Jump to content

LOP with Fine Wire vs Massive Plugs


FLYFST

Recommended Posts

On 4/12/2019 at 12:05 PM, Shadrach said:

I think it’s important to point out that you’re running more power than you think. Remember that at rich efficiency ratios power is a function of mass air flow and RPM. At lean effiency ratios power is simply a function of FF. An angle valve IO360 (8.7CR) will produce 15.3hp for 1GPH of burn. Using round numbers, 9gph LOP is 69% horsepower 9.5gph is 73% horsepower. The 65% you mentioned occurs @ 8.5gph.

The formula I have for 200 hp engine 65% is 8.67 gph LOP. (FF*15/200). Perhaps the 15 is a round off?

I find that at 10,000' or so when the engine can barely make 65% ROP at full throttle, high rpm, it is not possible to get to 65% LOP. But that's not important. I can pull back to 8.7 gpm which might be peak or a little ROP... fine at that hp where it would be to avoid down lower at 75%+ power. (CHTs and OilT should be fine.) For my old, decrepit E that will mean about 145 ktas. It is possible to reduce ff to 8.0 gph or less but that costs at least 5 ktas. At least that's what I see. 

With no wind that's close to the magic 20 smpg that only(?) Mooneys can touch! (That's for 4 place certified aircraft.) 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

The formula I have for 200 hp engine 65% is 8.67 gph LOP. (FF*15/200). Perhaps the 15 is a round off?

I find that at 10,000' or so when the engine can barely make 65% ROP at full throttle, high rpm, it is not possible to get to 65% LOP. But that's not important. I can pull back to 8.7 gpm which might be peak or a little ROP... fine at that hp where it would be to avoid down lower at 75%+ power. (CHTs and OilT should be fine.) For my old, decrepit E that will mean about 145 ktas. It is possible to reduce ff to 8.0 gph or less but that costs at least 5 ktas. At least that's what I see. 

With no wind that's close to the magic 20 smpg that only(?) Mooneys can touch! (That's for 4 place certified aircraft.) 

15 is a round off...which is fine given that the numbers are fuzzy. The computed number is 15.13  (looks like I fat fingered it in an earlier post) and is based solely on compression ratio.  No allowance has been made for 20 vs 25 BTDC ignition timing which is a factor.

By C/R:

7.3 to 1 = 13.53

7.5 to 1 = 13.73

8.5 to 1 = 14.89

8.7 to 1 = 15.13

Edited by Shadrach
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

15 is a round off...which is fine given that the numbers are fuzzy. The computed number is 15.13  (looks like I fat fingered it in an earlier post) and is based solely on compression ratio.  No allowance has been made for 20 vs 25 BTDC ignition timing which is a factor.

By C/R:

7.3 to 1 = 13.53

7.5 to 1 = 13.73

8.5 to 1 = 14.89

8.7 to 1 = 15.13

Ross, do you have this type of calculation for a turbo Conti? Specifically the TSIO360? I'd be very interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, carusoam said:

Ross,

Try this on for size...

From theory....

A delay of the ignition because a plug design is mechanically clumsy...

Can probably be equated to a delay of ignition timing, with a more able plug design...

So...

Somebody claiming better efficiency of one plug over the other... must be having the fuel mixture exiting the cylinder still burning, more for one than the other...

If this was a true statement... setting timing of the mags could be adjusted parts of a degree specifically based on the plugs that are installed....

our timing isn’t that exact....

 

On another topic of one plug vs. the other.... People don’t like the football shaped wear patterns of the massive plugs...

 

I wonder if the electronic ignitions will avoid the second spark that occurs 180° out of phase with the engine... this would cut some wear in half...

In line with that question... some sparks are going from core to the outside of the plug, the others the electricity is running the opposite direction...  wonder if the electronic ignitions have a more organized flow of electrons...

Preferred wear of one part vs. the other part of the plug could be a choice in this case... avoiding the football shaped core...

 

PP logic only, based on magneto ops explained on the internet...  know what i’m Seeing?

Best regards,

-a-

Your theory on ignition delay is interesting. There may be something to that. The environment in which a spark plug must fire is challenging. Whenever the mags are timed on my plane they are timed carefully to ensure 25 BTDC. We never complied with the 20BTDC SB because our engine ran perfectly cool with the original timing. Lycoming actually claimed “improved" performance, which is a load of wishful thinking.  Traditional Aircraft mags do not have a second “out of phase” ignition event (wasted spark system) but some of the electronic designs do. Electroair mags are a wasted spark design. Apparently there’s very little electrode wear when the plug fires on the exhaust stroke because there’s little pressure in the cylinder.

Edited by Shadrach
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

Ross, do you have this type of calculation for a turbo Conti? Specifically the TSIO360? I'd be very interested.

I believe those numbers were derived with Continentals in mind. Again the math is fuzzygiven other factors but it’s the best we have.

for your 7.5 to 1 TSIO360 you’d us 13.73 as a multiple.  In the interest of science, next time you’re running LOP, note your calculated power setting then try the same power setting ROP per the book and see what the speed differential is. That at least give you an idea. That is if you trust the book calculations. There’s a LOP ROP spreadsheet in the download section. That’s where I got the data that I posted.

Edited by Shadrach
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Ross, do you have this type of calculation for a turbo Conti? Specifically the TSIO360? I'd be very interested.

The calculation of %power based on fuel flow is based on the observation that BSFC (lb/hr/hp) is relatively constant for all internal combustion engines over the range of ~20 to 50F LOP. You can get very accurate if you know the LOP BSFC for your engine. The factors based on compression ratio are just approximations based on typical BSFC for a range of engines and the fact that lower compression engines are slightly less efficient and therefore have higher BSFC. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, carusoam said:

I wonder if the electronic ignitions will avoid the second spark that occurs 180° out of phase with the engine... this would cut some wear in half...

That may be, but doesn't the ElectroAir system actually fire the spark plug twice per cycle?  I think they fire again at the end of the exhaust cycle (which does nothing).  I'm not sure why they did it that way

Edit: oops, I missed @Shadrach's post above

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


*Note, FF Multiplier is based on                                    
1.1604 * Comp. Ratio + 5.030                                    
                                    
*Note Note, This formula is a best fit line calculation based on known values of:                                    
Comp Ratio    FF Multiplier                                
8.5    14.9                                
7.5    13.7                                
7.3    13.53                      

 Courtesy EGTrends Inc. 2004        
  www.EGTrends.com        
                                    
                                    
BSFC = Fuel Flow (PPH) ÷ Horsepower                                    
                                    
or    BSFC = 5.92 x Fuel Flow (GPH) ÷ Horsepower (the 5.92 just converts PPH to GPH,

                                                note: standard tempurature 100LL weights 6.02#/gal)                                    
                                    
so to get HP from the formula you have HP = 5.92 x Fuel Flow / BSFC                                    
                                    
the BSFC will change with engine design. Normally aspirated engines typically have lower BSFC then the turbocharged engines mainly due to the increased safety margins for detonation on TC'd engines.                                     
                                    
The Lycoming IO360 has an 8.7:1 compression ratio and the BSFC is around .39                                    
                                    
If you divide 5.92/.39 you get 15.17 or the 15.13 multiplier x FF ( the slight difference is from rounding error or approximation from the best fit formula)                                    
                                    
A lower compression engine will have a slightly higher BSFC thus the multiplier will be lower. Typically a 7.5:1 CR  engine uses 13.73 multiplier of a BSFC of around .43 and so forth.                                    
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may be trying to get overly precise about something that's just an approximation anyway. When you get past the first decimal point, lots of things have an effect. Look at the Lycoming chart below for an IO360-A and notice that the 65% best economy BSFC varies from about 0.44 at 2700 rpm to 0.40 at 2200 rpm.

1923177848_IO360FF.thumb.jpg.c74fe8f5b12517414a690ffcad455f16.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

So how does the 25° to 20° timing change effect the math?


Tom

The fun part of LOP calculations...

We get to assume that all the fuel gets used to produce power... and none is used for specifically for its thermodynamic cooling effect...

Yes there is still cooling going on as all the fuel evaporates.... and that is included in the calculation... just ROP has more challenges because of the % of fuel used for power is more complex....

 

In real life ... there are three phases of the fuel burn...

  • the initiation (related to spark and fuel mixture)
  • full maturity of the burn (gas, oxygen, and heat energy are all available)
  • final phase (available fuel molecules are spaced far away from each other)

 

As far as timing goes, it is a race...

  • get the fuel into the cylinder.
  • get the flame started as early as possible, but not too early.
  • get the flame finished before the exhaust valve opens.

 

Putting it into seconds...

  • The four stroke engine has 2 X 360...or 720° Of timing of interest
  • For this case, we are speeding along @2500 rpm
  • Which is 45 revs per second... or...
  • 0.022 seconds to accomplish each revolution...
  • Breaking the 360° of timing into seconds...  each degree takes .022/360 or 6.11 X 10-5 seconds...
  • 20° BTDC @2700rpm gives about 0.012 seconds before reaching TDC.
  • 25° BTDC @2700rpm gives about 0.015 seconds before reaching TDC.

 

Defining too fast...  

We want to avoid having the fuel burn proceed too quickly... if pressure builds too quickly the compression stroke gets interrupted...

 

Defining to slow....

We want to have the fuel burn and the related expansion (mostly) completed before the exhaust valve opens...

 

Defining optimum...

It would be great if the fuel could be selected to burn faster, more completely, and other things to produce the most torque... as the crank shaft has some optimum points of torque.... related to its mechanical geometry....

 

Back to Tom’s question... how does .003 more or less seconds change the math...?

By moving the start of the ignition sequence... we have the ability to complete more of the burn cycle...

Our limit to moving the timing is the possibility of inducing pre-ignition accidentally...  a small piece of glowing ash, left on a piston dome somewhere can become a real headache...

 

Some proof to how this all works... ever see an engine run with just short exhaust stacks..?  Did you see flames shooting out the pipes with each exhaust stroke?

When flames are leaving the pipes... they are not completing the burn cycle inside the cylinder... a sign that some energy is not being released in a useable location...

 

Room for improvement... automobiles have demonstrated the ability to really move the ignition curve under light power...

 

Not too much to get... Airplanes don’t spend a lot of time under light power...

 

It will be interesting to see how much benefit comes to light for a Mooney running 65%bhp.

 

+1 for Bob targeting 20mpg... My M20C would see a bit less with minimal instrumentation onboard...

 

 

Check my PP math... there must be errors everywhere in here.

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, carusoam said:

The fun part of LOP calculations...

We get to assume that all the fuel gets used to produce power... and none is used for specifically for its thermodynamic cooling effect...

Yes there is still cooling going on as all the fuel evaporates.... and that is included in the calculation... just ROP has more challenges because of the % of fuel used for power is more complex....

 

In real life ... there are three phases of the fuel burn...

  • the initiation (related to spark and fuel mixture)
  • full maturity of the burn (gas, oxygen, and heat energy are all available)
  • final phase (available fuel molecules are spaced far away from each other)

 

As far as timing goes, it is a race...

  • get the fuel into the cylinder.
  • get the flame started as early as possible, but not too early.
  • get the flame finished before the exhaust valve opens.

 

Putting it into seconds...

  • The four stroke engine has 2 X 360...or 720° Of timing of interest
  • For this case, we are speeding along @2500 rpm
  • Which is 45 revs per second... or...
  • 0.022 seconds to accomplish each revolution...
  • Breaking the 360° of timing into seconds...  each degree takes .022/360 or 6.11 X 10-5 seconds...
  • 20° BTDC @2700rpm gives about 0.012 seconds before reaching TDC.
  • 25° BTDC @2700rpm gives about 0.015 seconds before reaching TDC.

 

Defining too fast...  

We want to avoid having the fuel burn proceed too quickly... if pressure builds too quickly the compression stroke gets interrupted...

 

Defining to slow....

We want to have the fuel burn and the related expansion (mostly) completed before the exhaust valve opens...

 

Defining optimum...

It would be great if the fuel could be selected to burn faster, more completely, and other things to produce the most torque... as the crank shaft has some optimum points of torque.... related to its mechanical geometry....

 

Back to Tom’s question... how does .003 more or less seconds change the math...?

By moving the start of the ignition sequence... we have the ability to complete more of the burn cycle...

Our limit to moving the timing is the possibility of inducing pre-ignition accidentally...  a small piece of glowing ash, left on a piston dome somewhere can become a real headache...

 

Some proof to how this all works... ever see an engine run with just short exhaust stacks..?  Did you see flames shooting out the pipes with each exhaust stroke?

When flames are leaving the pipes... they are not completing the burn cycle inside the cylinder... a sign that some energy is not being released in a useable location...

 

Room for improvement... automobiles have demonstrated the ability to really move the ignition curve under light power...

 

Not too much to get... Airplanes don’t spend a lot of time under light power...

 

It will be interesting to see how much benefit comes to light for a Mooney running 65%bhp.

 

+1 for Bob targeting 20mpg... My M20C would see a bit less with minimal instrumentation onboard...

 

 

Check my PP math... there must be errors everywhere in here.

Best regards,

-a-

  The thermodynamic cooling affect you speak of has no effect on engine temps. It does however affect EGT which is why the peak EGT doesn’t correspond to peek CHT.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussions and insights in this thread have gone in a somewhat different direction than I anticipated when starting it. But many of you have provided direct responses to my original questions, and the rest of the discussion has been valuable and insightful. So thanks to everyone that has participated. I for one have learned more than I anticipated.
Hank


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, FLYFST said:

The discussions and insights in this thread have gone in a somewhat different direction than I anticipated when starting it. But many of you have provided direct responses to my original questions, and the rest of the discussion has been valuable and insightful. So thanks to everyone that has participated. I for one have learned more than I anticipated.
Hank

Hmmm. It did wander a bit.

So, Hank, what did you decide?: finewires or massives (or maybe BY massives)? Don’t keep us in suspense;)

Skip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. It did wander a bit.
So, Hank, what did you decide?: finewires or massives (or maybe BY massives)? Don’t keep us in suspense
Skip

Well, I don’t trust the hype but will try a set of finewires, with a couple of LOP and ROP cruise test flights before and after the switch. If I see good enough improvement in performance, particularly LOP, then I will keep them. Otherwise I will go back to the massive and sell the finewires at a discount on eBay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, FLYFST said:

Well, I don’t trust the hype but will try a set of finewires, with a couple of LOP and ROP cruise test flights before and after the switch. If I see good enough improvement in performance, particularly LOP, then I will keep them. Otherwise I will go back to the massive and sell the finewires at a discount on eBay.

Sounds like a solid plan. Be sure to share the results. I’m curious myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
On 4/14/2019 at 8:05 PM, FLYFST said:


Well, I don’t trust the hype but will try a set of finewires, with a couple of LOP and ROP cruise test flights before and after the switch. If I see good enough improvement in performance, particularly LOP, then I will keep them. Otherwise I will go back to the massive and sell the finewires at a discount on eBay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey Hank, I found this thread on a search.  Did you post your results someplace here?  I had the same question about FW vs M plugs and LOP performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nationwide,

I replaced my Champion Massive Plugs, which had been running fine but were getting a little worn, with the TEMPEST Fine wires. Overall I have seen an improvement in that I can operate further into LOP before getting a small but noticeable engine vibration.  There are many variables to consider, such at altitude, initial power setting, and RPM/MAP combination, but overall I can operate around 20 degrees further into LOP (with richest cylinder #4 at ~10 LOP) with the fine wire plugs when compared with the massive plugs. The difference is not great but noticeable when LOP.  So in answer to my original post question, the fine wire plugs are good, but for me not worth the extra expense if I was considering switching now.  However, I'm keeping the fine wires and will continue to monitor their performance AND longevity as that is a better measure of the projected better value over the massive plugs.

Ready to answer any questions you may have - Hank

Edited by FLYFST
correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2019 at 8:14 AM, gsxrpilot said:

Ross, do you have this type of calculation for a turbo Conti? Specifically the TSIO360? I'd be very interested.

13.7 for the TSIO360. If you want to use the fourth digit that Ross provided (13.73) go for it. An interesting thing is that, once on the LOP side, HP produced supposedly depends solely on FF and not on MP. I am not sure about that in the real world. I do take advantage of it, I generally fly at 34”, which has the effect of producing a leaner mix than a more standard MP that people are used to from the ROP fuel tables provided with the aircraft (i.e. 29, 30, 31”). But from my own experimentation the higher MP setting, say 34” rather than 31 or 32, produces a little more airspeed with the same fuel flow (while LOP), so I am thinking there is more HP.  In the 231 it is a little hard to tell since the MP and FF are interlinked and moving one changes the other, but that is my perception.  The assumption that HP is a function entirely of FF on the LOP side does not appear to be perfect.  It works for me though. I have several hundred hours now, flying that way, and on an old engine, the engine is very healthy other than its age, an infirmity that I share with it.

Edited by jlunseth
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fine wire’s help. In my view the things to look at/change (apart from induction configuration, which we can’t change), are:

1. Install engine monitor

2. Lean test and install GAMI’s ( I had them when I bought)

3. Rebuild mags and keep them maintained.

4. Replace spark plug wires and keep them maintained.

5. Fine wires

If you have been running well LOP and are having a problem, the first thing to check is the quality of the spark, i.e. the mags, the wires and connections, and the plugs.  They make a big difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real life vs. theory...

When LOP, FF is directly related to %bhp... simplification, because there is no excess fuel being used for cylinder head cooling...  so instead of having excess FF for cooling, we get excess air for cooling... cooling is good. Using excess fuel for cooling is bad. Well... expensive... :)

 

In JL’s bird, he gets the awesome opportunity to increase the MP and leave the FF steady... something an NA bird cannot do... balancing this is a challenge because exhaust pressure is involved and that pressure is affected by all the other variables...

 

With LOP, The assumption being made, is that 100% of the fuel is being used to produce power (sort of).

Why sort of... because we are measuring a certain amount of fuel to overcome inefficiencies of heat generation, friction, and other losses... expect some loss of fuel that escapes past the exhaust valve unburned....

Now...

  • if your spark plugs are less efficient about burning things...
  • or your spark timing is later so more fuel escapes past the exhaust valve...

The big deal with LOP is the amount of fuel being burned is all directly related to moving fowards, as efficiently as practical...

Compared to ROP, all the same inefficiencies are quite similar... except for the chunk of excess FF directly related to CHT cooling...

With a TC’d bird... we can take this to more of an extreme... compressing excess air to improve LOP cooling comes at a cost... compressing excess air is definitely not free...

Going Deep LOP is a fun experiment... it demonstrates how well balanced the fuel/air mixture is balanced and burning in each of the cylinders...

Deep LOP in a NA bird also compresses a lot of air... if the extra cooling isn’t required for CHT control... this is too much of a good thing...

 

So...

We have so many tools today to improve efficiency, in many steps...

1) TC’d birds use an optimized compression ratio to improve fuel efficiency... (a thermodynamics discussion goes with that)

2) Fuel injected birds use the FIs to better distribute fuel evenly...

3) Better spark plugs start the ignition cycle cleaner than less efficient ones... (somebody gave an indication above)

4) Increased ignition timing works in a similar way, get the ignition cycle started earlier to convert a higher percentage of fuel to energy.  Essentially get more of the burn completed before the exhaust valve opens...

5) electronic ignition with stronger sparks and advanced timing can add to the improvements in efficiency... especially in the long cruise phase...

6) pay extra for tighter consistency, so we can then safely afford things like timing adjustments...

7) All that consistency allows us to not have things like pre-ignition...

8) Always have an engine monitor to make sure everything is still working with the consistency that is expected...

9) Done well, we can prolong the need for new cylinders...and / or run past TBO...

 

Alternatively...

During ROP... %bhp is directly related to AF... Air flow.

There is no magic with the FF being directly related to FF for LOP...

The magic is... FF is really easy to measure across several different engines... in different planes...

Where the magic is sort of missing... we don’t have a convenient method of measuring AF... we have MP and through math and engineering skills we derive AF in our engines, specific to how we are using them....  this leaves us with a look-up chart and /or key numbers... not nearly as straight forward....

The automotive world uses a MAF sensor... it works like magic... measuring the mass air flow...

After all that... push all the knobs forwards and enjoy the flight... :)

Flying in flaming dragon mode is pretty cool too.

PP thoughts only, not a CFI or mechanic...

Let me know what I missed or if I can clear anything up...

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2020 at 6:34 AM, FLYFST said:

Nationwide,

I replaced my Champion Massive Plugs, which had been running fine but were getting a little worn, with the TEMPEST Fine wires. Overall I have seen an improvement in that I can operate further into LOP before getting a small but noticeable engine vibration.  There are many variables to consider, such at altitude, initial power setting, and RPM/MAP combination, but overall I can operate around 20 degrees further into LOP (with richest cylinder #4 at ~10 LOP) with the fine wire plugs when compared with the massive plugs. The difference is not great but noticeable when LOP.  So in answer to my original post question, the fine wire plugs are good, but for me not worth the extra expense if I was considering switching now.  However, I'm keeping the fine wires and will continue to monitor their performance AND longevity as that is a better measure of the projected better value over the massive plugs.

Ready to answer any questions you may have - Hank

Thank you for the insight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/11/2019 at 10:01 PM, Shadrach said:

Color me skeptical. Smooth running at lean efficiency ratios is a product of even fuel/air distribution. This ensures that each individual cylinder is more or less contributing the same power pulse in terms of force and duration. Regardless of plug type, all of these engines run twin spark ignition. Why would fine wire have the effect of normalizing F/A ratios?  I don’t buy it. Fine wires may allow for the consistent ignition of leaner mixture settings, but who care? As an example,  I run tempest massives and can run far leaner then I would want or need.  I can smoothly run 90ish LOP depending on altitude more than 100LOP down low. Perhaps with fine wires it would run to 120LOP but why would I want to do that? Maybe there’s a benefit in a turbo engine where 80 or 90LOP is a useable setting. For NA engines, I think it’s a lot of hype. I’ve asked for massive vs fine wire data but I’ve never seen it produced.

Read the fine wire reports from RAM Aircraft. Documented fuel savings and performance increase with fine wire plugs because they enable deeper LOP ops. Fine wire plug electrodes are far more open than massive plugs. That's the difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2020 at 6:29 PM, philiplane said:

Read the fine wire reports from RAM Aircraft. Documented fuel savings and performance increase with fine wire plugs because they enable deeper LOP ops. Fine wire plug electrodes are far more open than massive plugs. That's the difference. 

What do deeper LOP ops have to do with fuel savings? Either the engine will run smoothly in the best BSFC range or it won’t. Most well maintained, stock 4 cyl Lycomingd will run well lean of any practical mixture setting. Perhaps there’s good reason to run a low compression turbo engine at high MP and 80 to 100 LOP. There is no reason to do that with any N/A aircraft engine. The Ram data I read used a setting of 100ROP. The test was done on multiple flights. There 2.4% savings could be caused by any number of variables. It would  convincing if done on a dyno under controlled and repeatable circumstances. Or perhaps flight testing a twin with massives on one engine and FWs on the other. Show me a 2.4% reduction on one engine with the ball centered and your feet flat on the floor and I’ll be less skeptical.

Link to comment
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.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.