EAAAirVenture OshkoshShopJoin
1  2  Next Page >

Light Sport RV-3

Posted By:
Bob Beausoleil
20
Posts
1
#1 Posted: 2/27/2010 12:18:48

Are there any aeronautical engineers on this forum that might be able to answer a question about horsepower vs top speed?

I am wondering if a lower horsepower RV-3 could meet the light sport speed limit of 138 mph.

The published stall speed is 51 mph, which is good.

The published gross weight is 1,100 lbs, which is good.

The published top speed with 150 hp is 207 mph.  The published top speed with 125 hp is 195 mph.

I am curious if an 0-200 (~100 hp) with a climb prop can come in at or under 138 mph.

Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Bob



Ron Wanttaja
246
Posts
98
#2 Posted: 2/27/2010 14:43:08
Bob Beausoleil wrote:

 

Are there any aeronautical engineers on this forum that might be able to answer a question about horsepower vs top speed?

I am wondering if a lower horsepower RV-3 could meet the light sport speed limit of 138 mph.

The published stall speed is 51 mph, which is good.

The published gross weight is 1,100 lbs, which is good.

The published top speed with 150 hp is 207 mph.  The published top speed with 125 hp is 195 mph.

I am curious if an 0-200 (~100 hp) with a climb prop can come in at or under 138 mph.

I'm suspecting you'd have a hard sale with the FAA guys.  The Van's site lists a 166 MPH *cruise* at 55% power with just 125 horses.  This''ll come down at sea level, of course, but that's 166 MPH at basically half power.  You'd have to do some fancy dancing on this one...add tons of drag (e.g., uglify the airplane), leave off the canopy, spinner, and wheel pants, etc. so there's an obvious reason the plane won't exceed 120 knots with a 100-HP engine wide open.

Keep in mind, you'll have to start from scratch.  The rules don't allow you to take an existing airplane and modify it so it fits the rules. 

I'd look into a Thacher CX-4 , instead.... or a Fly Baby, of course, but that goes without saying...
biggrin



Ron Wanttaja
Joanne Palmer
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
276
Posts
68
#3 Posted: 2/27/2010 18:52:36 Modified: 2/27/2010 18:55:05

Why bother when the RV-12 is already out there.  Or is it the tandem seating you want?

 

However to answer your question specifically you'd have to cut the HP to about a third, so you'd have to use a 65 HP ngine.  This is down in the small VW conversion range.  The downside is that the aircraft likely would NOT climb very well. 

 



Jeff Point
Vintage Aircraft Association MemberYoung Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or CraftsmanAirVenture Volunteer
94
Posts
65
#4 Posted: 2/28/2010 03:07:39
Ron Wanttaja wrote:

I'm suspecting you'd have a hard sale with the FAA guys. 

Picking nits here- but you don't have to convince the FAA guys of anything, at least not at the time of certification.  You will be certifying it as an Experimental- Amateur Built, not as an E-LSA, so you don't have to prove any performance.  Maybe things have changed since I last certified an E-AB, but I didn't have to show the DAR a medical!

Of course, you will then be flying it under Sport Pilot, meaning that the plane has to conform to LSA performance, and this is where it gets a bit sticky.  Short answer- I don't see how an RV-3 could be made to meet the requirements, but that is between you and God (until something happens and the FAA and insurance company enter the picture.)

There are plenty of other good designs out there that meet your needs (the Thatcher is a good example.)  Or, the RV-12.



Ron Wanttaja
246
Posts
98
#5 Posted: 2/28/2010 10:05:42
Jeff Point wrote:

 

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

I'm suspecting you'd have a hard sale with the FAA guys. 

Picking nits here- but you don't have to convince the FAA guys of anything, at least not at the time of certification.  You will be certifying it as an Experimental- Amateur Built, not as an E-LSA, so you don't have to prove any performance.  Maybe things have changed since I last certified an E-AB, but I didn't have to show the DAR a medical!

You're right, of course.  If one can stay "off the radar," you don't have to worry about proving a plane meets the Sport Pilot limitations.  In nearly 40 years of flying, and 25 years of airplane ownership, I've never had an FAA guy ask to see any of my official documentation.

I've got a friend with a [airplane type redacted] and [medical condition redacted] who took off the spinner and wheel pants of his homebuilt and claims it meets the Light Sport definition.  Don't know what would happen if an FAA guy caught him at it.  Probably just shrug it off...the plane is a two-seater, not a common type.

My friend is cautious, though, which reduces his chances to get caught but tends to limit the use he gets out of his airplane.  He never flies to fly-ins any more, which to me is a big part of the fun of owning a homebuilt. 



Ron Wanttaja
Lincoln Ross
53
Posts
5
#6 Posted: 3/3/2010 01:52:21

Is this an already existing RV-3?

As a general rule, once you're going fast enough that induced drag isn't very important, then power required is roughly proportional to the cube of the speed.  If you check the numbers you've given, it's pretty much an exact match.

 

If you do a bit of digging, perhaps you can find an airfoil that is clean at a Cl of 0.4 (maybe 110 mph) or 0.5, but very draggy at a Cl of 0.25. If it has an extra 0.011 of drag at Cl of 0.25, then it might make things slow enough. Based on sloppy, back of an envelope calculations. The neat thing about this is it probably leaves your performance unaffected at speeds significantly slower than 138mph. It might even be higher lift, giving you a slower stall. Of course, if the tail isn't big enough to control things at the lower speed, you may have a problem. Even if the wing exists, perhaps it can be reprofiled somehow. Leading edge droop?

 

Might also help to use an engine with a PSRU that reduces rpm a lot. If you have room for a large prop, anyway.



Frank Gaggia
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
45
Posts
8
#7 Posted: 3/4/2010 00:19:04

Some interesting points have been made here.  I posted another thread about re-certifying a Canadian-registered homebuilt, which would be similar (I think!).  I was told that I couldn't reduce the gross weight in order to operate it in the LSA category, but I'm not sure if anyone REALLY knows the answer when it comes to homebuilts, and I'd REALLY like to know!  In your case, as in mine, if IS an existing, flying RV-3 (and the pundits are correct) you would not be able to operate it as such since it had already been operated in a manner outside the LSA rules.  The reason I question this is because when you register a homebuilt, YOU list the gross weight, which can be done arbitrarily, unlike a type-certificated airplane such as a Cessna 150.

The other point is, if the FAA ramp checks you, and you tell him it meets the rules (as in Ron's friend), is he going to go for a ride with you to find out?  What about your insurance company?  THEY seem to be running aviation even more than the FAA these days!  I've been told by some vendors of LSA (name and type withheld) that when they want to go cross country, they adjust the pitch on their ground-adjustable propeller and go much faster than 120 knots.  I'm not condoning any of this, though, because it will ruin a good thing that took years to accomplish.

Lincoln offers up some good advice, too.  The plane I'm building, a Storm 400, is similar to an RV-6A, but with pop-riveted stucture and a good old fashioned NACA 4415 airfoil.  I'm hoping the empty weight comes out low enough to allow me to list the gross at 1320.  The Canadian plane mentioned above was something I wanted to fly until mine is done.

If the plane isn't built, build it without flush rivets and use a smaller, lighter engine.  I'm not sure if the RV-3's 51mph stall is without flaps, which it must be, and at gross weight.  You might need to add a bay to each wing for additional area.  A longer engine mount will probably be required to keep the CG where it needs to be.

I hope we get some more knowledgeable input on this.



Jake Heino
Homebuilder or Craftsman
1
Post
0
#8 Posted: 3/4/2010 18:43:29 Modified: 3/4/2010 18:45:00

I am considering the same thing but making a light RV-8 with only a single seat and smaller fuel tanks.

People are confusing Light Sport Aircraft and Experimental Amatuer built aircraft that can be flown by a sport pilot.

To be flown by a sport pilot, the amateur built experimental aircraft need only meet the basic requirements of the light sport category.

If you build the engine yourself, or use an engine like the one in the Carbon Cub SS (180 hp for takeoff and 80 hp continuous as placarded by the manufacturer, you could theoretically limit the aircraft with maximum continuous power to 120 KIAS.

I wonder what the top speed of your planned RV-3 would be with the same engine used by the Carbon Cub SS (a factory build S-LSA)?  That 180 hp would give you spectacular takeoff and climb performance but you would have to slow way down in cruise with the 80 HP max continuous power.

You could also go without wheel pants and perhaps add a cargo pod or something else to slow the plane down further if necessary.

I have flown with friends in their various RV's and many of them cruise at 140 kts, so slowing it to 120 kts should not be too hard.  In fact the RV formation flights are flown between 120 and 140 kts.

You could not put a stock factory built engine in the aircraft and derate it yourself, from what I have read, but you could build your own experimental engine (if you rebuild an 0-320 yourself and you are not an A&P or you put non PMA'd parts in it, it becomes experimental, you can limit the maximum continuous power.

What needs to be avoided, however is "cheating" the system, where you build an aircraft that secretly cruises at a 140 KIAS versus the allowed 120 KIAS or that routinely operates over 1320 lbs gross weight.  Cheating the system will only cause the FAA to crack down on all of us.

I would like to get a definitive answer on this from the FAA or EAA, but so far all I have received is off the cuff speculation and people confusing LSA rules with the rules defining eligible Experimental Amateur built aircraft.

Other posters out there, please do not speculate or through out ideas, we need facts not opinions in making these important building decisions.

Thanks,

Jake

 

 

 



Frank Gaggia
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
45
Posts
8
#9 Posted: 3/4/2010 21:05:28

Great post, Jake!  The problem, as I see it, with trying to fit an existing E-AB RV design into the LSA category is that of structural weight.  They are designed to aerobatic limits of 9G's, ultimate, and 200+ mph with 360+ pound engines, and all the metal is sized for this.   Most weigh near 1100 pounds empty (the RV-3 is the exception).  If you want to keep the 180 hp engine, there's not much you can throw out to reduce the weight and have a safe airplane.  Making it a single-seater doesn't change the empty weight,  Putting an 85hp Jabiru in it will probably knock close to 200 pounds off, a 120 hp Jab or Corvair (I have one for my Storm) at least 150 pounds.  My calculations show a non-flapped stall speed of about 53 mph at 1320 pounds, using the maximum section lift coefficient of 1.6 which may not be obtainable.  I can certainly understand trying to do this, as I hope to do, if you've already invested in the kit, but the better solution would be to build the RV-12 if you MUST have an LSA.  I don't (yet!), or I would.

My Storm 400 was beefed up from a lighter weight, Rotax-powered 300 (which meets LSA rules), so it could use the Lycoming O-320 engines.  It also uses pop rivets with low, but protruding heads (more drag).  It's about the size of an RV-6A, so a well equipped one weighs about the same, and I'm fighting the same fight!  I won't really know until I get the structure done and weigh it minus firewall forward.

About 15 years ago I got to fly a sweet little RV-4 knock-off at Sun-n-Fun called the Revenger.  It was designed and built by Dave Goulet of Quad City Ultralights (Challenger).  It hauled both of us really nicely using a Hirth 65hp engine, I believe, and flew just like an RV.  He never put it into production, but it would make a great LSA.  Last I knew, Don Zank of Zanklites in Boomer, WI had it.

Frank



Frank Gaggia
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
45
Posts
8
#10 Posted: 3/4/2010 22:39:40

Sorry, Bob, I almost forgot this was YOUR thread!  My calculations show the RV-3 at 1100 pounds and 90sf of area, would stall at about 55 mph, best case (see above).  Reducing the weight by 10% (hard to do, but O-290's are nearly as heavy as O-320's) to 990 pounds or increasing the wing area 10% to 99sf still only reduces it to about 52mph.  The formula for stall speed is  the square root of 2x the gross weight divided by rho (.00238) x the max lift coefficient (I used 1.6) x the wing area x 0.6818.  The last number converts feet per second to miles per hour.  In other words: V(stall)=sq rt (2 X W / 0.00238 X CL max. X S.  Multiply the answer by 0.6818.  You can play around with different combinations that you think you can achieve with the weight and wing area to get the stall speed down.  I'd shoot for about 46 mph if using the max CL from above for the reasons stated.  Guys, THIS is what EXPERIMENTATION is all about!

Frank Gaggia    

EAA 11549



Lincoln Ross
53
Posts
5
#11 Posted: 3/5/2010 01:03:10

 I got curious about the airfoil approach. It appears quite promising. Looks like if you take a normal airfoil and make the bottom perfectly flat except for a fairly sharp leading edge, then you get separation at the lower lift coefficients and the drag goes way up. I've been messing with Xfoil. Looks like in cruise at 100 mph there might be a 0.002 Cd penalty, which probably is only going to use up an extra 2hp or so. At 138 mph it would probably use up gobs of power, though it's hard to tell as Xfoil gives up when flow separates. It appears that this effect is quite sensitive to leading edge radius, so one could adjust things to comply. A 45018 with the bottom cut off flat appears to separate at somewhere around CL of 0.4 (i.e. 110 mph), and a slight increase in nose radius brings that a bit lower.  Perhaps if the l.e. was made of something sandable, this could be tailored. An odd effect would be that the airplane was faster with a full load than when light. Xfoil seems to think that this airfoil has quite a bit more lift than, say, a 4415. Maybe 20 percent or so. Stall might not be quite as soft, but then Xfoil isn't supposed to be good at predicting that.

 

If you go to, say, 10,000 feet, you could probably cruise 20mph or so faster.

 

I'm not sure where they get the data, or if it's just cut and try, but it looks like quite a few ultralights use this trick.



Jason Stahl
3
Posts
0
#12 Posted: 3/5/2010 02:14:53
Jake Heino wrote:

 

People are confusing Light Sport Aircraft and Experimental Amatuer built aircraft that can be flown by a sport pilot.

To be flown by a sport pilot, the amateur built experimental aircraft need only meet the basic requirements of the light sport category.

If you build the engine yourself, or use an engine like the one in the Carbon Cub SS (180 hp for takeoff and 80 hp continuous as placarded by the manufacturer, you could theoretically limit the aircraft with maximum continuous power to 120 KIAS.

I wonder what the top speed of your planned RV-3 would be with the same engine used by the Carbon Cub SS (a factory build S-LSA)?  That 180 hp would give you spectacular takeoff and climb performance but you would have to slow way down in cruise with the 80 HP max continuous power.

You could also go without wheel pants and perhaps add a cargo pod or something else to slow the plane down further if necessary.

You could not put a stock factory built engine in the aircraft and derate it yourself, from what I have read, but you could build your own experimental engine (if you rebuild an 0-320 yourself and you are not an A&P or you put non PMA'd parts in it, it becomes experimental, you can limit the maximum continuous power.

  I called my co-worker about this exact subject a couple of months ago and got their opinion. Lucky that co-worker just happens to be Larry Buchanan, chief of the light sport branch at FAA (I'm ATC). Jakes' post is quite right. LSA uses continuous rated HP, not max HP, so if you can de-rate the engine legally, you are good. A caveat though!!!! 14 CFR 1.1 definition says the aircraft 'since original certification, meets and CONTINUES to meet the requirements of LSA'. Mr Buchanan stated unquestionably that this means no taking off the spinner and wheel pants of a previous fast aircraft and considering it light sport! Even to the point of testing a different prop and going too fast once would make it forever non-LSA (his quote, not mine) He did concede that what the determining factor would be what was entered into the log book. So, if looking to buy that used LSA, look at the logs and verify that you will not have problems. I've seen so many ads for planes that say "in-flight adjustable prop, but you can remove it and be LSA again". Can't happen.

 

Jason Stahl




Frank Gaggia
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
45
Posts
8
#13 Posted: 3/5/2010 19:13:07

Jason, thank God for you!  Finally, someone who's close to someone who should know (or be able to find out).  It seems to me that that language was inserted in order to prevent TYPE CERTIFICATED aircraft from being modified in order to meet LSA rules.  It doesn't seem logical (or fair) to apply that to EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR BUILT aircraft since we can modify them until the cows come home.  We just have to fly the Phase I flight test again.  For instance, if I wanted to put a 180 hp engine on a Jeannie's Teenie, I could do it, I'd just have to fly off the hours again to prove it was safe.  It would seem logical that if I bought one with that engine on it that I could take it off, mount a VW, fly off the hours again and it would meet the LSA requirements.  After all, what we are really talking about here are just OPERATING LIMITATIONS!  Could you run that by Mr. Buchannan for a comment, please?

I've never done it, but I've been told that registering a foreign amateur-built aircraft in the US is just like registering your own for the first time.  You have to prove that it was amateur-built, not necessarily by you.  Well, as I mentioned in a previous post, when you register your airplane, YOU determine what you want the gross weight to be.  So it would SEEM that the process would then allow you to list the gross weight as 1320 pounds, and, assuming all the other LSA parameters are met, you'd be in business.  Now, if you can do that with an airplane someone built in another country, shouldn't we be able to do the same with AMERICAN-BUILT aircraft?

Bottom line is, I think,  the FAA really needs to clarify once and for all if the no-change language was ever intended for E-AB aircraft.  And if it was, I think we need to swamp them with nasty (just kidding) letters!
wink

Thanks in advance for your help!

Frank



Joanne Palmer
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
276
Posts
68
#14 Posted: 3/5/2010 21:00:17

Frank:

Look at it from the FAA's perspective.  You take a Cassutt racer which is NOT an LSA for speed alone.  Add some drag inducing items, cut the power and do anything else to make it fit the speed and weight limits of an LSA.  And since it's amateur built you can do this legally.  You now take it to FAA and say "see my new LSA?  I'd like a E-AB LSA certificate please".  And they buy into it and hand you a certificate.  Then you take it home and undo all your mods. Again legally 'cause its A-B.  You now have a Cassut racer  certified as an "LSA" that'll exceed the speed limits of an LSA.  But it ISN'T an LSA.  So what do you have?



Ron Wanttaja
246
Posts
98
#15 Posted: 3/5/2010 22:52:02
Joanne Palmer wrote:

 

Frank:

Look at it from the FAA's perspective.  You take a Cassutt racer which is NOT an LSA for speed alone.  Add some drag inducing items, cut the power and do anything else to make it fit the speed and weight limits of an LSA.  And since it's amateur built you can do this legally.  You now take it to FAA and say "see my new LSA?  I'd like a E-AB LSA certificate please".  And they buy into it and hand you a certificate.  Then you take it home and undo all your mods. Again legally 'cause its A-B.  You now have a Cassut racer  certified as an "LSA" that'll exceed the speed limits of an LSA.  But it ISN'T an LSA.  So what do you have?

 

Well... you couldn't certify the Cassutt as an "LSA" in any case.   To be certified as an Experimental Light Sport Airplane, one example of the design must complete the licensing process for Special Light Sport.  Once this has been done, the manufacturer can sell kits for Experimental Light Sport Aircraft.  However, the builder of the kit has to conform *exactly* with the manufacturer's instructions during building.  Once they receive their Experimental Light Sport certificate, they can modify the airplane freely, but when it's first to be licensed, it must conform to the original example.

So you can't license a Cassutt as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft...only as Experimental Amateur-Built.  Or at least you can't, now...the transitional rules for Light Sport that were set up to allow "Fat ultralight" owners to transition their planes to Light Sport let you certify *anything* that met the definition as Light Sport.  But that program ended two years ago.

The FAA made an error a few years ago...they released a definition for a type of aircraft (Light Sport Airplane), then started a CERTIFICATION category that used the same name.  Just because the Fly Baby (for instance) meets the Light Sport definition, that's doesn't make it an LSA!

I've got some explanatory material on my Fly Baby web page .  Here's a summary of aircraft certification types.


airworthiness.jpg



Ron Wanttaja
Frank Gaggia
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
45
Posts
8
#16 Posted: 3/6/2010 13:13:47

Thanks, Joanne.  I always enjoy reading your thoughtful, informed commentary in many areas of this site.  However, you, and probably many others, have missed the point:  I'm not talking about anything other than changing the operating limitations of an Experimental-Amateur Built.  I'm NOT trying to recertify as an E-LSA, which can't be done, as Ron so aptly points out, merely to OPERATE the EAB within the confines of the LSA definition.  And, if you change an EAB in a major way, you are required to enter the Phase I flight testing again, so you couldn't (legally) just change your Cassut back again.

Maybe I'm all wet with these ideas, but, as EXPERIMENTERS, it's something I believe we should be able to do!  Anyway, I'm having fun with it.

Frank



Jason Stahl
3
Posts
0
#17 Posted: 3/6/2010 14:10:46

Good point Ron. It makes it clearer if you consider the following. The aircraft certification is either E-LSA or S-LSA, and not considering the oddball transitioned ultralights (shouldn't call them oddball, I own one myself) E-LSA HAVE to be built exactly as the basis S-LSA aircraft. But those are not the only light sport aircraft, but all others are going to have a different certification, such as standard (Piper J-3, or Ercoupe C are light sport) or E-AB (the Sonerai I am starting for example). I mention the Sonerai for an interesting point. You CAN build a Sonerai that is too fast for light sport, just barely (140mph cruise). But when I am ready to get the airworthiness, I don't have to convince the DAR of anything, I just get an E-AB certificate. If I ever get ramp-checked or have an accident, then I might have to prove it meets the limitations (my test flight logs should show the correct numbers).

To answer the earlier post, Buchanan said yes it seems restrictive, but not allowing a plane to be put back into LSA qualifications is firm by FAA rules. And more important, if your logbook shows it was not qualified at some point in it's lifespan, your insurance will jump all over that if you ever submit a claim so they don't have to pay! So, if playing with your prop pitch and you go too far, use discretion on what you write in your book...

 



Frank Gaggia
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
45
Posts
8
#18 Posted: 3/7/2010 14:09:56

Jason, if you were referring to MY earlier post, thank you for checking again.  If that was his response, then I'm ready to begin a campaign to protest/change it.  It's rediculous!  And YOU had better be careful during your flight testing of the Sonerai so you don't ever exceed 120 kt (max, not cruise) or stall above 45 kt (at gross).  The speed claims for most homebuilts are overly optomistic, on both ends. 

If you haven't built your wings yet, I would recommend the use of a Riblett airfoil.  This has already been done with a great improvement, especially in takeoff, climb and landing.  See his book.

Good luck,

Frank



Matthew Long
Homebuilder or Craftsman
122
Posts
12
#19 Posted: 3/10/2010 19:11:20

Getting back to the OP it seems to me that a sport pilot-eligible experimental RV-3 would be a technical challenge and a tough sell.  I would suggest, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, the Sonerai I as a much closer fit:

 

P E R F O R M A N C E

STALL SPEED 45 MPH

LANDING SPEED 54 MPH

CRUISING SPEED AT 85% 150 MPH

 

Source:  Sonerai I (on Great Plains web site)

The engine is not specified but is listed at 1600-2180cc VW.  Assuming that the performance figure given are for the upper end of the spectrum then a modest 1835cc VW, built light, with a climb prop, ought to reduce the stall speed somewhat and still stay within limits.  You'd also have a very tough little plane that would scoot along on very little fuel.

This is all guesswork, of course, just ask Steve Bennett at Great Plains for a performance estimate with the smallest engine he would recommend.

Good luck!



******* Matthew Long www.cluttonfred.info
Joe Norris
Vintage Aircraft Association MemberYoung Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or CraftsmanAirVenture Volunteer
328
Posts
137
#20 Posted: 3/11/2010 10:00:27
Matthew Long wrote:

 

Getting back to the OP it seems to me that a sport pilot-eligible experimental RV-3 would be a technical challenge and a tough sell.  I would suggest, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, the Sonerai I as a much closer fit:

 

I can speak from experience on the Sonerai.  it's too fast!  My Sonerai II without wheel pants went 150 mph at 75% power.  At maximum rated power (which is the criteria for meeting the LSA definition) it would go almost 160.  This was with an 1835 cc VW engine.  But even with the 1600 cc engine the aircraft is going to be too fast at maximum rated power.

It is false economy to try to adapt an aircraft to the LSA definition when its basic design doesn't lend itself to those performance parameters.  If you need a sport pilot-eligible aircraft, then pick one that meets the criteria without major modification.  There are plenty of designs that meet the criteria.  Why try to force a square peg into a round hole?

Cheers!

Joe

 



Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
1  2  Next Page >