It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Marines to deploy the Osprey tilt rotor into combat within a year.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
Manpads require a visual lockon, in order to hit with an Infantry SAM you need to "follow" the target, There's quite a difference in following a helo going 250Km/h and an Osprey going 425 Km/h


Manpads do but that's still only when dealing with insurgents who can't get much else together. Then you start looking at tracked platforms lugging 4-8 short range missiles around.... Manpads are designed to engage airplanes moving rather faster and i suspect your trying to talk down the relatively small decrease in threat levels posed by this , if relative high in relation to other hello's, increase in speed.


True that Radar SAMs can hit Osprey easily, but they can allso hit other helos ass well.


But you will have more of the other hello's with less personal on each thus lowering your general risk profile substantially.


I do think that "hot" insertions are mad with current AA weapons and such ops should be done with fast armoured vehicles.


Well against insurgents ( you can just let them get away i guess) it might not be important enough to take risks to stop them once and for all but in a 'real war' sometimes you have to get there now/yesterday and any threat to the forces deployed for the mission is acceptble considering the strategic importance. Now one might say that in such instances the Osprey's will be sent due to their higher speed with risk to forces not being such a prime concern but i still believe that with so few platforms there will never be enough and they will be kept too far back ( suitable maintenance facilities) thus once again making the original Helo's as usefull and more practical and efficient.

Stellar




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by orca71
As for it's poor take off and landing characteristics ...


(this isn't Flyersfan ... it's Flyersfan's spouse typing ... V22 design engineer)

... I would be interested in knowing your personal experience with the V22. I am on the program, myself. The principal object of the V22 was to be a solution to the fixed wing aircraft. The V22 solves the problem of landing and taking off wherre runways are not available. This platform was never intended to be a solution for other helicopters, as many people seemed to think. Tiltrotor technology has been around since the 1930's, so it's not a new idea.

The V22, if you've ever seen it fly or it's performance characteristics, shows that it significantly outperforms helicopters as well as fixed wing aircraft.

Also, historically, new aircraft being introduced into service always has crashes. The v22 has not had any more crashes than the F/A18 or other platforms. It was just in the wrong place to receive more media attention than others.

So, I basically disagree with your comments....nothing personal..


[edit on 4/1/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
Only an idiot employs a plane like a helicopter.


(Flyersfan's husband again) ...

It's not a plane. It's not a combat offensive platform.
It's a transport helicopter that was designed to replace
CH46 Seaknight. It's a cargo helicopter for cargo and
troop movement with defensive capabilities. It isn't
for offensive. That's why we have other aircraft for.



[edit on 4/1/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Well then i got it all wrong so thanks for informing me.
Taking such a platform into high risk/any risk situations would certainly be looking for trouble with that price tag and ammount of warm bodies at risk.


Stellar



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Not flyersfan.... as a V22 engineer, why did you guys go with a tilt rotor versus a tilt wing?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by orca71
As for it's poor take off and landing characteristics ...


What are you talking about with the poor landing and takeoff characteristics. I found helicopters much more difficult to land than the V-22, and as for takeoffs, you just advance the power control lever (throttle by any other name) and its off you go, or, if you desire, you can do a rolling takeoff by rotating the engines forward (10 to 15 degrees) and applying power.

I would like to know about your experiences with the V-22. Have you ever worked with them? You seem to have a lot to say on the subject but where are you getting your information? There hasn't been any major problems with the V-22 in several years. They are slowly evolving into a well honed weapons platform. Why else would the US Military be putting so much money into the program if the program had serious problems. There are several advantages of using a tilt rotors over a helicopter in combat ops.

I am not trying to pick a fight, it's just that while working on the V-22, I found a lot of people who were against the program due to the problems from the past. The aircraft has had some bad publicity from the past, but all the problems have been fixed.

BTW- I work on simulators for the Air Force, not that I have really flow the real aircraft. I found learning to fly the CV-22 (simulator) pretty easy, and I don't even have any pilot training. Sorry if I seem a little touchy.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
why did you guys go with a tilt rotor versus a tilt wing?


Here's my husband ...

'That decision was made in the early 1980's. The short answer is..weight. Using a tilt wing would require a separate drive mechanism for each nacelle. The increase in weight would result in a reduction in performance. So design trades were made and the result is what we have today....ta daaa!



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I am on the program, myself. The principal object of the V22 was to be a solution to the fixed wing aircraft. The V22 solves the problem of landing and taking off wherre runways are not available. This platform was never intended to be a solution for other helicopters, as many people seemed to think.

Lie. The Osprey was always intended to be used for infiltration and exfiltration in hot zones, a task it is not suited for.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
The V22, if you've ever seen it fly or it's performance characteristics, shows that it significantly outperforms helicopters as well as fixed wing aircraft.

More lies. I will ignore the fixed wing comment, as it's not relevant to this aircraft whatsoever, but I will comment on the ridiculous claim that it significantly outperforms a helicopter.

The V-22 may look impressive when compared to the much smaller and older CH-46, but that is not a valid comparison. The only aircraft you can compare the V-22 to is the CH-53. If you are who you say you are, then you know this damn well.

A V-22 weights ~33,140 lbs, has ~12,300 hp and does ~220kts
A CH-46 weights 15,500 lbs, has just under 4,000hp and does ~130 kts
A CH-53 weights ~33,220 lbs, has ~13,000 hp and does ~150 kts

Why do you lie?

A CH-53 can also carry more than twice the payload of an Osprey to any range (15,000 lbs vs >35,000 lbs,) all while costing less than half ($40m vs >$100m) of the Osprey. In plain English this means that you will need two Ospreys to carry the same troops and equipment (assuming it will fit in the narrow cabin at all) that a single CH-53 could do.

Like someone else mentioned, they'll have to resort to using the ridiculous Growler instead of a regular Humvee. Add a mortar and some rounds, and you end up needing two Ospreys to get the needed firepower there, and what you end up with is still inferior to the hurt a CH-53 would have brought.

The only advantage the V-22 has is its marginally higher airspeed once it transitions into airplane mode.

These are pure design specifications, and doesn't even take into account the myriad of other design flaws and operational problems the V-22 will continue to be haunted by for the rest of its lifespan.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's not a plane. It's not a combat offensive platform.
It's a transport helicopter that was designed to replace
CH46 Seaknight. It's a cargo helicopter for cargo and
troop movement with defensive capabilities. It isn't
for offensive. That's why we have other aircraft for.

This contradicts the first quote. Claiming that the V-22 has any useful defensive capabilities is also a lie. Please describe its "defensive capabilities" to us. A ramp-mounted gun does not count.

Please stop lying. Don't get me wrong, I love the Osprey and its civilian variants... It is a nice aircraft, but in its intended military role it is a waste of tax money and a huge liability.


Originally posted by simtek 22
I am not trying to pick a fight, it's just that while working on the V-22, I found a lot of people who were against the program due to the problems from the past. The aircraft has had some bad publicity from the past, but all the problems have been fixed.

Well, I'm glad I won't be anywhere near one when it suffers an "engine" failure or hostile fire on the way in. Who's going to repair any combat damage to the V-22, by the way? Is it field-repairable? Please tell us what the fuselage is made out of. Thanks!



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
My husband will respond once to the obnoxious newbie troll -


Originally posted by HenryHenry
Lie. The Osprey was always intended to be used for infiltration and exfiltration in hot zones, a task it is not suited for.


Lie? Actually, no. I have the data books to prove it. However, it is also intended, like you stated, to be used for insertion and extraction. Again, this supports my original statement of the platform not be used as an offensive weapon.


More lies. I will comment on the ridiculous claim that it significantly outperforms a helicopter.


Unless you're looking at a different performance handbook than I am (dated July of 2001, published by the manufacturer with the Government's approval) I'd say your statement has no basis of fact. Enough said on this topic...let's move on.


The V-22 may look impressive when compared to the much smaller and older CH-46, but that is not a valid comparison. The only aircraft you can compare the V-22 to is the CH-53.


Actually the V22 is a better comparison to the HH-60.


If you are who you say you are, then you know this damn well.
Why do you lie?


I don't appreciate your hostile attitude here. It's uncalled for. I am providing the readers of this forum some additional information from someone that has first-hand knowledge of the aircraft. Frankly, I don't really care wheter you believe me or not. Each aircraft that you have cited performance facts for, are basically acurate. That's fine. One thing that should be considered is what is the government's mission need that is desired to be achieved? If the Govt could have solved their mission needs with the current inventory of helicopters and other warfighters, then I am sure they never would have made it through the Senate Appropriation Committee to pursue an expensive investment.

Well, that's all the diatribe for today. I'm going back to my senseless TV show cuz at least I can turn that off. have a nice day.

Side note from FlyersFan ... henryhenry .. you have SERIOUS paranoia
issues. You are here 24 hours and you are throwing 'liar liar' around
and questioning polite and informative posters about their professed
livelyhoods. Get thyself to a psychologist ... fast.


[edit on 4/2/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Okay ... I signed up.
This is me ... Bad Dog. FlyerFan's husband.
Posts may be directed to me .. not my wife.
Thanx.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
FlyersFan/Bad Dog.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
My husband will respond once to the obnoxious newbie troll -

How am I a troll?


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Lie? Actually, no. I have the data books to prove it. However, it is also intended, like you stated, to be used for insertion and extraction. Again, this supports my original statement of the platform not be used as an offensive weapon.

Well, we both agree that it was never intended to be an offensive platform, I do not dispute that, I am simply questioning its ability to do, well, anything useful.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Unless you're looking at a different performance handbook than I am (dated July of 2001, published by the manufacturer with the Government's approval) I'd say your statement has no basis of fact. Enough said on this topic...let's move on.

I'm sorry, but no. You are not getting off the hook that easily. If my claims are wrong, then please refute them with accurate data.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Actually the V22 is a better comparison to the HH-60.

How so? This statement makes no sense. The BA609 can be compared to a HH-60, but the V-22 certainly can't. It's like comparing a 747 to a small bizjet.

Unless you mean that the V-22 performs about as well as a HH-60, which is true. If that is what you mean, then you are just supporting my argument.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
I don't appreciate your hostile attitude here. It's uncalled for. I am providing the readers of this forum some additional information from someone that has first-hand knowledge of the aircraft.

And having "first-hand knowledge" implies that you might also have an interest in making sure the Osprey succeeds, even if that means lying. Isn't the whole point of ATS to expose the truth?


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Frankly, I don't really care wheter you believe me or not. Each aircraft that you have cited performance facts for, are basically acurate. That's fine.

But earlier you said that my statement has no basis of fact? Make up your mind.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
One thing that should be considered is what is the government's mission need that is desired to be achieved? If the Govt could have solved their mission needs with the current inventory of helicopters and other warfighters, then I am sure they never would have made it through the Senate Appropriation Committee to pursue an expensive investment.

It's purely political. The Osprey is not being put into service because it is the best option, but rather due to personal interests of the involved parties.

You and I both know that the current Osprey is not even close to meeting the original program goals or even the absolute minimum contract requirements originally put forth. The whole thing has been an abysmal failure and I think it is only fair that the public knows what their money has been wasted on. They'll care once people start dying, trust me on that.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Well, that's all the diatribe for today. I'm going back to my senseless TV show cuz at least I can turn that off. have a nice day.

Okay, but I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping we could have a discussion based on facts. Everything I have said can quickly be verified by anyone with access to Google, I'm afraid the same is not true for your claims.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Side note from FlyersFan ... henryhenry .. you have SERIOUS paranoia
issues. You are here 24 hours and you are throwing 'liar liar' around
and questioning polite and informative posters about their professed
livelyhoods. Get thyself to a psychologist ... fast.

I do not have paranoia issues, I just happened to stumble upon this forum and this thread and figured I'd comment on the huge amount of disinformation being presented here. I do not question your credentials, and that is why I called you/him a liar as I can only assume it to be a deliberate attempt at misleading the public.


jra

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bad Dog
Okay ... I signed up.
This is me ... Bad Dog. FlyerFan's husband.
Posts may be directed to me .. not my wife.
Thanx.


Perfect timing. I was just going to say that i'd definately like give you a vote for the Way Above Top Secret award, and now I can and did. Thanks for input on this topic. It's always great to have people who actually work on these things come into the discussions and hear what they have to say.

I've always found the V-22 to be an interesting aircraft when I first saw it in the mid to late 80's. Glad to see it finally entering service. Hopefully it comes up here for an airshow one of these years soon.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bad Dog
Okay ... I signed up.
This is me ... Bad Dog. FlyerFan's husband.
Posts may be directed to me .. not my wife.
Thanx.


So what's your fee? Your pretty good at this new kind of guerrilla marketing. Pretty sophisticated. I'll refer you to Moller who might need some help with marketing his "flying" car.

Henry addressed each of your misleading statements rather well. Unlike Henry, I have no attachment to the V-22 or it's crippled design.





[edit on 2-4-2006 by orca71]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by simtek 22

Originally posted by orca71
As for it's poor take off and landing characteristics ...


What are you talking about with the poor landing and takeoff characteristics. I found helicopters much more difficult to land than the V-22, and as for takeoffs, you just advance the power control lever (throttle by any other name) and its off you go, or, if you desire, you can do a rolling takeoff by rotating the engines forward (10 to 15 degrees) and applying power.

I would like to know about your experiences with the V-22. Have you ever worked with them? You seem to have a lot to say on the subject but where are you getting your information? There hasn't been any major problems with the V-22 in several years. They are slowly evolving into a well honed weapons platform. Why else would the US Military be putting so much money into the program if the program had serious problems. There are several advantages of using a tilt rotors over a helicopter in combat ops.

I am not trying to pick a fight, it's just that while working on the V-22, I found a lot of people who were against the program due to the problems from the past. The aircraft has had some bad publicity from the past, but all the problems have been fixed.

BTW- I work on simulators for the Air Force, not that I have really flow the real aircraft. I found learning to fly the CV-22 (simulator) pretty easy, and I don't even have any pilot training. Sorry if I seem a little touchy.


Poor take-off and landing characteristics resulting from its high disc loading and excessive roll tendency and sensitivity to lift variations between the rotors resulting from the fact that the lift area is highly bipolar but the mass is highly centralized. In contrast, the lift and mass of a CH-47 is nicely distributed and hence naturally stable providing pilots some margin of safety to push the envelope when required.

As for flight simulators, they are just glorified video games. My understanding of the V-22 comes from my analysis of it's design from an engineering standpoint and numerous real world examples that reinforce my analysis. Like Moller's flying car, its got some marketable specifications but a closer look reveals that too many compromises have been made, from safety to payload. One of the most ridiculous aspects of the design is the narrow 72 inch wide cargo which would barely hold a small economy car with mirrors folded!


[edit on 2-4-2006 by orca71]


jra

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by orca71
As for flight simulators, they are just glorified video games.


Sure they arn't 100% accurate, but saying they are "just glorified video games" seems rather silly. Seeing as how they are used for training real pilots, they are definately advanced and accurate enough I would think.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by orca71
As for flight simulators, they are just glorified video games.


Sure they arn't 100% accurate, but saying they are "just glorified video games" seems rather silly. Seeing as how they are used for training real pilots, they are definately advanced and accurate enough I would think.


Flight simulators certainly have their uses such as helping pilots become familiar with an aircraft's control environment and basic flying mechanics but the limits on its accuracy are technology, available data, software design & development and management. In other words, its a simulation video game, not an accurate representation of flying.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by orca71
Henry addressed each of your misleading statements rather well. Unlike Henry, I have no attachment to the V-22 or it's crippled design.

I like all aircraft, no matter how silly they are and despite all its problems, the Osprey can be operated fairly safely in a controlled environment. As can the Wright Flyer. In a combat scenario? Well, you know...

I find it strange that so many people here who claim to be involved in the project appear to be completely oblivious to all its problems and have nothing but praise for the aircraft. It's like listening to an advertising brochure. You'd think the guy who works on the V-22 simulator would be well-aware of its poor flight characteristics and potentially deadly, uh, "quirks" and not claim that "all the problems have been fixed" when many of them are impossible to fix even with a complete redesign. You guys know that the Osprey has been in development since the mid-1950s, right?

If his experience is limited to a small subsystem of the simulator, then maybe he should refrain from making ridiculous claims like the Osprey "slowly evolving into a well honed weapons platform" and that "there are several advantages of using a tilt rotors over a helicopter in combat ops." Maybe he considers welding a machine gun to the rear ramp evolving into a weapons platform, but I don't. The only other possible defense that could theoretically be added is a gun mounted under the nose, but this is unlikely to ever happen due to the needed space and the added weight. Combat advantages over a helicopter? Uh, well, I guess he'll have to answer that one.

I'm still hopeful Bad Dog will return to clarify the following statement for us, because it defies all logic.


The V22, if you've ever seen it fly or it's performance characteristics, shows that it significantly outperforms helicopters as well as fixed wing aircraft.


Moller salesman indeed. The simple fact is that even if you ignore all the technical deficits, it would still be completely impossible for an aircraft like the Osprey to outperform an equivalent helicopter in anything other than airspeeds at high altitudes.

It's fine to have opinions, but come on, at least try to base them on facts.

Oh well, I guess my post will be met with demands to know what my "experiences with the V-22 are," as if my right to have an opinion is dependant on having flown and/or designed the aircraft myself. Either that or I'll be accused of being a Disinformer sent by Sikorsky to taint the Osprey's good reputation.

Well Bad Dog and simtek 22, the ball is in your court.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HenryHenry
Well, I'm glad I won't be anywhere near one when it suffers an "engine" failure or hostile fire on the way in.


I hope that you arent implying that the V-22 cant operate on one engine. Just because the engines are mounted on the wings, that does not mean that they are directly driving the prop-rotors. The aircraft utilizes a gearbox/transmission drive system that will allow the aircraft to fly with one engine out. If damaged in combat, the V-22 can still land like an aircraft in emergencies. The prop-rotors are designed to disintegrate upon impact with the ground.

As for the slam on simulations that have been made, if they are such "glorified video games" why would the military spend so much money on the development of the simulators. When I was at Kirtland, we were constantly getting updates refining the software math models for the trainers. The flight test crews were constantly flying our devices to test out performance characterstics before trying them out in the real aircraft. They would then update the trainer whenever necessary.

I have worked in military simulation since the mid 80's and the devices I have worked on have trained hundreds of pilots. They arent "video games" or toys, they have real world applications and we can train pilots on complex and dangerous situations that they may encounter.

HeneryHenery - The quirk you talk about is called vortex ring state(VRS). This problem is what caused the Yuma crash, that and pilot error. The flight control software has been corrected to prevent this from happening again. The other crashes were due to mechanical failures. Most aircraft go thru this type of trial and error testing. What other problems with the aircraft are you referring to with the all technical defects comments. I was only aware of the problem with VRS.

One of the advantages you left out is range. Air refuelings are also not as demanding as in a helicopter.

When I talk about weapons platform, I cover a lot of ground. Just because a aircraft is unarmed, that does not mean its not a weapons platform. A weapons platform can be used to deploy various devices to destroy or overwhelm an enemy. In the Osprey's case, its either Marines or SOF teams.



[edit on 4-4-2006 by simtek 22]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by simtek 22

I hope that you arent implying that the V-22 cant operate on one engine. Just because the engines are mounted on the wings, that does not mean that they are directly driving the prop-rotors. The aircraft utilizes a gearbox/transmission drive system that will allow the aircraft to fly with one engine out. If damaged in combat, the V-22 can still land like an aircraft in emergencies. The prop-rotors are designed to disintegrate upon impact with the ground. [/QUOTE]

I hope you arent implying the V-22 can survive an engine failure in hover mode. It will fall like a brick (almost) almost certainly killing everyone on board.

Nice try though.

[QUOTE]
As for the slam on simulations that have been made, if they are such "glorified video games" why would the military spend so much money on the development of the simulators. When I was at Kirtland, we were constantly getting updates refining the software math models for the trainers. The flight test crews were constantly flying our devices to test out performance characterstics before trying them out in the real aircraft. They would then update the trainer whenever necessary.

[/QUOTE]

What youre describing is no different from dozens of video games that undergo the same process. They gather data, create a model and dynamics simulation in software, then update to ensure "accuracy".


[QUOTE]I have worked in military simulation since the mid 80's and the devices I have worked on have trained hundreds of pilots. They arent "video games" or toys, they have real world applications and we can train pilots on complex and dangerous situations that they may encounter.[/QUOTE]

You can use a simulator to train a pilot for complex or dangerous combat situations (as many video game players do on a daily basis), but you cant use the simulator to discover the limits of an aircraft's flight envelope or any of it's real world dynamic characteristics. In case you didnt realize, the Matrix was just a movie.

[QUOTE]
HeneryHenery - The quirk you talk about is called vortex ring state(VRS). This problem is what caused the Yuma crash, that and pilot error. The flight control software has been corrected to prevent this from happening again. [/QUOTE]

Rubbish. It wasnt a software error that needed "correcting" that caused the crash but fundamental flaws in the aircraft's design. What they did wasnt "correct" the software but rather alter it so that it constantly monitors the pilots actions and limits the pilot's control so that he cant exceed the aircraft's rather low safety threshhold.

[QUOTE]The other crashes were due to mechanical failures. Most aircraft go thru this type of trial and error testing. What other problems with the aircraft are you referring to with the all technical defects comments. I was only aware of the problem with VRS.

One of the advantages you left out is range. Air refuelings are also not as demanding as in a helicopter.

When I talk about weapons platform, I cover a lot of ground. Just because a aircraft is unarmed, that does not mean its not a weapons platform. A weapons platform can be used to deploy various devices to destroy or overwhelm an enemy. In the Osprey's case, its either Marines or SOF teams.[/QUOTE]

If being armed and armored arent requirements for qualifying as a weapons platform, then by your logic a paratrooper is a weapon and a parachute is a weapons platform.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Orca - I am stating here and now that you dont know anything about the V-22. Yes, the V-22 can hover with one engine out, it can fly with one engine out, it can land with one engine out. You seem to know nothing about the V-22 other than you dont like it.

You also know nothing about simulation. Most of the development for the V-22 was done thru simulations, or have you never heard of computer modeling. I have a good friend who works at Pax River, he was on the V-22 development team. They constructed the simulator, developed the software, and tested the feasability of the V-22, this was done in parallel with the actual aircraft development. You can design a system then model it in a simulator to see if it will work.

You are wrong with your rubbish comment. The pilot at Yuma attempted to perform a manuever that took the V-22 outside the flight envelope. He was attempting to do a high speed decent, flareout, and landing. The software was corrected after the crash to prevent the pilots from rotating the nacelles into a no lift zone depending on airspeed and rate of descent.

One or two Marines in a rowboat is a weapons platform. I dare you to tell a Marine pilot that his V-22 is not a weapons platform.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join