Jump to content
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. :)

Sign in to follow this  
Kushan_Farsight

Details on "100ft Carrier Wing Glider" - The full sized version of the Baynes Bat?

Recommended Posts

Good afternoon all,


As per my normal lunchtime browsing of the internet, i found myself going down a wikipedia tunnel of aviation history. After starting at the Type-2 Ka-Mi Amphibious Tank, i eventually landed on the Baynes Bat.

To pull a description one of the wikipedia entry sources: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baynes_Bat) 
 

Quote

In 1941 the British Sailplane Designer L.E.Baynes made a proposal that armoured fighting vehicles, such as the 8 1/2 ton tank, could be provided with detachable glider wings to enable them to be flown to battlefields behind tugs. At the time, Baynes was the aviation adviser to the Alan Muntz Company at Heston, which specialized in weapons, and he had organized a separate aircraft division of the company.

 

The military advantages of such mobility for airborne operations were self evident, and General Aircraft had considered the idea when developing the Hamilcar. In the Baynes proposal, however, the tank itself replaced the fuselage and undercarriage, and there was no tail, so that there was a great saving on weight. The glider would be cast off to make a free descent to the landing site, the tank's engine being started while it was still airborne. The wing would be detached on touch down using a quick release device and then would be carried away by its residual lift, allowing the tank to go straight into action.

 

While Air Staff approved of the idea in principle, they decided that it would be wise to explore its aerodynamic and control characteristics by testing a 1/3 rd scale piloted flying model.

 

This machine, known as the "Bat", was designed by Baynes and built by Slingsby Sailplanes at Kirbymoorside, Yorkshire in 1943.

 

So, the 'Bat' was a 1/3rd scale piloted test model, and i have seen a number of reproductions of this craft , generally at 1/72nd scale  (see image below courtesy of Lars Befring | IPMS)

spacer.png

 

What i am trying to look for is the ORIGINAL, FULL SCALE design drawings (blueprints, sketches, drawings, anything) - i would love to attempt a scratch-build and am inspired by a recent build thread on this forum - i am thinking 1:48 scale as i prefer it, although would end up being around 60cm wingspan, so 1/72 may be the way to go! 

 

 

Ive done a bit of google image searching and a look through some of my aviation encyclopedia books, but haven't had any luck with the full sized design. Does anyone know if there are plans for the full sized version, or was that to be generated off the back of this 1/3rd flight model.  Id love to give this a go but it may be that the details necessary just arent about in the public collective! 

Thanks in advance for any help,


Kushan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, as the Wikipedia article suggests, it was formally pitched to the Air Ministry, then it is quite likely that there was some kind of preliminary sketch: probably just a small non-detailed 3-view or possibly more of an artist's impression, like an advertising illustration, than anything technical.  You generally turn up with some kind of visual aid on such occasions if you want to have your idea understood.

 

That said, I've never seen one in several decades of reading about the history and design of British gliding,  including the wartime uses, so finding a surviving example of such a drawing must be regarded as a long shot.  And I even more strongly doubt there are extant actual detailed plans for the full size device, even if any were drawn up one in the first place.  Nevertheless I'll be delighted, if surprised, to be proved wrong, and I can very easily imagine building a flying model of it using a 1/35th Tetrarch kit, or maybe mock on up at a larger scale, around 1/12 (i.e. 100" span) would be ideal for radio control.

 

I think you are safe in making up your own impression of the full size as a what-if, if you want to give it a shot. And we know it has to be a what-if model as no full size prototype was constructed, so there is no real reason to feel inhibited. 

 

One thing to consider is where the pilot would have been located. Most articles talk about the Tetrarch being instead of the fuselage pod, rather than being inside a fuselage pod, but there must have been an intention for some kind of fuselage or fairing for the pilot outside the hull of the tank. You can't fly a glider from inside a tank, partly for reasons of field of view, partly for sheer lack of room, partly because there is no way of providing or connecting flight controls, and partly because there is no way you would wish to restrict operations to a non-existent cadre of specially-trained dual-qualified tank driver / glider pilots.  So I suggest it would have had some kind of canopy blister above the wing, near the leading edge, similar to that of the 1/3rd scale model but not necessarily scaled up in proportion. The canopy is big enough for a single pilot already and the greater depth of the full size wing would probably accommodate the pilot's legs.

 

I would also anticipate the use of servo tabs on the elevons as they would be pretty vast surfaces and you would probably need tabs to enable the pilot to fly the apparatus satisfactorily.

 

Incidentally there's a good 3-view of the 33 foot version here, if you want to give it a go.

https://scalesoaring.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Baynes-Bat.pdf

 

Note that while that drawing does also show a 100 foot version it's only to give an impression of scale, and is no more than a simple scale-up of the 33 foot version, with the pod left off. 

Edited by Work In Progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a kit of the Baynes Bat in 1:72 by Jach, which is probably the base of the model illustrated above.

Can't help with drawings of the full size version, don't know if any ever existed, but some thought must have gone into it for them to have built the Bat.

Raoul Hafner came up with a similar idea of a towed airborne tank, but using a rotor instead of glider wings. Paratrooper versions (Rotachute) were built, as was a version for an airborne jeep (Rotabuggy) but the proposal for a Valentine tank didn't get beyond a GA drawing (towards the bottom of this page) This would have been flown from the commanders hatch in the turret of the tank, positioning the control wouldn't have been a problem but I wonder about the strength needed from the pilot to control such a large rotor for a 16 ton tank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou both for the information! 

 

3 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

Incidentally there's a good 3-view of the 33 foot version here, if you want to give it a go.

https://scalesoaring.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Baynes-Bat.pdf

- this is a great starting point, i had not seen this drawing before! given how high the cockpit/rudder is on the Bat, i wonder how tall the full size canopy blister would be? Would it have been a blister like you mention or perhaps kept that high, as some kind of auxillary troop compartment? who knows.

 

1 hour ago, Dave Swindell said:

There's a kit of the Baynes Bat in 1:72 by Jach, which is probably the base of the model illustrated above.

 

 - I knew of the Bat kit in 1/72, but i am now more and more tempted to get one as 1) Reference and 2) inspiration for the full sized model!

 

1 hour ago, Dave Swindell said:

but the proposal for a Valentine tank didn't get beyond a GA drawing (towards the bottom of this page)

- Wow, this page is full of information!  some really unusual designs and concepts like the  MAS-1 i had never seen before! Even the Baynes full sized craft seems relatively conventional in comparison!  

 

Might have to do a bit of information finding and get out the sketchbook this weekend, and come up with some designs. the whole quick release and wing flying off doing its own thing just as they touch the ground thing might be a bit interesting, especially if there were a couple of poor glider pilots in there at the time! 

 

Did the UK ever use JATO rockets during ww2? i know the germans had but im unsure of the UK.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kushan_Farsight said:

 

Did the UK ever use JATO rockets during ww2? i know the germans had but im unsure of the UK.

Experimentally only on Whitley, Horsa and Hamilcar. Pods of 3 inch solid fuel rockets under the wings of the Whitley and Hamilcar and mounted on the undercarriage of tha Horsa.

Incidentaly, Hafner proposed the Rotatank would need two tugs.  A Halifax to tow the Rotatank and a Dakota to tow the Halifax!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to love the internet sometimes!

Did a bit of a more detailed search and someone else had also embarked on a search for Baynes Carrier Wing information. this ended up leading me to the direct patent he put down for the carrier wing, COMPLETE WITH DRAWINGS :D 

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=GB&NR=578043A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19460613&DB=&locale=en_EP

spacer.png

 

So i can clearly see a pilots blister in the centre of the wing on the full sized drawing, but also appears to show the tank lower half that projects below the wing as completely omitting any form of fairing. 

 

I think it would probably need something because i would imagine it would create a huge amount of drag. Even a simple ply fairing that was driven over and destroyed upon landing would suffice.

 

There is also a point in the patent document that stated "the vehicle will be able to use its defensive armament whilst in flight attached to the wing structure" -  perhaps the forward firing machine guns could be made to work, but with that turret turned to face the rear, i dont think/hope they meant for it to use the primary weapon!

 

The latter pages of the patent also seem to show the same arrangement, but with the Baynes wing carrying what looks to be a torpedo boat. certainly a new way of rapidly mobilizing naval forces!  (and to be honest, it actually looks half aerodynamic with a boat underneath rather than half a tank sticking out!)

To be continued!!....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One wonders what they were smoking?

Hafner’s Rotatank proposal also suggested that the tank’s gun could be used for defence whilst airborne. Mind you Hafner had form, his Rotachute design was always intended to allow the pilot to use a Bren gun in flight.

The Baynes Torpedo carrier idea wasn’t unique either Hafner had suggested a rotaplanes version of a miniature submarine or an airborne lifeboat. - They gave him a Jeep to prove his idea.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, well done on finding the drawing!

Don't worry about the drag of the tank, these gliders were never intended to be high performers otherwise they would all have been designed differently. Remember they sawed about a third of the wing off the Hotspur to make it worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

Oh, well done on finding the drawing!

Don't worry about the drag of the tank, these gliders were never intended to be high performers otherwise they would all have been designed differently. Remember they sawed about a third of the wing off the Hotspur to make it worse.

Interesting, i did not know about the Hotspurs 'wing trim'  -  Going down a wikipedia hole i also found out about the 'Twin Hotspur', and the fellow BM modeller @Ratch had even made a little model of this bizarre looking prototype!
spacer.png

 

 

In my head im almost thinking of a 'cartoon strip' style diorama, 3 scenes next to one another, somewhat telling the story of how this would have worked in action. 3x the work though, so 1:48 scale might be out the window! 

 

1) Landing Approach -  glider with tank attached, Slingsby Patent bellows operated flaps at full extension, 20-30ft from ground (similar to this shot of hamilcars landing)
air_hamilcar7.jpg

 

 

2) Release -  wing pitching up and away just as tank is dropped to floor - perhaps this would be where any 'fairing' is dropped, or a drogue parachute dropped the rear of the tank to help slow it?  Something like the picture below (replace C-130 with big carrier wing!)

khe_sanh__anh_2.png

 

-Recovery - the 'snatch' , pulling the wing back up into the air for re-use.  Same system as used on other planes during the war and shown in the sketch below

spacer.png

 

more things to ponder over this weekend! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only hope that they considered the crew inside the tank after it had been dropped, but I rather doubt it!  High deceleration, not a lot of cushions inside a tank, and a lot of hard sharp metal lumps.

 

The Hotspur was designed by sailplane enthusiasts: not that there were a lot of alternatives, after all, and the early examples might have made rather nice sailplanes but that's not what was required in a military environment.  Thence the wing needed shortening.  It is of course possible that as it was realised that the Hotspur was only going to be used as a trainer, more was taken off than would otherwise have been required.  A simple cycle of lift off, release and land was all that was needed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The Hotspur was designed by sailplane enthusiasts: not that there were a lot of alternatives, after all, and the early examples might have made rather nice sailplanes but that's not what was required in a military environment.  Thence the wing needed shortening.  It is of course possible that as it was realised that the Hotspur was only going to be used as a trainer, more was taken off than would otherwise have been required.  A simple cycle of lift off, release and land was all that was needed.  

It did make quite a nice sailplane in its initial form, Philip Wills has quite a long thermal soaring flight in the prototype, and this good performance was a problem. What was specifically required to make it a useful trainer was a set of glide ratio polars that reflected the Hadrian and Horsa that the pilots would be flying in service. Low performance mission gliders require low performance training gliders. Generally for the British and American stuff, you got no more than about 12:1 glide at max L:D and about 5:1 with the flaps down on the Horsa, somewhere between the two for the Hadrian with the relatively ineffective spoilers deployed.  Educating pilots to a false assumption about the available glide ratios and the correct perspectives of the landing area would have been disastrous given the requirement to spot-land on a field often already strewn with other gliders, and with no second chance if you screw it up.

 

Anyway, Kushan: the point for the Baynes design is that 12:1 is easily achievable from a big flying wing even with some tank undercarriage in the breeze, so no fairing required or desirable - it would only complicate matters and get in the way, 

 

You could not have 'dropped' the tank from a Baynes wing that was still airborne as the pilot would have instantly lost control and crashed due to the massive aft shift in the centre of gravity of the flying component. While you don't expect to get the glider back (something the Baynes patent is rather unrealistic about in its hopes for re-usability) you don't want to kill the pilot either.  You would also have risked damaging the tank to no operational benefit.  It is clear from the patent that the intention was to land the glider as a unit with the tank attached, and only salvo the wing once the tank was firmly driving across the ground. At that point the pins are pulled and you could assume that the tank would pull away from the now disconnected, draggy and very lightweight wing, which would then just flop onto the ground behind the tank.  

 

No need for parachutes either. 

Edited by Work In Progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that the Russians did do something similar using a T-60 and did drop the tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently not. The glider landed in the field and then the tank shed the glider components. Only flew once, bad idea, etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_A-40

 

However that article does also suggest that something tracked may, and I stress the word may. have been dropped a few feet from bombers rather than gliders. "During the 1940 occupation of Bessarabia, light tanks may have been dropped from a few meters up by TB-3 bombers, which, as long as the gearbox was in neutral, would allow them to roll to a stop." This was presumably the T-27 tankette, based on the Carden-Loyd, which at a a mere couple of tons is pushing the definition of 'tank' quite hard, it's way lighter than even a Bren carrier.

 

I imagine that leaving it in gear with the tracks immobile would very likely give you an inverted tankette sinking into the mud, but half a dozen hefty village lads could probably right it in a few minutes before a vodka break.

 

Dropping the tankette from the CG of a powered bomber, as you would a bomb, of course eliminates the problem of rendering the airborne component uncontrollable in the way that it would from the nose of a glider where it forms all the nose-weight. And it has a military benefit, not present in the glider version of events, which is that you don't want to land the bomber in a muddy field at all if you can help it, so dropping the cargo is really the only game in town. 

 

Whereas with the glider you are going to end up with both tank and flying surfaces in that field come what may, so you might as well not complicate matters pointlessly by trying to put them there in two discrete operations.

Edited by Work In Progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/11/2019 at 17:18, Work In Progress said:

You could not have 'dropped' the tank from a Baynes wing that was still airborne as the pilot would have instantly lost control and crashed due to the massive aft shift in the centre of gravity of the flying component

The pilot of the tank/wing was in the turret of the tank, and would have stayed with the tank when it separated.

If the separation took place whilst airborne he would have been in control of neither the tank (which he was in, but he now had no means of controlling until it landed) nor the wing (which he was no longer attached to).

Separation was supposed to take place immediately after touchdown whilst the combination had forward speed.

The tank driver could then (hopefully!) gain control of the tank; and the wing, with the forward speed and once relieved of the weight of the tank, would lift clear of the tank, stall and drop gently (in theory!) to the ground for recovery and re-use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tank would not be capable of driving away at anything less than very low speeds (in aircraft terms - maybe 30 mph) so any release would probably not be at a speed providing enough lift for the airframe to rise clear - more of a slide off the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

The tank would not be capable of driving away at anything less than very low speeds (in aircraft terms - maybe 30 mph) so any release would probably not be at a speed providing enough lift for the airframe to rise clear - more of a slide off the back.

This is the theory from the patent, I'm making no claims towards it's viabilty, or at what point the driver regains control after wing separation!

The driver would presumably slow the vehicle by (gently!) braking, differentially to gain directional control, before being able to clutch in and drive away.

Testing would no doubt have determined an ideal speed at which to jettison the wing, fast enough to remove it cleanly but slow enough to minimise damage once separated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patents are applied to ideas: the actual engineering does not have to be fully worked out and all too often doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is fairly abundantly clear from the patent that the whole thing is a bad idea, which is probably why it was never built and the Russians abandoned their analogous device after the first and only flight

Edited by Work In Progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

The tank would not be capable of driving away at anything less than very low speeds (in aircraft terms - maybe 30 mph) so any release would probably not be at a speed providing enough lift for the airframe to rise clear - more of a slide off the back.

A slide off the back would be adequate.

 

However, I know it seems implausible but various online sources claim the Tetrarch to be capable of 40 mph, plus of course any wind speed.

 

Meanwhile a Baynes wing at 300% of the Bat would have 1440 square feet of wing area. Weight without the tank would, estimating according to the known empty weights of the Hamilcar and Horsa, have been in the region of five tons, call it 11,000 lb. Wing loading of 7.6 lb/ft2 is similar to that of a crewed Piper L-4, or Tiger Moth, both of which will actually fly at well below 40 mph and, believe me, either of those will easily be moved bodily if hit on the ground by a 30mph gust if they are not securely tied down.

 

Anyway, all of that should have put firmly to bed any notion of tanks being 'dropped' from one of these gliders.

Edited by Work In Progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, from comments and points made on here, i think that any idea of quick reuse of the wing is a duff one. if it was lucky enough to have worked, it would have probably been a 'one and done' kind of use. 

 

However, i really do like this quirky idea, however perhaps taking a little artistic licence we can transform it back into an idea with merit.  Originally this was concieved to deploy a single 8.5 ton tank onto the battlefield. 
Considering what we know about the ww2 war theatre in the early 40s, and the invasion of france, perhaps this design could be adapted to suit.

 

If it was built to drop 1 8.5 ton tank, could it not conceivably carry 2 lighter vehicles? I am envisaging 2 Daimler Armored Scout Cars (less than 3tons each) plus a cache of fuel and ammunition.  The idea being you would deploy these into captured France to act as guerrilla units, to destroy infrastructure and supply lines, and perform reconnaissance for larger future engagements.  One could have the 40mm cannon with Littlejohn adapter to allow it to take shots at panzers, whilst the other could have the 76mm close support howitzer to provide a bit of grunt to any ambush.

 

daimler_armoured_car_mkii.gif

I love these little scout cars and think they are quite often overlooked when considering ww2 armor, but they were well liked by crews, rugged little vehicles, and quite a few servicemen "liberated" scrapped and leftover Daimlers after the war! 

 

 

When creating a speculative concept prototype, there is no wrong answer......right? :D the more i think about it, the more i like it. and getting the Daimlers in 1/48 and 1/72 doesnt look too hard either! 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're building a what-if you can apply any rules you like, or none at all.  Speaking personally the only rules I apply are to be as honest as possible about the answer to the implied "what if" question*.

 

I can see no reason in principle why you could not deploy a pair of Daimler scout cars under a Baynes type wing. Side by side might be more entertaining on the model than tandem mounts for the two scout cars - you'd see more of them, and if you need to widen the centre section a touch then you can do that if you like

 

 

*(In some cases the answer is "it wouldn't have worked in the form modelled", but there you are. Particular favourites being people completely ignoring weight, balance and stability considerations when re-engining aeroplanes, or forgetting the actual power requirement to do a useful job. I well remember someone touting a Canberra B(I)6 with the Avons removed and a pair of Merlins substituted. It would have taxied, it might even have staggered into the circuit, but that's about all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, back to the drawing board! Turns out i had massively got the info wrong on the weight of a Daimler Armored Car mixing it up for its far lighter brother (the Dingo) , it was 7.6tons not less than 3!

 

That does change plans somewhat, i think one under a Baynes carrier wing is probably the best it would do. 

 

However, i did learn a fair bit about the use of the Daimler Armored cars in North Africa, and found this nice PDF with some references and pictures of them in action Daimler Fighting Vehicles - North Africa WW2

 

I think that if going the 'What If' route -  i started thinking....'hmm, what about if a daimler armored car or 2 had been deployed via carrier wing during the african campaign, much like we did with the Tetrarch during the Normandy invasions........ this lead me  onto "Operation Turkey Buzzard" -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Turkey_Buzzard

Quote

 

The mission involved Royal Air Force Handley Page Halifax bombers towing Airspeed Horsa gliders 3,200 miles (5,100 km) from England to Tunisia. The British Horsas were needed to complement the smaller American Waco gliders, which did not have the capacity required for the operations planned by the 1st Airborne Division.

During the mission one Halifax-and-Horsa combination was shot down by German Focke Wulf Condor long-range patrol aircraft. Altogether five Horsas and three Halifaxes were lost, but twenty-seven Horsas arrived in Tunisia in time to participate in the invasion of Sicily.

 

 

i am pretty sure that Wacos were used to deploy jeeps to the battlefield during combat in Sicily 1943, after finding this pic from Imperial War Museum

 

Jeep_being_loaded_into_waco_glider.jpg
(THE CAMPAIGN IN SICILY 1943. Planning and Preparations January - July 1943: A jeep is loaded onto an American WACO CG-4A glider.)

 

Im astounded i've never heard of this before now. Getting in a glider and getting lugged over the channel to the fields of normandy and holland is one thing, but a 5000km journey across the globe is another thing entirely!  Whilst the operations didn't quite work out as intended, i cant help but wonder 'what if' they had tried deploying a couple of Daimlers to the operation, could it have changed the outcome. Axis forces were not well equipped with heavy armor, so a 40mm cannon (or 76mm) armed nimble armored car really could have helped the operation?


This project may have to go on the shelf for the moment, I have far too many complete kits that are calling for the workbench, but it does pique interest. Perhaps if there is a "What If" or "WW2 In Africa" or "Diorama" Group Build comes up next year,  i may well give this a go then. Ive just set a couple of 3d prints going of a 1/48 and 1/72 Daimler Armored Car, just to get an idea of which of the scales i would ultimatley choose for this project, ill upload some pics later this afternoon. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hadrians for Sicily were shipped to North Africa in crates and were then assembled by the British Glider pilots who had never seen them before, let alone put them together or flown them. 

One Hadrian (carrying cargo) was towed across the Atlantic in stages from Canada to the UK, but the idea was deemed too risky  for other attempts.

BTW In 1944 the UK possessed the ability to parachute a Jeep, 6 pounder anti-tank gun and its crew from a Halifax, ie the same load as could be carried in a Horsa towed by a Halifax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a paradrop would be the way to go in 1944 to get any supplies and troops onto the field  - but nothing would have been large enough to carry a turreted (light) armored vehicle internally at that time. 

The timing of the patent, 1/3rd prototype and the Daimler Armored Cars introduction and service, all marry together quite well. Perhaps in another timeline, a chance meeting between Baynes and Montgomery saw further development of the idea, and the potential value of being able to drop a couple of light armored vehicles dozens of miles behind enemy lines for some reconnaissance and supply route destabilization leads to further R&D - and Monty's Desert Bats were born! 

 

Printed these little chaps out yesterday just to get a sense of size and scale of the possible project - the copper one is 1/72 and the black one is 1/48.  Not that big! Next to a 1/72 P-47, it almost looks dinky. 
Dj5x4Ng3_o.jpg

 

I might have a play about later this evening in CAD to see what kind of wing/carrying configuration may work best.  Where would i find out more about the logisitics capacity and aircraft involved in north africa around 1943-44?  I.e would they have had C-47s, Halifax etc

 

I need to see if there any "What If" Group Builds scheduled for next year, this might be best left till then. dont want to break the 25% rule!  

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...