The General Airplane Thread

  • Thread starter Crash
  • 2,744 comments
  • 193,469 views
catamount39
Holy ****...that thing could out maneuver anything! :eek:
Click to expand...
X-31 Vector says hi ;)

Although, the F-22 is only slightly inferior to the X-31 in terms of maneuverability, mainly due to having all the combat systems and weapons it carries. It also is literally twice the size of the X-31, along with lacking 3d thrust vector control (although it compensates for this by having two engines).
 
Having seen the F-22 demonstration they do at air shows, it does everything I saw the T-50 do in that video except that Cobra pop-up, and some things I didn't see the T-50 do, including a thrust-vector loop around its own nose with very little spatial displacement.

A lot of those things demonstrate control and maneuverability, but I'm not sure how effective they are as combat maneuvers. Why would a fighter pilot want to spin in a flat descent with almost no airspeed?

(Of course, I'm still entrenched in an era when a 6-g turn was DANGEROUS!!!!! :) )
 
catamount39
Holy ****...that thing could out maneuver anything! :eek:
Click to expand...
Except missiles.

These kinds of videos aren't actually very good about providing any information about the plane. There is almost nothing in there that would be relevant to air combat. Whatever is relevant has zero context because the speed, load, etc is not known.

Maneuvers like the ones displayed have been done since the 80's in any case.

Here is a more representative video of real air combat, though it might not be as impressive to look at.



The triangle is the enemy plane, the number under it is altitude in 1,000's of feet.

The number on the far right of the screen is closure velocity

The lines that rotate around the screen represent the orientation of the F-16 with respect to the ground

There is no wild maneuvering. The only sharp turn happens after a missile is launched, and at that point it's basically already over. Any maneuver like those in the T-50 video done while being followed by a missile equate to instant death.

EDIT

cockpit view from a F/A-18 in a training dogfight. The F-18 is of course no T-50, but it is capable of rather extreme instantaneous pitch rates. However you're not likely to see them performed unless a kill is absolutely certain afterwards because it leaves the plane totally vulnerable to attack.

 
Last edited:
Was bored, went to the airport. Saw a van flying!

20356314580_7553120f51_c.jpg


19921720214_6cf948a8f0_c.jpg


20544358025_a521286909_c.jpg


And the usual
20535461472_08b7320e2d_c.jpg


19921699694_c6289a0491_c.jpg
 
How many variations are there of the Lockheed A-12? I know there was the A-12, the YF-12, the SR-71, and the M-21. Am I missing anything?
 
The man is saying that the V-TOL version doesn't have enough maneuverability judging by the size of the wings, so it's less maneuverable than the Harrier?

He also says that the "bomber" version is bad, because you can't hang weapons outside. But you can do that.

He didn't really say anything else. Yes, the program is slow, but I believe that it will be a good airplane. It has a delta wing plane with rear canards (pardon, I don't know how to describe this in English) so this will give it good maneuverability. It has diverterless supersonic inlet for better stealth and lighter weight. The airplane is well designed if you look closely.

Stealth... oh wait, it is said that the stealth is fake.
 
unit-one
The man is saying that the V-TOL version doesn't have enough maneuverability judging by the size of the wings, so it's less maneuverable than the Harrier?

He also says that the "bomber" version is bad, because you can't hang weapons outside. But you can do that.

He didn't really say anything else. Yes, the program is slow, but I believe that it will be a good airplane. It has a delta wing plane with rear canards (pardon, I don't know how to describe this in English) so this will give it good maneuverability. It has diverterless supersonic inlet for better stealth and lighter weight. The airplane is well designed if you look closely.

Stealth... oh wait, it is said that the stealth is fake.
Click to expand...

Stealth is no good when you are found.
 
Latvija27
Stealth is no good when you are found.
Click to expand...

I guess so, but it's better to be found later (or not found at all) than being seen right away.

By the way, about short wings- the F-35 has a wide body, so it will provide lift, so it's not just the lenght of the wings that count.
 
unit-one
The man is saying that the V-TOL version doesn't have enough maneuverability judging by the size of the wings, so it's less maneuverable than the Harrier?

He also says that the "bomber" version is bad, because you can't hang weapons outside. But you can do that.

He didn't really say anything else. Yes, the program is slow, but I believe that it will be a good airplane. It has a delta wing plane with rear canards (pardon, I don't know how to describe this in English) so this will give it good maneuverability. It has diverterless supersonic inlet for better stealth and lighter weight. The airplane is well designed if you look closely.

Stealth... oh wait, it is said that the stealth is fake.
Click to expand...
Yeah sadly, the F-35 doesn't have enough space for larger weapons, and while they can be carried on the outside on the wing pylons, it makes the fighter visible under radar.
 
unit-one
The man is saying that the V-TOL version doesn't have enough maneuverability judging by the size of the wings, so it's less maneuverable than the Harrier?
Click to expand...
Which is wrong, given that wing size by itself means nothing. The Harrier is subsonic, so it's hardly in the same league as the F-35 when it comes to tactical flexibility. The lack of speed makes it more vulnerable to missiles, hurts it ability to attack with missiles, prevents it from taking advantage of altitude, and restricts the amount of excess energy it can put into instantaneous maneuvers. But putting that aside, the F-35 is stealth and has better avionics. There is nothing attractive about the Harrier in comparison unless you're shooting fish in a barrel and need something that's already paid for.

But here is one funny thing about the "wings too small" argument:

F-16: 18,900 lbs / 300 ft^2 = 63

F-35: 28,300 lbs / 460 ft^2 = 62

It says the F-35 is more agile than the F-16. So anyone using that argument should keep that in mind. More important to keep in mind is that the wing loading argument is a poor one.

Here's an interesting read that goes a bit deeper than wing loading:

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html

He also says that the "bomber" version is bad, because you can't hang weapons outside. But you can do that.
Click to expand...
Not only can it hang weapons outside, it can hold so many bombs that it would probably never fly a combat mission fully loaded.

Also note that the F-35 can carry weapons like the SDB II. With increased weapon precision and concern over collateral damage, we've switched from carry tons of bombs that miss by literal miles, to carrying a small number of accurate bombs. The F-35 can carry 8 SDB II bombs internally. So that's 8 things you can blow up before you hang stuff outside. And you have two AIM-120 along with that in case you wanted to shoot down fighters too.

He didn't really say anything else. Yes, the program is slow, but I believe that it will be a good airplane. It has a delta wing plane with rear canards (pardon, I don't know how to describe this in English) so this will give it good maneuverability. It has diverterless supersonic inlet for better stealth and lighter weight. The airplane is well designed if you look closely.
Click to expand...
The wing is a trapezoid, it should perform better than a delta at lower speed while giving good high speed performance. The F-35 is optimized for subsonic curise, rather than supercruise like the F-22. Although, since the F-35 can carry internal weapons, that allows for greater control over its area ruling. The F-35 is probably significantly less draggy than a F-16 with a large payload because of this.

Stealth... oh wait, it is said that the stealth is fake.
Click to expand...
Yet every nation spends tons of money trying to get it.

Latvija27
Stealth is no good when you are found.
Click to expand...

Actually it is, but I'll get to that. Stealth is the most important advantage you can have and it's basically always been that win. WWII wasn't about going head to head with other fighters. It was about sneaking up on someone who didn't see you and shooting them down when they couldn't do anything about it. That has pretty much remained the default winning strategy for air combat ever since.

Back to after you've been found; search radars differ from guidance radars and use higher frequencies. These frequencies are required in order to be able to accurately guide weapons. These are also the frequencies that are most vulnerable to stealth because their short wavelength prevents them from scattering off the surface of a large object, like a fighter. So even after a stealth plane has been found, you can't shoot at it.

But Lockheed really, really doesn't want you to shoot at their planes. So they have ECM too. That means, after you've gone through the trouble of finding it (which is hard), got yourself into a position where your sensors can guide weapons to it (which puts you at risk of being attacked), you still need to defeat the F-35's active defenses which will also degrade your sensors and weapons. With the F-35 being stealth, ECM is made more effective to boot.

Also, the F-35 may become the first fighter armed with a laser, which might make it nigh invincible.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockheeds-new-laser-super-turret-could-change-air-comba-1635210849

catamount39
Yeah sadly, the F-35 doesn't have enough space for larger weapons, and while they can be carried on the outside on the wing pylons, it makes the fighter visible under radar.
Click to expand...
The F-35 does not become visible when weapons are hung outside. All the stealth still works. Also, the F-35 carries the heaviest class (2000 lb) of general purpose bombs in the USAF arsenal internally. It's probably more important that it carries the 250 lb SDB II though, as they have standoff capability and better guidance.

Stealth works like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar#Radar_equation

Make sigma (the RCS or Radar Cross Section) very small. Notice that at no point does the stealth plane become undetectable (unless sigma is zero) which would be the point at which P_r is zero. However, the range at which it can be detected becomes so small so as to make the radar useless. When you put weapons on the plane, RCS goes up by some amount, but it's a lot less than the RCS of something like a F-16.





EDIT

I started watching the Fifth Estate video, Sprey doesn't say much that makes sense and if his words are a basis for that video, the entire thing is likely a joke. For one, the small wings argument can be refuted by someone in the 3rd grade. The idea that the F-35 has taken on too many roles to be successful doesn't hold much weight when the F-16 and F-18 did exactly the same thing.

Also, the praise that the video gives the F-16 seems underhandedly misleading. By "most successful" I think they mean that the F-16 was the most produced. Something like 4000( if I remember) made. The F-35 program goes for a similar strategy, although less planes are planned. There are two important differences though. First, the F-35 is being set to reach the large scale production from the start. This means that all the cost to make all the F-16's and support them for decades is being paid upfront in the F-35 program. So it costs about the same as the F-16, but newspapers get to through around bigger misleading headlines when it comes to cost. The second difference is that the original F-16 was a terrible idea, the kind of terrible idea that Sprey is still trying to run air forces into the ground with. It was a Vietnam era fighter at best with zero chance of surviving a real war. It was blind, had terrible range, and couldn't carry much that was useful. Notice that air forces around the world use F-16C, or similar, type Falcons. Not F-16A's. The reason is simple. You need a big, computerized fighter to be taken seriously in large scale combat. Something like the F-15. If you can't afford the F-15, you get the F-16 and you put all the things on it that Pierre Sprey doesn't want.
 
Last edited:
Exorcet
Which is wrong, given that wing size by itself means nothing. The Harrier is subsonic, so it's hardly in the same league as the F-35 when it comes to tactical flexibility. The lack of speed makes it more vulnerable to missiles, hurts it ability to attack with missiles, prevents it from taking advantage of altitude, and restricts the amount of excess energy it can put into instantaneous maneuvers. But putting that aside, the F-35 is stealth and has better avionics. There is nothing attractive about the Harrier in comparison unless you're shooting fish in a barrel and need something that's already paid for.

But here is one funny thing about the "wings too small" argument:

F-16: 18,900 lbs / 300 ft^2 = 63

F-35: 28,300 lbs / 460 ft^2 = 62

It says the F-35 is more agile than the F-16. So anyone using that argument should keep that in mind. More important to keep in mind is that the wing loading argument is a poor one.

Here's an interesting read that goes a bit deeper than wing loading:

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html


Not only can it hang weapons outside, it can hold so many bombs that it would probably never fly a combat mission fully loaded.

Also note that the F-35 can carry weapons like the SDB II. With increased weapon precision and concern over collateral damage, we've switched from carry tons of bombs that miss by literal miles, to carrying a small number of accurate bombs. The F-35 can carry 8 SDB II bombs internally. So that's 8 things you can blow up before you hang stuff outside. And you have two AIM-120 along with that in case you wanted to shoot down fighters too.


The wing is a trapezoid, it should perform better than a delta at lower speed while giving good high speed performance. The F-35 is optimized for subsonic curise, rather than supercruise like the F-22. Although, since the F-35 can carry internal weapons, that allows for greater control over its area ruling. The F-35 is probably significantly less draggy than a F-16 with a large payload because of this.


Yet every nation spends tons of money trying to get it.



Actually it is, but I'll get to that. Stealth is the most important advantage you can have and it's basically always been that win. WWII wasn't about going head to head with other fighters. It was about sneaking up on someone who didn't see you and shooting them down when they couldn't do anything about it. That has pretty much remained the default winning strategy for air combat ever since.

Back to after you've been found; search radars differ from guidance radars and use higher frequencies. These frequencies are required in order to be able to accurately guide weapons. These are also the frequencies that are most vulnerable to stealth because their short wavelength prevents them from scattering off the surface of a large object, like a fighter. So even after a stealth plane has been found, you can't shoot at it.

But Lockheed really, really doesn't want you to shoot at their planes. So they have ECM too. That means, after you've gone through the trouble of finding it (which is hard), got yourself into a position where your sensors can guide weapons to it (which puts you at risk of being attacked), you still need to defeat the F-35's active defenses which will also degrade your sensors and weapons. With the F-35 being stealth, ECM is made more effective to boot.

Also, the F-35 may become the first fighter armed with a laser, which might make it nigh invincible.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockheeds-new-laser-super-turret-could-change-air-comba-1635210849


The F-35 does not become visible when weapons are hung outside. All the stealth still works. Also, the F-35 carries the heaviest class (2000 lb) of general purpose bombs in the USAF arsenal internally. It's probably more important that it carries the 250 lb SDB II though, as they have standoff capability and better guidance.

Stealth works like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar#Radar_equation

Make sigma (the RCS or Radar Cross Section) very small. Notice that at no point does the stealth plane become undetectable (unless sigma is zero) which would be the point at which P_r is zero. However, the range at which it can be detected becomes so small so as to make the radar useless. When you put weapons on the plane, RCS goes up by some amount, but it's a lot less than the RCS of something like a F-16.





EDIT

I started watching the Fifth Estate video, Sprey doesn't say much that makes sense and if his words are a basis for that video, the entire thing is likely a joke. For one, the small wings argument can be refuted by someone in the 3rd grade. The idea that the F-35 has taken on too many roles to be successful doesn't hold much weight when the F-16 and F-18 did exactly the same thing.

Also, the praise that the video gives the F-16 seems underhandedly misleading. By "most successful" I think they mean that the F-16 was the most produced. Something like 4000( if I remember) made. The F-35 program goes for a similar strategy, although less planes are planned. There are two important differences though. First, the F-35 is being set to reach the large scale production from the start. This means that all the cost to make all the F-16's and support them for decades is being paid upfront in the F-35 program. So it costs about the same as the F-16, but newspapers get to through around bigger misleading headlines when it comes to cost. The second difference is that the original F-16 was a terrible idea, the kind of terrible idea that Sprey is still trying to run air forces into the ground with. It was a Vietnam era fighter at best with zero chance of surviving a real war. It was blind, had terrible range, and couldn't carry much that was useful. Notice that air forces around the world use F-16C, or similar, type Falcons. Not F-16A's. The reason is simple. You need a big, computerized fighter to be taken seriously in large scale combat. Something like the F-15. If you can't afford the F-15, you get the F-16 and you put all the things on it that Pierre Sprey doesn't want.
Click to expand...

But the awkward rear visibility does seem to be a problem? And what about the people saying it can only pull 6.5/7g max while it was promised to meet the F-16's 9g? I have also read about the wide fuselage causing more drag than preferable.. And the infamous report about that F-16D beating the F-35 few months ago?

According to Wiki 4,500+ units are built. You're probably right about the wrong term used, being most successful. Our nation only operates the F-16, I think like what you said they didn't have the money for the F-15 being 10+ million more expensive than the F-16. (F-16C: 18m - F-15A/B: 28m - F-15C/D: 30m)
 
Carlos
But the awkward rear visibility does seem to be a problem?
Click to expand...
The F-35's DAS should give the plane the best visibility of any fighter ever made. It will display and identify targets not only beyond the canopy, but under the floor or through the seat, etc. It is probably not possible to sneak up on a F-35 when within visual range to it. This is all continued evolution of fighter avionics like when pilot sight was primarily replaced with radar post WWII. Now we have sensors to help out in close range as well, and they do things that pilots can't like picking missiles out of the sky.

And what about the people saying it can only pull 6.5/7g max while it was promised to meet the F-16's 9g?
Click to expand...
The F-35A can pull 9g. The B and C are limited to less like the F-18, but they aren't the primary air to air version of the plane. However, note that g limits don't tell you how hard a plane can turn

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=4436&mode=view

That chart for the F-16 shows that at 15,000 ft it can only sustain about 7g. As you go higher and the air gets thinner, performance gets worse. At combat altitude the F-16 may only be able to hold about 4-5g. 9g is only possible down very low, but you may not want to be there because it makes your missiles short ranged, may make you vulnerable to ground based air defenses, and causes your engine to use more fuel.

I have also read about the wide fuselage causing more drag than preferable.. And the infamous report about that F-16D beating the F-35 few months ago?
Click to expand...

Drag can be offset by thrust. The F-35 makes far more thrust than the F-16 and the engine has been shown capable of producing 16% more thrust than it will go into service with. In subsonic flight the F-35's power and large fan will make it likely that it will simply outaccelerate the F-16. The fuselage dimensions become more of a problem in trans and supersonic flight, however internal weapons become a very large advantage in that regime as drag is determined primarily by area distribution. Fighter with external weapons need to compromise their distribution by hanging weapons outside. The F-35 doesn't have to.

The F-16D vs F-35 report I explained already. It was an AoA stress test, so the F-35 was not being flown "properly" for a dogfight. The software, according to the pilot, was too restrictive. This can be changed. The plane used was also an early prototype without DAS I believe. It also might have been heavier than the current version of the plane.

According to Wiki 4,500+ units are built. You're probably right about the wrong term used, being most successful. Our nation only operates the F-16, I think like what you said they didn't have the money for the F-15 being 10+ million more expensive than the F-16. (F-16C: 18m - F-15A/B: 28m - F-15C/D: 30m)
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the F-16's niche. The F-35 is basically doing the same now.
 
Exorcet
The Harrier is subsonic, so it's hardly in the same league as the F-35 when it comes to tactical flexibility. The lack of speed makes it more vulnerable to missiles, hurts it ability to attack with missiles, prevents it from taking advantage of altitude, and restricts the amount of excess energy it can put into instantaneous maneuvers. But putting that aside, the F-35 is stealth and has better avionics. There is nothing attractive about the Harrier in comparison unless you're shooting fish in a barrel and need something that's already paid for.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree... it was tremendously successful in air-to-air combat when in service, and I can't think of any other aircraft that can viff (maybe the 35-B will be able to too). I agree with the rest of what you wrote though I'd say that Harrier is a very good close platform while the Raptor et. al. are bred more for stand-off work.

Anyway... saw these flying past the Humber Bridge a few days ago, hell of a noise :D

BoB_Spits.jpg
 
Last edited:
Latvija27
So if somebody makes a very good radar and missile system they can make the F-35 obsolete.
Click to expand...

In the sense that all weapons work this way, yes. The F-35 will eventually be obsolete. It's just the current item in the cycle. F-16 survivability is projected to be lower against advanced S-300 SAM's than older SAM's, so the F-35 was made. The S-300 is vulnerable to the F-35 so the S-400 was made, etc.

However there are many challenges to overcome to totally counter a system. Realistically, the F-35 will be a larger threat for at least a couple of decades. Don't forget that it will be upgraded over its 50 year life span. A weapon that can beat the F-35 of today may not be able to beat the F-35 of 2035.


TenEightyOne
I'd disagree... it was tremendously successful in air-to-air combat when in service
Click to expand...
The Harrier isn't a bad plane, but for all its success it's not a very good front line fighter. It did well against Argentina, but it had many factors on its side. Namly the British were a better trained force and had better missiles. The Harriers weren't up against an integrated air defense network or BVR fighters. If they were, they may not have even been able to attack at all given that the AIM-9's they carried could only fly a couple of miles.

AIM-120 integration on the later Harriers gave it a chance against then current fighters, but it would always be inferior to those other fighters unless it could sneak it self into combat.

, and I can't think of any other aircraft that can viff (maybe the 35-B will be able to too).
Click to expand...
It's fair to call a unique ability an advantage, but VIFF is not terribly useful. It's an energy bleeding maneuver. That makes it useless in BVR and extremely risky in WVR fights. Especially against modern WVR missiles.

Also, while it's unique to the Harrier, anything with high AoA limits can perform maneuvers that give similar results. The F-35 (even the A and C) have some of the best high AoA stability available.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote though I'd say that Harrier is a very good close platform while the Raptor et. al. are bred more for stand-off work.
Click to expand...

The Harrier was built around VTOL, it's not so much that it is a close in fighter as VTOL dictated its design and performance and ultimately made it less capable that it could have otherwise been (this is the case with the F-35B as well). Close range combat isn't a place that most fighters can't perform in, but it's a better tactic to win from a distance. Even if the Harrier turned out to be more agile, the first sight advantage can be carried from long range to short, and before you get a merge of two groups of fighters, you must pass the No Escape Zone (NEZ) of their long range missiles. Cruising slowly through that zone is not a good way to survive it.
 
Exorcet
Even if the Harrier turned out to be more agile, the first sight advantage can be carried from long range to short, and before you get a merge of two groups of fighters, you must pass the No Escape Zone (NEZ) of their long range missiles. Cruising slowly through that zone is not a good way to survive it.
Click to expand...

Harrier isn't an altitude platform though, it sits in the weeds on the front line operating from dynamic FOBs. In conventional war it would (or would have) be pushing around at ground level, close to the front line, down with the Hawks rather than up with the Raptors.

Long-range engagement should already be taken care of by the high-alt platforms. Again though... I'm being picky with your point, I quite agree that I wouldn't rely on Harrier for my air defence. It's still a tragedy that Britain scrapped the best, punchiest GR platform we ever invented.
 
catamount39
Curious are there any F7F's still flying?
Click to expand...
Taken from Wiki, so it may not be 100% spot on, but yes, there are survivors still airworthy.

Airworthy
F7F-3
On display
F7F-3
Under restoration
F7F-3
 
TenEightyOne
Harrier isn't an altitude platform though, it sits in the weeds on the front line operating from dynamic FOBs. In conventional war it would (or would have) be pushing around at ground level, close to the front line, down with the Hawks rather than up with the Raptors.
Click to expand...

Flying low presents it own set of problems for fighters. It hurts endurance (though the Harrier's VTOL should make up for this), and severely limits mobility. The Harrier would also have less zoom climb performance should the need to climb arise because it's subsonic.

Low flying targets do benefit from terrain masking, but that can work against them as well. Look down radars are also standard at this point.

That's not to say that it couldn't work as an ambush support fighter, but it would need the support of the more dedicated fighters to succeed against top end adversaries like the MiG-29 or Su-27.

Long-range engagement should already be taken care of by the high-alt platforms. Again though... I'm being picky with your point, I quite agree that I wouldn't rely on Harrier for my air defence. It's still a tragedy that Britain scrapped the best, punchiest GR platform we ever invented.
Click to expand...


Right, it was a good ground attack plane. Even good enough for the US to avoid their usual attitude toward buying foreign aircraft. As good as the F-35 is, I don't like the B very much. I wonder if the USMC could have made do with advanced AV-8's. I think between the USAF and USN they would have had enough air cover, but they really wanted their own pilots to be providing the CAS. So for them, relying on other branches wouldn't have been attractive. The B is also pretty important for navies without catapult equipped carriers.

As for Britain, there is still the Tornado for now. The Typhoon equipped with miniaturized standoff ground attack weapons should be pretty fierce as well.
 
To contribute to the Harrier discussion..... All the talk about what a lousy fighter the Harrier is/was completely misses the point.

IT'S NOT A FIGHTER. It was never meant to be a fighter. At least in the USMC..... (If the Brits tried to call it a fighter then that's their problem. As Igor said in Young Frankenstein, "Well, they were wrong, then, weren't they?")

It's a close air support platform.

Think of it as artillery that's easier to call in and faster to respond.
 

Similar threads

TenEightyOne
Air Crash Thread: Boeing MAX and Other Problems
19 20 21
Replies
618
Views
38K
Liquid
Liquid
SlipZtrEm
What you'd like to see for the GT6 Photomode section: A community thread!
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
ux2
ux2
arvin charles
The Le Mans General Discussion Thread
342 343 344
Replies
10K
Views
589K
LMSCorvetteGT2
LMSCorvetteGT2
xXKingJoshXx
GTPlanet's "The Blacklist" Appreciation Thread
2 3
Replies
79
Views
13K
JR98
JR98
Famine
The Famine Family Holiday 4: The Wedding
2 3 4
Replies
113
Views
12K
daan
daan

Latest Posts

Back