Jump to content

Biplane Wing Advice For a Relative Newbie


Recommended Posts

Hello!

 

I'm building a 1/48 Roden DH2 and hope to do a decent job and perhaps have a pop at rigging which on this one ain't easy?

 

What's the best glue to use on thr struts, CA?

 

and

 

Is there any idiot's way to rig such a type without it all ending in tears?

 

 

Thank you,

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, there -

 

Great to see that going to have a crack at a biplane build and to try rigging.   However, and would say you have not made it easy for yourself choosing the DH2 which was a heavily braced bird in the first place ..........!

 

Is it not perhaps best to start with a practice build first on something a little more basic to begin with?   The Nieuport scouts such N11 and 17 could be a good first choice here.

Everyone will have their own method of undertaking a biplane build, so I am not suggesting my method is the best or one that would work for you.

 

I start by ensuring the cabane (the struts that sit on the fuselage) struts are fully aligned and set before attaching upper wing.  I then carefully fit inter plane struts (once the top wing is set in place on cabane struts)  I use normal glue but often add a drop of CA glue from toothpick to help everything set in place.  Be aware wing alignment can be tricky so try a lot dry fitting prior to gluing.   

 

I rig using fishing line or elastic thread threaded through completely drilled holes and CA'd in place.  You want the line tight but not taunt - clothes pegs suspended from the slack line can help,  You will then need to tidy up these holes before painting.

 

A good rigging diagram is therefore essential to help you plot where the cables will run and where to pre-drill in preparation to rigging.

 

The above description is very brief (and makes sense) so if you need further help please feel free to drop me a PM.

 

Regards

 

Dave

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Several months ago a PDF was available with very good step by step graphics on rigging a DH2. Although geared to the WNW and Roden DH2’s it will be just as useful for rigging 1/72 and 1/48 kits.

I no longer have my copy but if you check on ww1aircraftmodels or Large Scale Planes someone will likely be able to provide a link for it or perhaps Beardie or Viking here on BM will be able to help.

 

Cheers

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I sort of took rigging for granted for years but eventually realised wing bracing is all just load paths, despite having been doing it in 1:1 and not spotting the bleed in’ obvious.

 

The term flying wire is used but this only refers to part of it as there are landing wires too. Their job is to transfer the lift to the fuselage and support the wings when the aircraft isn’t flying. I’ll say at this stage, sorry if this is a bit like your grannies egg sucking lesson, but I’d been involved in the real thing for ages before it dawned on me. So, Melv’s idiot proof guide to wing rigging.
 

If you think about the lift from the inboard portion of the lower wing, this is being transferred to the fuselage through the wing attachment and the lift from the upper wing, inboard section is pulling upwards on the cabane struts.

 

The lift from the outboard section is transferred by the diagonal wire that goes from the top of the wing strut to the lower fuselage. These are the ‘flying wires’ and are often doubled. obviously flying wires as they take the flying load.

 

The lift from the outer portion of the lower wing is transferred up the strut, which is basically in compression, to the top, where the flying wires are attached, and thence to the fuselage and one reason that double wires, to spread the load, are often required. 
 

The weight of the lower wing is supported, when not flying, by the wire that runs from the top of the cabane strut to the bottom of the wing strut, and this supports the upper wing with the strut now being in compression as it supports the top wing too. Since this is not the flying loads, these wires are often single as they simply take less load.

 

Additionally, the drag on the whole lot is trying to fold the wings backwards, so in some cases, like the Albatros DVa I am going to be rigging tomorrow, there is a wire from the nose that hangs onto the the outer wing in an attempt to make it stay in the right place. These are usually known, with remarkable clarity, as drag wires. 
 

This is not to be confused with some of the internal bracing, within the wing, that is also known as drag wires, but that is a whole new area and luckily rarely needed, even in 1/32 scale.

 

Thinking of it all as load paths also shows up some other factors. The flying wires will be in tension, therefore because it is one part of a triangle (just the upper wing, flying wire and fuselage), and if we ignore, for the moment as it is quite short, the cabane strut/fuselage, then the upper wing spars must be in compression. 
 

This needs to be factored into the design (obviously, I did warn you this was simplistic) and is part of the reasoning behind the ‘monoplane ban’ in the early war years. On a Bleriot for example, the flying loads on the outer wing are taken to the lower fuselage by flying wires and the king post above the fuselage, takes the landing wire, but the wing is always in compression. Loading the wing, by doing stuff like looping, was causing wings to fail in some types inboard of the flying wires. This was down to the compression loads crushing the spars. Bleriot, in particular, beefed up the spars by an enourmous amount, the spars on later single-seat Bleriots are the same dimensions as those in the earlier, bigger, two seaters.

 

With a two spar wing, like in a Sopwith Pup, you basically have two triangles to rig but you also have the opportunity to do so slightly asymmetrically. If you tighten the forward part differently to the rear part you can add a slight twist, or washout, to the wing which can have aerodynamic advantages, but is, again, hard to do with knitting in elastic in 1/32.

 

Speed also has another effect. Not only does the lift, therefore all compression and tension loads, increase, but the centre of lift on the wing profile will move backwards, and try to twist the wing. This is usually taken care of with the internal wing bracing. However on wings of uneven chord, especially if the bottom wing only has a single spar, there is little to stop that wing twisting. There are photos of at least one Nieuport 17 whose lower wing has twisted right off in a dive, but because the flying wires held, the upper wing did not depart and he was able to land and change his underwear. The same applied to the Albatros DV where the additional bracing strut, at the bottom of the V, was fitted to the leading edge to stop the lower wing twisting off in a dive, something that had not happened on the more conventional two-spar Albatros DIII.  

 

Two-bay wings, like on a Snipe, and other multiple bay biplanes, are just more of the same but attached to the outer of the first lot, so the outer flying wire is transferring the lift from that bay to the inner interplane struts as if that were the fuselage, and then through what we have already seen, attached to the actual fuselage.

 

There are exceptions. Fokker conveniently made his spars so big he did not need to brace them. So, no flying and landing wires on a DVII or Dr1, this is good for preventing drag, and for modelling, but Fokker made his wings nice and thick to make up the drag that way. Actually, the DVII is fairly quick, but the Dr1 is not. Being in the inside of a turn with a Clerget engined Dr1 in my old Rearwin (stall speed straight and level 50mph, therefore nearer 65mph with 30deg of bank,) was not comfortable. 
 

if you look head on at a Sopwith triplane you can see it is a single bay biplane with a wing stuck in the middle. The middle wing is unbraced, with the flying and landing wires just passing through it.

 

Another interesting one is the SPAD, both the VII and XIII appear to be two-bay biplanes but if you look at the wires head on you can see conventional single bay rigging with additional struts half way that are bracing the whole structure. This makes for a very strong wing and the XIII could be dived to 300kph. It also has a very thin wing and a high wing loading. 1930s pulp fiction books, and even veterans (one quite famous) who talk about SPADS dogfighting Fokker DVIIs are talking rubbish. But that is another story.

 

For the DH2, there is also the matter of the fuselage bracing. For most WW1 types this is going on inside the plastic, so we only pretend we’ve done it, but for the DH2 and The FE, it is out there to be seen and so is just a case of turning everything into triangles for rigidity. 
 

In real life rigging a fuselage can send sane men mad enough to invent the metal monocoque. Every adjustment seems to affect everything else. Experienced riggers would know this and be ready to adjust other turnbuckles by just the right amount, to keep everything adjusted. For a first timer, crying yourself to sleep is not unknown!

 

In modelling terms this is not as bad, but with the fragility of some of the Wingnuts plastic you can impart a twist if using monofilament as it is surprisingly strong. I have not done a DH2 but would be tempted to use elastic or to jig the fuselage to keep it straight.

 

Yor only other wires will be For controls, emerging from holes in the fuselage or wing in order to wiggle the wiggly bits which is something to do with this flying lark. 

 

It IS all logical if you break it down into what each bit is doing and I quite enjoyed doing my Camel, which was my first scale model, my previous rigging had been my friend’s very much full scale Stearman.

 

Lastly, there has been much talk about turnbuckles. Most Sopwith and Royal Aircraft Factory types (ie pretty well everything British) used streamline wire which, basically, IS the turnbuckle. The fittings at either end are opposite thread, so twisting the wire will lengthen or shorten it. So, all flying and landing wires will NOT need turnbuckles. Fuselage bracing wire will be cable and so will be tensioned by turnbuckles. French and a German aircraft cables will also be turnbuckled but here’s a thing. The actual turnbuckle, when you look closely, is three parts. A fitting at either end that either fixes to the airframe via a bolt, or to the cable by a loop. Since these are steel, they are often smaller diameter than the cables they attach to. (Not always, I know, but bear with me). These are opposite threaded into the turnbuckle barrel which is often not much thicker than the cable and may only look thicker due to the locking wire (evil stuff) that prevents the turnbuckle undoing and makes you bleed a lot in the process. I have not used any of the available ‘scale’ turnbuckles as I don’t see how you can get them as scale as they need to be. I might be wrong and wholeheartedly apologise to the manufacturers of said items if I am, but if they are noticeably thicker than the cable, they are vastly over scale. I once saw someone that used short pieces of heat-stretched drinking straw but a thickish blob of brass coloured paint, like the gunk you get at the bottom of a old pot, would not only look about right but would be much nearer scale.

 

Wow, is that the time? 

 

I hope that was not too condescending and that it all makes sense, my iPad has a habit of changing worms and it is my middle of the night moment of lucidity which seems to happen on this chemo, so there may be some interesting spelling.

 


 

 

 


 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

A huge thank you to each of you.

 

I think I know a bit about aircraft & am increasingly interested in those WW1 types but really never had cause to see that so much was going on in a highly strung biplane. There look to be some great books around all this stuff (Leon Bennett, Gunning for the Red Baron) that may be worth a look?

 

My Dad was an erk on Swordfish during the war which deepens the interest.

 

How did these things make it into the air pre cad cam & computer modelling? Brave people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beware anything written about Richthofen! I don’t know about  that book in particular but SO much of what is written about him is rehashed heresay. At the 100th anniversary most of the people there were standing around at the wrong  crash spot! I have many of the original reports here and it is clear that lies, false claims and what we would call information manipulation were happening within hours of the crash, so you can’t even rely on some of the original reports. I have been asked to write an article on this but it would upset SO many people as everyone has a pet theory and, of course, theirs is always the RIGHT one. 

 

There is some good research out there. You can do much worse than read ‘Saggittarius Rising’ Cecil Lewis, there are a few other contemporary books (one is excellent and I cannot for the life me remember it, I’ll have to phone a friend). Even the early Biggles books are better written than some of the ‘researched’ stuff. (Except W E John’s, whist undoubtedly experienced as he WAS a veteran, had clearly never operated a Clerget on a Camel, but much of what he wrote in the early books gives a very good feel.)

 

’High in the Empty Blue’ by Alex Revell is a great history on 56 squadron and is researched well. On the other hand, when I was reviewing books for Aeroplane magazine in the 1990s, I had a book on MvR that actually had me shouting at the book in disbelief, and this from an author that is ‘respected’ as an authority! It was total tripe.
 

It is a fascinating time, and it IS worth trying to get to the good material. Remember that in the 54 months of World War One the technological advance was massive, observation, tactical and strategic bombing, close air support, ground attack, air superiority, fighting tactics, anti submarine, radio communications, high altitude flight, and training all had to be invented and in the time it now takes to design the seat back video screens! 
 

I have been lucky to have been involved in the real nuts and bolts, and some excellent research, for over thirty years with the a memorial Flight in France, hence knowing not to get in the inside of a Dr1 again! (We were SO close to stalling out).

 

spacer.png

 

One of my next projects will be a Swordfish. I am looking for a good scheme from the Torpedo Development Unit at Gosport.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

      Nice to see I'm not the only one who goes on about the evils of blanket turnbuckles. (My other ad nauseam reflex comment is about Eduard's propensity for equiping all WWI RFC, RNAS and RAF types with Sutton harnesses, although they seem to be easing up on that now).

 

Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Melvin, fantastic write up there, well done and thank you. Yep, one of the most common mistakes that regularly ruin a great model are turnbuckles on both ends of a wire , and on RAF wires. I really wish people would pay attention to this.  Any chance of a pic of your Rearwin? Regards, Pete in RI. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, yes, back to ipaul's first question.  On the DH2, I found it easier to mount the struts and top wing, and set on a stout box with the leading edges on the lip of the box and the nose pointing down into it. This sort of auto-aligns everything and makes it easy to position struts correctly. I use regular tube glue for this as it gives you plenty of set up time. Let this dry at least overnight, and then paint and rig the wings. Only then add the tail booms as you now have a good solid base to do that.  Regards, Pete in RI.  Ps, follow the Bob's Buckles section for rigging the DH2, makes it easy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too rig by drilling and threading, but whichever way you do it the most important thing is to have a plan laid out before hand. If you drill and thread, drill all the holes before putting everything together. I do the same for the wing struts and all mine are fitted with a small piece of brass rod at each end which is CAd into a hole drilled in the wings. This gives a positive location, rather than a vague dimple in the wing, and gives it much more strength.

Start the rigging, surprisingly enough, with the bits that are hardest to get to, ie the cabane struts, and the stagger wires (the ones going front to back between pairs of struts). Then do the flying/landing wires, then the control runs.

 

Hope that helps!

 

Ian

Edited by limeypilot
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree entirely. 
 

however, the law of Murphy is clear that you will forget one important and hard to reach wire until others are in place. You will cut one too short and you will tangle one.

 

It is like when you do it for real, you WILL stab yourself with locking wire.

 

accept this. It is character building (allegedly, I just swear, I have enough character)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, europapete said:

Hi Melvin, fantastic write up there, well done and thank you.

My pleasure, it is good to do something useful on my middle of the night awake moments. There has to be an upside to this treatment.

 

<quote> Any chance of a pic of your Rearwin? Regards, Pete in RI. 
 

oh, I could not be that immodest.... ah, who am I kidding......

spacer.png


this cost me an obscene amount of money and worry but I had so much fun. Not being able to fly now is tough, but I have to accept that the fundamental is staying alive and I do have some great memories, 475 hours in this, almost 300 people taken flying. I can still fly with a safety pilot, but it is not the same.

 

The air to airs of the SE5, Dr1, DVII that I’ve posted we’re all taken from this.

 

You really do only get one chance at this life thing and I don’t regret a penny spent or a moment of the rebuild. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

28  November 2005. Met report was for 6kt wind and a possibility of light snow flurries late in the afternoon, otherwise clear so we went for the pics.i flew to Rendcomb, home of our wing walking team, and briefed Matryn Carrington, their chief pilot, on the Rearwin as I was not qualified in formation, plus after paying for the rebuild I intended to get the photos, giving me control of where they went and giving me the income. I mean, it was only fair!
 

Martyn is a natural so the checkout took no time and the team lent me Mike Dentith, the other team Pilot and a Stearman. 
 

Total airborne time for the shoot, 8 minutes, 2 rolls 120, 1 roll 35mm (subsequently stolen by a magazine) and a lot of digital.

 

When we landed it was about 12Kt and getting gusty. Mike looked at that sky, which had gone black within that 8 minute shoot, and just said ‘grab your stuff and go Melv’. I told him I’d just say goodbye to the girls in the office and he said ‘no, I’m being serious, go NOW’, so I jumped in and flew back to Popham, normally 40 mins, did it in 30. I put the Rearwin away and it started light snowing. I went into the club room to check out the digital pics and the phone rang, it was Martyn checking I was ok.
 

He told me that within five minutes of me leaving a helicopter had diverted into the (private) field at Rendcomb as it could not get into Gloucester. within ten minutes it had started to snow and within 15 mins there was an inch. Within 30 mins, they had abandoned work to get home.

 

That great looking black sky was an unforecast five inches of snow that just dumped. Not much by US standards but enough to cause problems here. Some way north of us, a lady flying an Aeronca Chief was caught in it and ended up in trees, she was ok,  and is now still flying, but she had nowhere to run to and it caught her out

 

It did mean we got lucky with the pictures, they ended up in Flyer magazine, Aeroplane, Fana de l’Aviation in France for features as well as the odd photo in other magazines. 

 

Now, THAT doesn’t happen in 1/32nd!

 

spacer.png

Edited by melvyn hiscock
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, europapete said:

whoever dies with the best toys wins! lolol. That's a really nice looking 'plane there, quite a bit of skill to turn inside a Dr1 with it. 

Waiting to display it once I was as the hold early with my very good friend Stu Goldspink in Hurricane R4118. Stu started to try and get in my tail. Well, I couldn’t let him, could I? I had the advantage we were slow but he could have got me easily.

 

I had a lot of fun in that aeroplane, and I miss it a lot and miss flying even more but just have to accept it is over. I DO have some great memories though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All may I offer a sincere thanks to you all for your support and goodwill.

 

It really is great to know that we can keep the spirit and memories of these old machines alive.

 

Very much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2020 at 5:35 AM, melvyn hiscock said:

Beware anything written about Richthofen! I don’t know about  that book in particular but SO much of what is written about him is rehashed heresay. At the 100th anniversary most of the people there were standing around at the wrong  crash spot! I have many of the original reports here and it is clear that lies, false claims and what we would call information manipulation were happening within hours of the crash, so you can’t even rely on some of the original reports. I have been asked to write an article on this but it would upset SO many people as everyone has a pet theory and, of course, theirs is always the RIGHT one. 

 

There is some good research out there. You can do much worse than read ‘Saggittarius Rising’ Cecil Lewis, there are a few other contemporary books (one is excellent and I cannot for the life me remember it, I’ll have to phone a friend). Even the early Biggles books are better written than some of the ‘researched’ stuff. (Except W E John’s, whist undoubtedly experienced as he WAS a veteran, had clearly never operated a Clerget on a Camel, but much of what he wrote in the early books gives a very good feel.)

 

’High in the Empty Blue’ by Alex Revell is a great history on 56 squadron and is researched well. On the other hand, when I was reviewing books for Aeroplane magazine in the 1990s, I had a book on MvR that actually had me shouting at the book in disbelief, and this from an author that is ‘respected’ as an authority! It was total tripe.
 

It is a fascinating time, and it IS worth trying to get to the good material. Remember that in the 54 months of World War One the technological advance was massive, observation, tactical and strategic bombing, close air support, ground attack, air superiority, fighting tactics, anti submarine, radio communications, high altitude flight, and training all had to be invented and in the time it now takes to design the seat back video screens! 
 

I have been lucky to have been involved in the real nuts and bolts, and some excellent research, for over thirty years with the a memorial Flight in France, hence knowing not to get in the inside of a Dr1 again! (We were SO close to stalling out).

 

spacer.png

 

One of my next projects will be a Swordfish. I am looking for a good scheme from the Torpedo Development Unit at Gosport.  

 

Richtofen's own book (although there was a ghostwriter used to make it flow better), 'The Red Battle Flyer" is available online at  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41159/41159-h/41159-h.htm ; I believe he dictated a bunch of stories to a stenographer while recuperating from his July 1917 head wound.  As it was written during the war it is a 'in-the-moment' type of book, with no historical context as that takes time to develop.  Also, my great-grandfather's cousin, who flew with Richtofen, is actually mentioned in the book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I don’t have anything that needs rigging, I do like WWI planes and read threads like this with interest.

 

Advice is commonly to drill and then use CA to secure the line but I always wonder “drill where?”.  Do you drill through the strut or through the wing?  If the wing, is it all the way through - if so how do you tidy up the other side?

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, nheather said:

 

 

Advice is commonly to drill and then use CA to secure the line but I always wonder “drill where?”.  Do you drill through the strut or through the wing?  If the wing, is it all the way through - if so how do you tidy up the other side?

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

Sorry for this, but there isn't a short answer that covers it, so be prepared for your eyes to glaze over.......................

 

The answer depends on the subject. All th ay through is essential if you're using invisible thread/fly line, so you can tension the line with a peg while the glue cures. The other end of the wire in this case can go all the way through to provide more gripping area, but it doesn't have to if the wing is thick enough. Tidying up is done by snipping off flush with a sharp scalpl, which if done neatly can be enough. Then you patch paint the damage, which is easy enough unless you use an airbrush. Otherwise, you may have to do a little filling and sanding before the painting. If the wires emerge under a decal then it's easy - just place the decal afterwards. Some types have small small plates where the wires on the mdel emerge, which also makes it easy because you can add these with 5 though plastic card. Vacform wings really need the rigging all the way through to provide enough contact area for the glue to hold. But again, with experience you can get away without.

 

Rigid rigging materials don't need deep holes,  if using ceramic wire or steel wire, or even stretched sprue for us old-timers. They also don't need CA. Wood glue is strong enough, and cleans up easily. But you need to measure the length very precisely.

 

As to where you drill - most of the time the real wire or cable attaches to a cast metal fitting that is part of the strut socket, so you should drill exactly where the strut joins the wing surface, and try to get the angle the same as the finished wire will follow, or the model wire will kink unrealistically . In some cases the wire connects at a very short distance from the strut, so just drill in to the wing, same as for bracing arounf tailplanes and rudders. Some of the flying wires on SE5as for example actually attaach to ribs midway betwwn cabane and interplane struts on the top wing, so again just measure from a plan (or work it out from a good photo)  and drill into the wing.

 

There are exceptions if the strut has a fairing. Some struts, like on Gotha bombers, are metal tubes, faired with streamlined wood., so it looks like the wires enter the strut. The same for the cabane struts on Nieuports, where the wires look like they enter the strut a scale inch or two down from the top wing.

 

Looking at photos of real aircraft is essential if you want to get it right, but if you're not a dedicated WWI modeller and don't want to splash out on a Windsock Datafile for each type then luckily these days there is good enough material you can turn up on-line.

 

 

Paul.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this. I’m going for a drilling into the wing. Not easy on a 1/48 DH2. This one may need heavy weathering fear!

 

Great insights on The Red Baron. Had no idea he’d written a book. You’re right that info is confused on his exploits. Quite a fan of Manners cl and McCudden myself. Shame they are not better remembered.

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

Richtofen's own book (although there was a ghostwriter used to make it flow better), 'The Red Battle Flyer" is available online at  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41159/41159-h/41159-h.htm ;

There is some doubt he was even there for some of the ghost writing sessions, but it is undoubtedly the nearest to his own words that we have, and great that you have a relative that gets a mention. 
 

I bought a copy years ago, STILL have not read it (I got it  when I was 

doing ’Aerolane’s’ book reviews and used to read way too much.)
 

However, mine is possibly the personal copy of the actor and pilot Robert Lorraine as it is clearly signed by him and sort of where you’d expect an owner to mark it rather than a famous actor/manager would autograph for a fan. Does it matter if it was ACTUALLY his or he just signed it? Of course not, but a nice little sideshow that ended up with me buying Lorraine’s book and I did read that one!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ipaul321 said:

Thanks for this. I’m going for a drilling into the wing. Not easy on a 1/48 DH2. This one may need heavy weathering fear!

I felt the same on my WNW Camel, but as Paul Thompson says the clean up is not too bad, and I felt it even easier. I had airbrushed the Camel and the three main colours, PC10, clear doped linen and clear doped linen tape were all self-mixes and patching with a small amount of thinned Mr Surfacer and then some light coats of the mixed colours worked well. 
 

spacer.png

 

You can see under the aileron that I have not trimmed there and the lovely Mrs Hiscock has already got this in a display box before any ham-fisted attempts at weathering.

 

this is a mix of monofilament and knitting-in elastic. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Thompson said:

Sorry for this, but there isn't a short answer that covers it, so be prepared for your eyes to glaze over.......................

 

Hey Paul, getting them to glaze over is my ‘middle of the night, oh dear the steroids have kicked in, might as well waffle in Britmodeller’ department. 
 

Juxt don’t get me started on the guitars side of my life.....

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
×
×
  • Create New...