Jump to content

If you're one of the gradually reducing number of folks that aren't currently receiving notifications to topics you've subscribed to, or PMs you're receiving, first check you've got the correct address in your profile, then drop in and post your experience in this thread, remembering to tell us your email provider's details, which is the part after the @ in your email address.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Pete57

Project Extraversion Lockheed YP-80A

Recommended Posts

The release by Sword of the Lockheed P-80A/B – SW72041 – gives me the opportunity to reproduce my favorite subject, the YP-80A, the only US jet fighter to see operational service, albeit a very brief one, during WWII.

I have researched this subject for 30 years, so I would like to take the opportunity to share some information which, in my intentions, may be useful to those who will decide to model this specific subject.

Historical info.

The code word "Extraversion" was assigned to the Project, on November 13, 1944, pursuant to verbal request by Col. George E. Price (head of the project), by The War Department, Headquarter of the Army Air Forces, Washington D.C. The original letter, signed by R.C. Wilson, Colonel AC, Chief, Aircraft Projects Br., Materiel Division, AC/AS, Materiel & Services, where the aircraft are indicated as "...special XP-80A project for ETO and MTO."

The four aircraft, earmarked for this Project - actually all YP-80A’s - were.

S/N 44-83026, c/n 1005 (ETO)

S/N 44-83027, c/n 1006 (ETO)

S/N 44-83028, c/n 1007 (MTO)

S/N 44-83029, c/n 1008 (MTO)

There is strong evidence this project received the highest priority from ‘the powers that be’, so much so that, in some cases, the lack of spares/items had to be made good by cannibalization performed on some of the aircraft used in the development program which was severely delayed because of this.

The ETO aircraft were disassembled, boxed and shipped as deck cargo to Burtonwood, England, on Dec. 15, 1944, arriving in the U.K on December 30. It took a whole month, to reassemble and get the two aircraft ready, the extremely cold weather being apparently a major factor.

The two pilots, Col. Marcus Cooper and Major Fredrick Austin Borsodi, of the Air Technical Service Command HQ, based at Wright Field, arrived sometimes in January 1945, and Col. Cooper took 44-86026 on the type's first flight outside the U.S. Maj. Borsodi was at the controls of the same aircraft, on Jan.28, when a failure in tension of the tail-pipe flange caused part of the hot gasses to exhaust inside the rear section of the fuselage, with varying degree of damage to the tail surfaces and rear empennage disintegration. Borsodi lost control of the aircraft which crashed on farmland, near Bold. Borsodi was killed.

44-83027 was loaned to The Rolls Royce Engine Company, for flight tests of their B.41 (Nene) engine and was destroyed in an accident on Nov. 14, 1945.

For details, please go to

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/YP-80A%20%2044-83026.htm

Although the MTO aircraft performed far better, at least from the operational point of view, much less is known as of their operational service. The two Individual Aircraft History Cards and their contents can be best described as ‘skimpy and vague.’

44-83028 is shown as departing the Con-U.S. on Dec. 26, 1944 for overseas destination code DUKO, MET (Italy, 12th A.F.). It is then listed as being back to the Con-U.S. (an Air Materiel Command in Buffalo, NY) on June 16, 1945.

44-83029 is shown as departing the Con-U.S. for an unreported overseas destination on Dec. 26, 1944, returning from same on Jun. 16, 1945.

Some considerations: although the MTO aircraft were shipped 11 days after the MTO aircraft were, the far less inclement weather of Southern Italy makes it not unlikely the MTO aircraft were first flown around the same time their ETO counterparts first flew.

Another rumor has it that they were shipped to the relatively safer MTO to intercept the Arado Ar.234’s, that were flying recon missions from Udine, in Northern Italy.

However, considering there are no records of German jets operating from, or over Italy, before February 1945, this is highly doubtful!

According to An Escort of P-38s, The 1st Fighter Group in World War II, by John D. Mullins, the aircraft were '...brought over in early April by a Wright Field contingent, "for testing under combat conditions in a remote location" ' and were quickly dubbed the "33rd Air Force". ...'

One of the 1st FG pilots, Major Ed LaClare, logged two flights on the YP-80A.

These MTO aircraft were delivered to an operational unit, mere weeks after the German jets made their appearance…only a coincidence?

Later in 1945, the aircraft were shipped back to the States, and a picture of 44-83029 / B can be found on page 52 of Lockheed P-80 / F-80 SHOOTING STAR, A PHOTO CHRONICLE, BY David R. McLaren, although the aircraft is incorrectly captioned as being P-80A-1-LO S/N 44-85123, flown by Major Russ Schleeh.

I inquired with the author, who in turn, contacted Mr. Bob Esposito (a P/F-80 expert) who confirmed the aircraft as being 44-83029, forced down on a cornfield by Steve Pisanos of Wright Field’s Flight Test Division, in July 1945.

Scleeh flew the aircraft out, after it was towed to a nearby highway, 13 days after the forced landing.

The two aircraft were later involved in a drone-control program with 44-83029 meeting its final demise on August 2, 1945, when it broke apart over Kentucky, enroute to Muroc, taking the life of Major Ira Jones.

The following pictures show the aircraft involved in the MTO portion of Project Extraversion.

a22994.jpg

The best known picture, from the Natl. Archives, showing the two aircraft flying formation near Mt. Vesuvius, over or near Naples

The following set of pictures, also from the Natl. Archives, show the two aircraft being shown to Gen, J.T.McNarney, Supreme Allied Commander MTO by Lt.Col. J.H.Carter of Wright Field’s Test Center, and possibly one of the pilots, at a large AAF airbase, possibly Foggia.

a22949.jpg

The two aircraft, on the ground, taken from a B-25.

a43810.jpg

yp80a07.jpg

Gen, J.T.McNarney and Lt.Col. J.H.Carter inspecting on of the YP-80As.

a22947.jpg

One of the pilots or groundcrew on the wing of one of the aircraft. Note the lack of ‘splitter plates’ inside the air intakes and the presence of speed-brakes: some sources claim they were not fitted on the YP-80A’s but this picture clearly proves otherwise.

a23435.jpg

Groundcrew on the wing. The aircraft were flown by military personnel and maintained by civilians, most likely from Lockheed.

a23631.jpg

Ground support equipment surrounding the aircraft. Notice the fire truck getting ready for the aircraft to 'fire up the blowtorch'

yp80a4483028copyrightedya3.jpg

44-83028 upon its arrival at the 1st FG's airfield at Lake Lesina (Bob Share)

The following set, by Jim Bertoglio, shows the two aircraft in their ‘operational livery’

yp80a4483028acopyrighteka4.jpg

yp80atailchevronscopyrinq9.jpg

yp80atailviewcopyrightemu8.jpg

Modeling the P-80A-1 and the Project Extraversion YP-80A.

p80differences.png

The image hereabove is a composite taken from the flight manuals of the P-80A-1 and the later F-80B/C for comparison. Contrary to what has recently been stated is some modeling forums, the cockpit of the F-80B/C (with ejection seat) doesn’t appear to have been stretched (then again, perhaps it is only my impression), but rather the shape of the canopy to have been modified in order for the pilot’s legs to clear the canopy’s frame in the event of an ejection.

Those wishing to build a YP-80A will also have to omit the installation of the boundary-layer splitter-plates inside the air-intakes (parts 14 and 15) and fill in the boundary-layer louvers on top and bottom of each air-intake.

Colors and markings.

Starting with the XP-80A’s, the US early jets were given an extra-smooth, light grey finish called Pearl Grey.

Whenever available, I use the original Erection and Maintenance manual as painting reference for a specific US aircraft. Unfortunately, although this specific manual was available, the pages dealing with the finish specifications were the March 10, 1948 revision, i.e. when the Pearl Grey finish had already been done away with.

Fortunately, the fact that the vertical stabilizer tip had always been made with plastic came to my rescue, as the manual specifies that this, specific part was to be painted in the original finish “…two coats of light grey gloss lacquer, color No. 512 of ANA Bulletin 166, Specification AN-L-29. …”

The FS595’s equivalent to ANA 512, Aircraft Grey, is 16473 ADC Grey.

This color was polished to a high gloss finish. However, the labor it required later caused a switch to Natural Metal as it was felt that the gain in performance it afforded was more than offset by the extra maintenance it required. The kit quotes FS16492 but this is not correct.

Walkways were black and made of some spray material called P-010 Vulcabond. They were to be sprayed over the zinc chromate primer to such a thickness as to keep it “…flush and on a level with adjacent finish lacquer. …”.

All the P/E aircraft arrived in Europe painted ANA 512 overall with the usual serial number on the vertical stabilizer. The only picture I have been able to find of the aircraft sent to England, i.e. 44-83027, at Rolls Royce, shows the aircraft in its original livery and devoid of any special markings.

The MTO aircraft were similarly painted until their delivery to the 1st FG.

The details of this 'operational' livery are more or less educated guesswork, done by comparison with known shades, e.g. the color of the national insignia.

The tail chevrons appeared to be white and red and likewise red appear to be both the tip of the nose and the two slanted stripes on the wing.

The slanted stripe on the fuselage appear to be very dark, e.g. a very dark blue or green, although Black is also a possibility, being red, white and black the colors of the three Squadrons that made up the 1st FG.

As the tail chevrons covered the serial number, each aircraft received a black letter, on the nose, for identification purposes, 44-83028 becoming ‘A’ and 44-83029 becoming ‘B’.

This livery was maintained after the aircraft’s return to the US and re-assignment to Wright-Field, as evidenced by the already mentioned picture on page 52 of Lockheed P-80 / F-80 SHOOTING STAR, A PHOTO CHRONICLE.

As a curiosity, at least one other P-80A-1 flew at the 1946 Bendix Trophy in a similar livery, flown by Gus Lindquist and winning the Trophy and I’ve always wondered if it is a mere coincidence or if indeed these are the colors of Wright Field’s Test Division...

majguslundquist78263a98.jpg

Interior colors, in accordance with the March 10, 1948 revision of the E&MM

The cockpit’s general color is “tinted zinc chromate”, including the headrest and the armor plate, with black instrument panel and black surfaces of the side control panels which are “visible within the cockpit”.

The control stick is likewise “tinted zinc chromate” with a dull black “handle”.

The cockpit’s floor, although made of wood, received “two coats of wood sealer” followed by “two coats of tinted zinc chromate primer”.

The seat was also to be painted tinted zinc chromate primer except for the “adjustment surfaces” which were to be “wear-resistant hard chrome plate”.

“Canopy reinforcements, supports and windshield structure” as well as rudder-pedals were painted dull black.

“Wheel well areas” received two coats of zinc chromate primer (un-tinted) and two coats of aluminized lacquer.

Researchers have determined that the shade of the “tinted zinc chromate” used by Lockheed was reasonably close to the ANA Bulletin 166 Color No. 611, although it was not until the May 19, 1948 revision of the E&MM that compliance to this, specific shade was mandated. I therefore believe that the use of any of the ANA 611 hobby paints shouldn’t be too far off.

The color picture herebelow shows the general color of the cockpit of the P-80A-1-LO

p801stfg71st94thfighter.jpg

The picture herebelow shows how the P-80A-1’s inside of the l/g doors, and the l/g struts are aluminum (aluminized lacquer, not natural metal).

p801stfg71st94thfighter.jpg

At least one of the YP-80As had the l/g doors inside painted aluminized lacquer as evidenced by the metallic sheen in one of the b&w pictures hereabove. However, one needs to remember that some of the YP’s were built around the time when the USAAF returned to aluminum powder or paste in paint formulas, after the predicted shortage of aluminum that had previously led to the elimination of this component never materialized. It is therefore possible that some of the early YP’s had the l/g bays and/or the inside of the l/g doors painted otherwise, e.g. tinted or raw zinc chromate primer.

I have not been able to find pictures that clearly show the inside of the airbrakes and/or their bays. These, specific items are not covered in the ‘Finish’ section of the E&MM. Possible colors are tinted or un-tinted zinc chromate primer or aluminized lacquer.

Lacking solid evidence, one can always fit them in the ‘up’ position, thus avoiding the problem.

One last, overlooked detail: the barrel of the left, middle machine-gun does not protrude as does the right one, possibly because of a ‘staggered’ installation.

Although far from being the definitive guide to modeling the Project Extraversion Lockheed YP-80As, I hope this 'jumbo-sized' topic will be of some help to those who will decide to ‘try their luck’ at this specific subject.

Happy modeling

Pete57

Edited by Pete57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Pete for the information! I've always been interested in the use of the P-80 in WWII. I'll probably get that Sword kit and use your information to make an accurate (as much as possible) WWII Shooting Star.

Regards,

Learstang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pete

thanks for posting this. I did some research myself regadring the XP-80 and the YP-80.

Regarding modelling, the YP-80 and P-80A have the front of the cockpit further back than the F-80C, as the P-80 did not have an ejector seat. IIRC the difference is abpout 9 inches. The easiest was way was to move the windcreen and IP forward.

regarding colours, Also, there are some pics on wiki. Of particular note is this one, showing the pearl grey finish, and also the brown tinted main canopy.

look at the wing behind the canopy and windscreen to see what i mean, the difference is quite obvious.

This was a feature of the XP-80 as well. the P-80 pics above do not seem to have this feature, so maybe it was only early planes.

777px-P80-1_300.jpg

Finally , John and Jason...early jets AND the VVS! nice to see you here as well.

Cheers

T

Edited by Troy Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting information there, thanks for posting !

I've always been attracted by the P-80s based in Italy at the end of the war, now I know how they looked like !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

l wonder how they would have faired against the Me 262? or even some of the other planes Germany might have gotten off the ground?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally , John and Jason...early jets AND the VVS! nice to see you here as well.

Cheers

T

Cool avatar, droogie (and it's especially appropriate since it's from the Russian word for friend - droog)!

Regards,

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding modelling, the YP-80 and P-80A have the front of the cockpit further back than the F-80C, as the P-80 did not have an ejector seat. IIRC the difference is abpout 9 inches. The easiest was way was to move the windcreen and IP forward.

Hi Troy,

I followed the whole discussion (on Hyperscale IIRC). I remember someone pointing out how the canopy's break-line is differently located when compared to the air intake and how the whole cockpit had to be enlarged accordingly.

However, if you look at the two sideviews I've posted, well, that just doesn't appear to be the case!

The only item that strikes as being definitely different is the shape of the canopy, i.e. the F-80B/C's canopy is more raked and indeed extends further forward and the canopy's frame is slanted (it's almost straight on the P-80A) in order to provide a clearance for the pilot's legs in the event of an ejection.

Notice also how the placement of items such as the control stick, the rudder pedals the front edge of the seat, in comparison to other items like the nose-wheel and the forward edge of the fuel tank appears to be un-changed.

The only modification I see, is the replacement of the whole canopy with a new one having a more raked front part and more slanted frames.

On the other hand, just by looking at the pictures of F-80B's and C's found on the web or different publications, I get a feeling this could well have been a retrofit, i.e. not all the aircarft sport it.

regarding colours, Also, there are some pics on wiki. Of particular note is this one, showing the pearl grey finish, and also the brown tinted main canopy.

look at the wing behind the canopy and windscreen to see what i mean, the difference is quite obvious.

This was a feature of the XP-80 as well. the P-80 pics above do not seem to have this feature, so maybe it was only early planes.

I've seen the tinted canopy (always the rear, moving portion only) , used on the XP-80, the two XP-80A's and always on "pristine" examples the YP-80A/P-80A-1's. By "pristine" I mean early in their service life or used for experimental purposes only, so - I'm only guessing here - it may have to do with the little added value it afforded when compared to the extra maintenance it required, just like the original Pearl Grey finish.

Regards,

Pete57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done some work on this with respect to the Navy P-80A used for carrier trials. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/11...ier-trials.html It appears to me that there were several different canopies. The first was the P-80A. The second was the original P-80B, with the aft edge of the windscreen angled more forward as stated to provide clearance for the pilot's knees and toes in an ejection. However, this may have been inadequate: there is a personal reminiscence on the web by a P-80 mechanic stating that the P-80Bs he worked on did not have ejection seats. With the P-80C and probably as a retrofit to the P-80B, the windscreen was moved forward and the sliding portion canopy lengthened accordingly, so that it still ended at the same fuselage station as the original canopy. (Otherwise, a change in the canopy actuation mechanism would have been required.) Subsequently, the aft end of the canopy was changed to end in a "tail" rather than a sharp point, but I don't think that the canopy was lengthened to do so. As a result, I think that a P-80A canopy can be created from the later P-80C canopy by simply cutting off the tail and reshaping the aft end to a point. It then has to be relocated aft by about the nine inches stated.

However, all this was determined from photographs and the Lockheed inboard profiles (note that no P-80 picture that I've seen shows a windshield at the slant depicted on the B/C ones). Unfortunately, I don't have any Lockheed drawings of the fuselage other than those. Even more caution than usual is therefore recommended.

I don't yet know if the location of the instrument panel and flight controls changed when the windscreen was moved forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to briefly resurrect this thread as some water-color paintings, by John W.Burgess, of the San Diego Air & Space Museum archives on Flickr, have provide some details on the colors the two MTO YP-80A's.

The tail chevrons were red and white and the nose letters were blue (not black) on both aircarft.

But whereas on aircraft 44-84028 'A', the nose-tip, fuselage slanted stripe and wing stripes (which were painted also on the wings' lower surfaces) were red, on aircraft 44-84029 'B' these details were blue.

The boarding-ladder, typical of the early YP-80A's P-80A-1's was probably painted red as well.

As to the shades of the red and blue, well the blue doesn't seem too far off the shade of the star 'n' bar in the b/w photos, so I'm guessing it was insignia blue, while the red...why not?...insignia red, and the same color may have been used for the boarding ladder as it doesn't seem too far off the color of the stripes and red chevrons on a/c 028 - my 2-cents only, though ;)!

Happy modeling!

Edited by Pete57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I built the Sword kit of the F80A over last Christmas.

My biggest peice of advice is to be very careful and do plenty of dry fitting when trying to close the fuselage. The large resin undercarriage bay interferes with the air intakes and needs lots adjustment with a file and sanding before it can be closed up.

Once this is done the rest is a breeze.

Cheers

Steve H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting data, thanks.

Just one minor point on colour FWIW - FS 16473 was the successor to ANA 512 but not the equivalent in terms of colour value.

16473 from FS 595a is Munsell 8.8 BG 6.9/0.6 whereas ANA 512 is Munsell 2.4 B 6.6/0.8 - slightly cooler and greyer. The difference is visible to the eye - about a delta e of 6.8, so beyond an acceptable production and degradation variance of up to 5.0. The closest FS 595B to ANA 512 in hue is actually 36293 but it is too dark. These differences were determined by examination of the actual paint plates in the Army-Navy Aircraft Camouflage Standard Colours set 53 of June 1943 by Munsell themselves.

16492 is even further away from ANA 512 with a delta e of about 12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very interesting data, thanks.

Just one minor point on colour FWIW - FS 16473 was the successor to ANA 512 but not the equivalent in terms of colour value.

16473 from FS 595a is Munsell 8.8 BG 6.9/0.6 whereas ANA 512 is Munsell 2.4 B 6.6/0.8 - slightly cooler and greyer. The difference is visible to the eye - about a delta e of 6.8, so beyond an acceptable production and degradation variance of up to 5.0. The closest FS 595B to ANA 512 in hue is actually 36293 but it is too dark. These differences were determined by examination of the actual paint plates in the Army-Navy Aircraft Camouflage Standard Colours set 53 of June 1943 by Munsell themselves.

16492 is even further away from ANA 512 with a delta e of about 12.

Nick, do you have any hints as to what might be a suitable out of the tin/bottle colour call for ANA512? I've one of these Sword kits on the way at present & it would be good to have an idea for an appropriate shade. It strikes me that such a pale shade as the available photos show is an easy one to get wrong, as just a bit becomes a lot for this kind of shade. :unsure:

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve

The tricky part is in replicating the subtle cool blueishness of 512. Visually FS 36373 and RAL 7040 Fenstergrau (Window grey) give quite a good impression but both slightly lack the blueish caste. I can't speak for Testors but in hue the colour is somewhat between Humbrol 165 Matt Medium Sea Grey and 128 Satin US Compass Grey but lighter and brighter than both. It is not as light as 127 Satin US Ghost Grey however which also loses a little blueishness. But allowing for scale and degradation 127 might do or you could try lightening 128.

The greenishness in 36473 is often perceived as blueishness (!) until you compare it directly (and preferably under north sky daylight illumination) to the others, whereupon its greenishness becomes apparent. No surprise as it contains both yellow iron oxide and blue shade phthalocyanine green pigments.

Regards

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done some work on this with respect to the Navy P-80A used for carrier trials. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/11...ier-trials.html It appears to me that there were several different canopies. The first was the P-80A. The second was the original P-80B, with the aft edge of the windscreen angled more forward as stated to provide clearance for the pilot's knees and toes in an ejection. However, this may have been inadequate: there is a personal reminiscence on the web by a P-80 mechanic stating that the P-80Bs he worked on did not have ejection seats. With the P-80C and probably as a retrofit to the P-80B, the windscreen was moved forward and the sliding portion canopy lengthened accordingly, so that it still ended at the same fuselage station as the original canopy. (Otherwise, a change in the canopy actuation mechanism would have been required.) Subsequently, the aft end of the canopy was changed to end in a "tail" rather than a sharp point, but I don't think that the canopy was lengthened to do so. As a result, I think that a P-80A canopy can be created from the later P-80C canopy by simply cutting off the tail and reshaping the aft end to a point. It then has to be relocated aft by about the nine inches stated.

However, all this was determined from photographs and the Lockheed inboard profiles (note that no P-80 picture that I've seen shows a windshield at the slant depicted on the B/C ones). Unfortunately, I don't have any Lockheed drawings of the fuselage other than those. Even more caution than usual is therefore recommended.

I don't yet know if the location of the instrument panel and flight controls changed when the windscreen was moved forward.

I subsequently got more information on the P-80A cockpit and canopy and updated http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/11...ier-trials.html and created http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/02...oting-star.html. In summary, the B and C windshield was moved forward to provide for the ejection seat clearance. The location of the instrument panel and flight controls did not change. For an A, a C sliding canopy would have to shortened at its forward end by about nine inches and the aft end, which housed a canopy removal mechanism, would have to be reshaped to a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Info Nick, at least it gives an idea of where to head & if it doesn't look about right (LAR) ;) the fault will be all mine. I've noted that Testors does a FS16473 colour equivalnt which looks, at least on their website, a bit paler than their 36492 equivalent, the opposite to what the FS595 colorserver gives, so I might try to grab a pot of that & see how that looks with the humbrol shades you mention. I should be able to end up with a good ball park colour.

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK it has been over a year since the last post but today I stumbled over the ANA chart on cyber modeler (www.cybermodeler.com/color/ana_matrix.shtml). There are two ANA 512 listed! One pre-/early WWII and one late-/post WWII 512. The latter one is said to be close to FS 16473 and the early one should be close to FS 26373... Hmmm. I should think that IF there were two versions of ANA512 it would be the late war version which was used on the YP-80. Anybody an idea or infos?

Rene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allowing for subjectivity, monitors, phase of the moon... the late and postwar sample looks about right to me (and more so than the earlier sample).

bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chart linked at post # 19 doesn't really make any sense, even before the digitised colours are compared to the original paint colours. The first ANA standardised colours appeared in Bulletin 157 in September 1943 with ANA 601 to ANA 619. The colours then re-appeared in subsequent bulletins after that with various changes and additions. FS 16473 didn't replace ANA 512 until 1959.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×