank fitted.
    Anyway, then I´ll continue with the 231 USG total capacities agreed before.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  14. #139
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    Hi guys!

    Yesterday, I went to a brunch and only came back in the late afternoon. But I had time to do the Großhöhenmesser, easier than I thought it would be.

    A good document on jet fuel is THIS ONE. B4 was used when J2 was not available, it is even mentioned in the He 162 Bedienungsanleitung PDF as a possible replacement.

    The left half of the main panel is there and the backdrop is pretty much done. Will send you both, Ivan and Aleatorylamp, a "teaser" tonight.

    Back to ...hum... "work"...
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  15. #140
    Hello Hubbabubba,
    A good find, the Me262 document! Very interesting.
    Thanks for the He162 panel preview. It certainly is a beautiful piece of work.
    I was wondering if, given the quality of the craftsmanship, this panel would warrant a separate, individual upload. This way it would stand out the way it deserves, dont´you think?
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  16. #141
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    aleatorylamp
    Hello Hubbabubba,
    A good find, the Me262 document! Very interesting.
    Thanks for the He162 panel preview. It certainly is a beautiful piece of work.
    I was wondering if, given the quality of the craftsmanship, this panel would warrant a separate, individual upload. This way it would stand out the way it deserves, dont´you think?
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Of course, the choice is entirely yours, but consider this as my contribution to your project. I can't see that panel being used for anything but a He 162 and, as you may know, CFS1 Spatz are not plenty. I decided to concentrate on the panel as to let Ivan "spoil the sauce" with the AIR file. I'm a touche à tout (Jack of all trades) in CFS1 but, after my PC meltdown, I have to reconstruct the tools of my different trades one by one, so to speak, and gauge-panel was as good a place to start rebuilding as anywhere else.

    But, again, no strings attached.

    Ivan- I just saw a period picture where a Me 262 is being refueled by a bowser (truck tank). On it, written in big caracters; J2.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  17. #142
    Hello Hubbabubba,

    Well, well... fantastic! It will be a great honour to have your panel and gauges together with the upload as a complete package.

    Ivan has been coaching me along very nicely with the .air file, and I will let him try it out again to make sure it´s ship-shape, just in case he suggests any further tweaking.

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  18. #143
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleatorylamp
    Hello Hubbabubba,

    Well, well... fantastic! It will be a great honour to have your panel and gauges together with the upload as a complete package.

    Ivan has been coaching me along very nicely with the .air file, and I will let him try it out again to make sure it´s ship-shape, just in case he suggests any further tweaking.

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    He always do...

    ... but, as he hinted, final word is yours.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  19. #144
    Hello Hubbabubba, Aleatorylamp,

    Anna Honey is again out of town for a week so I am actually finding very little time to actually do much of anything flight simulator related.
    In the last couple days, I have turned on my development machine but never actually did anything with it.
    Another big problem is that the machine is so unstable at this point, that I can't even bring up FDE on it anymore.
    I have a second development machine that is much more powerful but without the current projects and also without a monitor or desk space.
    Ideally, I would need a KVM (and Joystick & Sound) to get it operational but failing that, perhaps I can find another way to get both machines running at the same time.

    Hello Hubbabubba,

    I actually know amazingly little about the Messerschmitt 262. I just pulled that bit regarding fuel out of Eric Brown's book.
    If you are working on panels now, do you also have the tools to do gauges as well? I am probably going back to working on gauges very shortly to see if I can push a couple projects out. I am also working on a panel at the moment, but it is much more primitive than yours.

    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    I tend to be very picky with AIR files. To me, they are the subject of endless tweaking as new information comes to my attention or I learn how to do new things.
    Remember that the project is yours and if it satisfies you, then that is sufficient. I tend to never stop adjusting which is why I am back in n AIR file that I last touched back in 2014. If you want my opinion, I will certainly give it, but you get to decide whether of not to adjust accordingly.

    - Ivan.

  20. #145
    Hello Ivan, hello Hubbabubba,

    I have been following the e-mail exchange on the development of the Sparrow´s panel with great interest. Fascinating, all the details that crop up! It is interesting to see the different aspects of how the original panel itself developed at the time. Thanks for sharing the information!

    I have been able to improve the model itself and the .air file a great deal in all this time. All the little bleeds related to the engine base and fuselage sides are thankfully gone. I´d also run into a bleed problems at the divisions between the 4 or 5 different fuselage section components, when viewed from steep above or below angles. From the top I was able to cover all of them up by putting a top-half only of the entire engine structure in Canopy-High Wing. Not so from underneath, however - it can´t be eliminated because of all the landing-gear, geardoor and wheel-well parts, but it is not a very usual viewing angle anyway.

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  21. #146
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    I once said to Ivan that flight simulation modelers are probably the only ones flying from frontal view.

    Fiddling a bit with cannon shell's counters tonight and will send to you two guys.

    BTW- Have you modified the DP file so that primary trigger should be associated to cannons? And you could adjust them to shoot a bit higher, from my point of view.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  22. #147

    jets.....

    So I went to Flightsim.com and downloaded an Egyptian Mig15 and
    a Me262....(Galland's wingman)
    probs....when a jet is far away you can only see a dot with a name
    beside it most of the time.
    they seem to manoeuvre like very fast bricks.
    any suggestions?
    >>papingo

  23. #148
    Hello Papingo,

    I have found that FS98 .air files used in CFS1 have a much lighter maneuverability in general, and I have the feeling that pitch, yaw and roll control has to be re-adjusted in the elevator, rudder and aileron moments, and that the moments of inertial also have to be re-adjusted. TNot an easy task, by any means! Ivan has been constantly coaching me along in the last months, as you can see!

    Presumably, the FS98 .exe has a different way of calculating these things. Added to this, is the fact that with FS98, the Beckwith Gauges Stack cannot be used, so it is impossible to callibrate jet thrust more finely, which CFS1 allows to be done more accurately. This can also produce noticeable improvements in aircraft behaviour.

    I suppose that with a little work on the Me262 .air file some improvements can indeed be achieved!
    As soon as I have some time, I´ll give it a try. These old turbojets do have their enchantment, dont´they? Probably it´s their sheer speed that makes them attractive!!

    Mind you, despite the speed, it wasn´t easy to shoot down anything with these jets because they were so fast. You only got about 2 seconds´shooting time as soon as you were in range, and if you came up from below and behind, you were immediately vulnerable to their tail gunners after your attack.

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  24. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by papingo View Post
    So I went to Flightsim.com and downloaded an Egyptian Mig15 and
    a Me262....(Galland's wingman)
    probs....when a jet is far away you can only see a dot with a name
    beside it most of the time.
    they seem to manoeuvre like very fast bricks.
    any suggestions?
    >>papingo
    Hello Papingo,

    "Fast Bricks" is actually a pretty good summary of how they fly.
    I have been poking around with a fantasy AIR file for my Ohka 11 which is really a heavily converted Learjet and am learning a bunch of things. (Not so much about HOW to do things but more like what values for parameters actually work well.)
    As usual, there are conflicts for time with other projects I am working on and coupled with a Development Machine that is no longer reliable, it may be a while before I have anything to show.

    The Jets of this time period are actually not that much faster than the last generation of Propeller Fighters, so if you are seeing them as that much faster, perhaps the AIR files are wrong which is quite possible.
    Way back with the JG 57 folks, I know I did some messing around with AIR files for a Recon version of the Me 262. Perhaps I can find the work I did back then and see if it applies to the new stuff.

    Aleatorylamp is quite correct in that un-edited FS98 AIR files have a tendency to be very twitchy and also seem to have very bad longitudinal trim. That is so consistent that it must be a difference in how parameters are handled in the two simulators.

    One other thing worthy of note is that the Me 262 although it was fast, had only very short ranged armament in the MK 108 30 mm cannon. The hitting power was excellent but the ballistics were pretty horrible.

    Need to go clean up after dinner.
    Gnite Folks.

    - Ivan.

  25. #150

    Engine N2 Turbine RPM

    Hello Hubbabubba , Hello Ivan,

    The new He162 panel is certainly a beautiful one, with impressive new custom instrumentation, I must say!

    There is only one issue which is giving me some difficulty, and that is the RPM gauge readout. Ivan, I´m glad to hear that you seem to be getting some clarity in the jet .air file obscurities, because perhaps with your new knowledge of gauge programming, you could possibly help out here... I hope we aren´t putting too much pressure on!

    For a turbojet, N2 Turbine RPM is the parameter in question, and the default gauges all give a percentage readouts that can go up to about 110% N2, depending on how it is set in the corresponding parameter in the jet engine section of the .air file. Thus, it is not a real RPM count, but reads % N2.

    I had adapted the bitmap for the dial of the Bell N2 Turbine rotor gauge, and set the ,air file parameters for an idle RPM of 2800 and a maximum RPM of about 11000, in order to get reading of the standard continuous thrust specified at 1764 flb at 9500 RPM at sea-level. At the moment, this occurs at 86% throttle position, and is the basis I am going by.

    It seems to be the most reliable piece of information. Of course, the 86% throttle setting will vary with changes to the .air file parameters that set idle RPM and maximum RPM.

    There was a red mark on the gauge dial at 9500 RPM. It also seems that there was a general recommendation to keep to 9200 RPM for extended periods of max. continuous thrust just in case...


    Maximum 30-second 2028 flb thrust is insufficient for the model to attain performance consistent with specifications at any altitude, and at least 2182 flb seem to be needed, to get a reasonable Boost-envelope. RPM is generally quoted here at 11500 RPM, but will of course vary with altitude. Inexact readouts here will not really matter, as Boost was only allowed for 30 seconds, and could only be used few occasions during a flight.

    The main thing is, that with Hubbabubba´s newly made authentic dial, the needle is at the wrong angle.
    Possibly a bit of gauge programming could fix it so that it fits the basic specified normal max. 1760 flb thrust at 9500 RPM, which is what I suppose a pilot would go by.

    Here´s a screenshot that includes the Beckwith Gauge Set, showing the thrust values, my own adapted RPM gauge showing the 9500 RPM, and the N1 - N2% Standard jet gauge as reference, in comparison to the new gauge.

    Hubbabubba: Sorry about messing up your beautiful new panel in the screenshot with all the extra ugly stuff!!

    I wonder if you would have any thoughts on this?

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails N2 turbine panel.jpg  

Members who have read this thread: 1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •