News:


  • April 26, 2024, 03:44:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Exhaust Suction  (Read 2696 times)

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6123
Exhaust Suction
« on: December 07, 2018, 11:23:25 AM »
Could one of the engineering types out there tell me which of the exhaust exits in the attachment has the most suction?

Thanks - Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12808
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2018, 12:14:23 PM »
Aesthetically I think you'll find that B sucks the most.

Practically, aerodynamics does not lend itself well to isolated answers.  I think a better approach is to answer the question above what you asked, which is (I assume) "how do I get adequate airflow over my motor, battery and ESC"?  I think the answer there is to make sure you have an adequate front-facing inlet, and to make sure that the outlet is either flush with the side (like your A) or has some step-in behind it like your B and C.  However I don't think it is going to make enough difference to care (you're flying stunt, not running an efficiency contest).  Personally, if I was looking for efficiency I'd be awfully tempted to make the "step in" by building a step into the fuselage behind the opening.

So, picture D, definitely.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6123
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2018, 01:13:06 PM »
Aesthetically I think you'll find that B sucks the most.

Practically, aerodynamics does not lend itself well to isolated answers.  I think a better approach is to answer the question above what you asked, which is (I assume) "how do I get adequate airflow over my motor, battery and ESC"?  I think the answer there is to make sure you have an adequate front-facing inlet, and to make sure that the outlet is either flush with the side (like your A) or has some step-in behind it like your B and C.  However I don't think it is going to make enough difference to care (you're flying stunt, not running an efficiency contest).  Personally, if I was looking for efficiency I'd be awfully tempted to make the "step in" by building a step into the fuselage behind the opening.

So, picture D, definitely.
Close - It is not the engine I am worried about.  I am having to locate my ESC where the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow.  I was hoping to create some suction similar to what we do in IC with that little angled hole in the top behind the engine that everybody thinks is a drain to get some airflow over the crankcase.  I know that you get some suction from "A" but I was wondering if "B" or "C" made it better.  You make a good point.  Perhaps a fan (where do we get them?) or a cooling spinner to get some air past the engine.

I would assume under normal circumstances that the motor produces the most predictable heat but also probably has the higher tolerance.  The ESC should not get that hot if the motor doesn't UNLESS it cannot vent it's heat or the surrounding air is heated.  It makes sense to try and cool the motor and battery with a different air source than you use to cool the ESC.  To me, blowing hot air from the motor over the ESC just isn't the best way.  I have tried to make the airflow over the motor also "cool" the battery and this is to help direct a fresher source over the ESC.

Now let me add that all of this comes from reading up on what to try and a little logic (very little).  What I have found is that unless you read the entire forum on a subject you might miss the part where they tell you that it didn't work!

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Dave Hull

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1908
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2018, 03:11:16 PM »
Absolutely and definitely the "most suction" would be created by your 2-D drawing in version "B."  You are creating a larger, low pressure disturbance, which therefore causes more total drag and takes more power if you want to go the same speed, or the same power will simply give you less speed.

There are tables of coefficients that answer this question. A good starting point is looking at the drag book by Hoerner.

(I got paid to answer exactly this question--and a million variations--for 5 years of my career....)

Dave

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6123
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2018, 03:19:12 PM »
Absolutely and definitely the "most suction" would be created by your 2-D drawing in version "B."  You are creating a larger, low pressure disturbance, which therefore causes more total drag and takes more power if you want to go the same speed, or the same power will simply give you less speed.

There are tables of coefficients that answer this question. A good starting point is looking at the drag book by Hoerner.

(I got paid to answer exactly this question--and a million variations--for 5 years of my career....)

Dave
Thanks - If I read your answer correctly, as the plane flies through the air, the shape of "B" will draw more air through the hole than either "A" or "C".

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Dave Hull

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1908
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2018, 03:32:03 PM »
Ken,

How about a few sketches of your overall proposed installation? That would help define the problem much better, and might generate the best alternatives.

Cooling system design in the model airplane world is often characterized by exaggerated rules of thumb. These are better than ignoring the issue entirely, but if you compromise one thing, say structural integrity, to get giant cooling holes that you don't need...then you are not really better off. And so on. Installing an extreme cowl flap to create substantial suction may not be necessary for adequate flow for cooling, but it will up the drag, and up the power needed. As long as this is in the single digit percentage range, we would probably never notice.

Reusing air is done all the time. For free-flowing air that does not have much dwell time in contact with cooling fins or hot surfaces will not have much of a temperature rise. As you can imagine, nearly stagnant air however, will. For this reason, the inside of your cowl is actually just as important (and maybe moreso) than the outside. Stunt cowlings have long ignored this, and get away with it most of the time because the applications are not that stressful. A common exception to this is the installation of a tuned pipe in an enclosed duct below the fuselage. Due to the length, the internal drag is high. And due to the materials used, they are running near the structural limits.

Dave

Offline Dave Hull

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1908
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2018, 03:35:03 PM »
Ken,

Correct. For a given height and frontal area, "B" will create a larger disturbance and have lower pressure behind the exit. It is not a subtle shape seeking a balance of characteristics. It is a brute force geometry that goes right after maximum pressure differential.

Dave

Offline Istvan Travnik

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 289
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2018, 04:29:49 PM »
Excuse me, but
the depression is not a result of a 'disturbance' made by some stovepipe opened backwards, but it is a result of the good old Bernoulli-rule.
P2 - P1 = 1/2 rho x (v2 - v1)^2


Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9941
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2018, 05:47:05 PM »
Have Howard 3D print some NACA Ducts for you. They're all the rage in NASCAR and NHRA, so pictures are pretty easily available. They use 'em for both inlets and outlets, as appropriate. They look cool, a plus.  S?P Steve

https://www.amazon.com/Pro-werks-C42-017-4-NACA-Duct/dp/B003NE2HBK/ref=sr_1_6/140-5573005-9139817?ie=UTF8&qid=1544230820&sr=8-6&keywords=naca+duct
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline Dave Hull

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1908
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2018, 06:06:57 PM »
Istvan,

The flow over the version "B" exhaust flap has flow accelerated in a vector approximating the vector angle of the local surface. The wake created behind this discontinuity results in a  significant pressure differential. You can attempt to apply a Bernoulli equation using streamtubes--but isn't it much easier to use 3 dimensional CFD? This is what I did for 5 years on dozens of versions of what Ken has showed.

Steve,

As far as a NACA duct, we are conditioned to believe how elegant and sexy they are. That they must perform well, because the math is elegant, right? Well, their efficiency is good, but their effectiveness for a given size is pretty much poor. They are quiet--mostly because they aren't doing much. I did a study of these compared to all reasonable alternatives and came to this conclusion. Go look at the first jet intake that attempted to use this design form. It was also the last.  That said, if Ken's cooling problem is not really a very stressing case, then by all means go for maximum sex and minimum duct performance....

Dave

Offline Paul Walker

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1629
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2018, 06:11:46 PM »
What brand of ESC are you trying to keep cool?

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9941
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2018, 06:24:47 PM »
Don't I remember Howard's "Poland" Impact having a "NACA Duct"? I didn't think it looked "complete", but it did look cool. It's "Stunt", so yes, looks is key...20 points is the prime directive.  ;)  Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline Dave Hull

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1908
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2018, 06:28:20 PM »
A parallel side ramp looks almost as cool and works better.... You might still get 20 appearance points, but you are faced with endlessly arguing with everyone who ever saw a NACA duct that you "didn't get it right."

Dave

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9941
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2018, 06:37:58 PM »
Well, it seems to me that a perfect place to mount an "ESC" is in the pipe tunnel!  LL~ Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6123
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2018, 08:00:25 PM »
What brand of ESC are you trying to keep cool?
A Castle 50 lite, 50 full size and a 75 full size.  I am retrofitting electrical into an IC with a rather narrow fuselage.  The only place the esc will fit comfortably is between the motor mounts about 2" behind the motor.  My nose configuration gives that space a whole lot of fresh air but no movement and with the battery beneath it the air will heat up and bad things will follow.  I can vent the space but venting alone will not produce the movement.  I have considered a baffle inside the scoop (which cools the battery) to deflect propwash into the cavity (I may do that too) but, if these "scoops" will create some suction then it will pull in the flow over the motor.  All I need is to scavenge the low heat coming off of the battery so it doesn't build up.

I have read about a fan attachment for Cobra motors but all of it was old so I don't know it they are used anymore.   A fan would solve the problem since it would blow directly over the esc but, since I don't hear about them anymore they must have their own set of issues.

Man, I never thought that there would be so much to learn just changing power plants but I am not looking back.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6123
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2018, 08:02:46 PM »
Well, it seems to me that a perfect place to mount an "ESC" is in the pipe tunnel!  LL~ Steve
The fact that you are right is not going to help.  n1

I am sure some of you know what a "Blivet" is.  Retrofitting electric into a narrow body 35 size ship is the very definition of a Blivet.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Dave Hull

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1908
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2018, 08:23:32 PM »
Ken,
Did you consider exhaust vents along the top deck behind your front motor/equipment bay? Easy to retrofit with a sharpened piece of brass tubing, at whatever angle you deem appropriate. These are also good at preventing heat soaking after a flight while sitting on the ground.

Dave

Offline Paul Walker

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1629
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2018, 08:26:15 PM »
You said, and bad things WILL follow.

Is this because you expect a problem, or you have already experienced one?

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6123
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2018, 08:34:15 PM »
You said, and bad things WILL follow.

Is this because you expect a problem, or you have already experienced one?
I spent the better part of my adult life in the computer business.  Mostly software but I was into hardware for a few years.  One thing I found out is that any electronic component that is expecting cooling, (eg fan) that doesn't have it will fail.  So you might say I am expecting a problem and I am trying to avoid it.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6123
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2018, 08:42:31 PM »
Ken,
Did you consider exhaust vents along the top deck behind your front motor/equipment bay? Easy to retrofit with a sharpened piece of brass tubing, at whatever angle you deem appropriate. These are also good at preventing heat soaking after a flight while sitting on the ground.

Dave
That is what these "reverse scoops" are going to cover...or not.  I have a 1" x 1/4" slot on each side.  I am thinking that simply tapering them so that the back is lower than the front may provide the suction I am looking for.  Even if they don't suck, having them there is better than not.

Thanks - Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Paul Walker

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1629
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2018, 09:04:40 PM »
I ask because I have used many Castle ESC'S and never had a cooling issue. Never had a Castle overheat, but have had several other types overheat.

It will be much easier on the ESC is your battery and motor KV are matched well with the rpm you will run at. If there is a big difference, the ESC will have to work harder, and that makes heat.

I have been surprised how buried a Castle can be and still not overheat.

I have used a diverter with "other" ESC's to keep them cool with success. Exit air openings are more important than entry air openings.

Good luck.

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6123
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2018, 09:12:46 PM »
I ask because I have used many Castle ESC'S and never had a cooling issue. Never had a Castle overheat, but have had several other types overheat.

It will be much easier on the ESC is your battery and motor KV are matched well with the rpm you will run at. If there is a big difference, the ESC will have to work harder, and that makes heat.

I have been surprised how buried a Castle can be and still not overheat.

I have used a diverter with "other" ESC's to keep them cool with success. Exit air openings are more important than entry air openings.

Good luck.
I have only the one Castle 50 to draw experience from and it has never overheated.  I fly a lot with Mike Scott and he is big on matching the components, especially the prop, and his systems never overheat.  The baffle may do the trick and I will cease to worry about it, button up the front end and get back in the air.

Thanks - Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Chuck_Smith

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2018, 06:51:45 AM »
It really depends on what your goal is. For exhaust scavenging and reduction of back pressure I'll buck the trend and go with A. Properly faired that will see static pressure of the atmosphere. You want the air next to the exhaust opening to be at it's highest velocity.

For ESC cooling and no exhaust, I'll still go with A.

Considering models fly so slowly that the Reynolds number will be nil at the distance to the exhaust and hence the boundary layer thickness will be negligable, the pressure should be close to the ambient. That's about as low as it can get in a subsonic application without creating extra drag.

In a rearward facing exhaust there will be turbulence due to vorticity which could be detrimental. If you look at some of the cowls on old radial engines you'll notice the exhausts off the collector rings were "slash cut" to keep them from extending into the airstream. You'll see this on sports cars, Indy cars, and LMP and DP prototype race cars too.

Or, visualize why the hole in your NVA is at right angles to the flow, or why exhaust diffusers on race cars are so smooth.

Finally, the object of the powerplant installation is to add thrust, not drag!

But -

On the other hand - IF you had sufficient heat addition to get high enough exhaust velocity and enough and mass flow rate through multiple combustion chambers, you could use the exhaust for thrust. This works really well on Funny Cars and is why we were laying the headers so far back. (At the hit there's enough thrust from the exhaust to hold the car to the ceiling.) Laying back the headers made a real improvement in 60' times -made the cars dang near impossible to drive too, so the NHRA has now mandated header angle.

Or like on a Formula 1 car where they used to blow exhaust gasses over the diffuser to get extra downforce.

The secret to designing your exhaust is this - don't just visualize the airflow around the exhaust, but also visualize that a pressurized flow of exhaust or cooling air is present as well and it needs to be mixed with the surrounding air. That will remove the "vacuum" you'd expect to see on a rearward facing exhaust and now the projection of the exhaust becomes extra drag. On an electric the cooling air gets slowed and pressurized if the opening is bigger than the exhaust. The fuselage basically becomes a diffuser and now even though there's not much heat added, you still have a high pressure flow to deal with.

I know that's a messy answer but there is no universal "best" solution. Like I said earlier, it's all about what you want to accomplish.

For a very low heat addition such as an ESC, I'm still going with A even though no exhaust gasses are present.

When in doubt and faced with a lack of data my experience has been that smoother is generally better.

Other opinions may vary, it's all good.

Chuck

« Last Edit: December 08, 2018, 07:14:05 AM by Chuck_Smith »
AMA 76478

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6123
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #23 on: December 08, 2018, 08:09:38 AM »
I think I have my answer and I really appreciate this discussion.  What prompted it was that little hole that you found on a lot of the 70's planes (before mufflers) on the top of the nose just behind the engine compartment.  I used them and many of the folks I flew with used them to help cool the engine case and to provide a drain for all the crap that built up there from the exhaust. I don't see them on any of the current ships probably because engines run cooler and cowlings stay dry inside.  The one I used was patterned after the one Bob Gieseke used which was a version of drawing "A".  I have been convinced here that two of these will probably vent enough air to keep the ESC from overheating and I don't need to add the blisters.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline john e. holliday

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 22773
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #24 on: December 08, 2018, 10:05:53 AM »
No worry about an ESC if you fly internal combustion S?P
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline frank williams

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 833
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #25 on: December 08, 2018, 05:12:16 PM »
Nasa Duck

Offline Alan Resinger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 579
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #26 on: December 08, 2018, 05:25:48 PM »
Frank, I think you should put those all over you next model. If one is good, 20 would be great.

Online Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6869
Re: Exhaust Suction
« Reply #27 on: December 08, 2018, 10:02:27 PM »
I think I have my answer and I really appreciate this discussion.  What prompted it was that little hole that you found on a lot of the 70's planes (before mufflers) on the top of the nose just behind the engine compartment.  I used them and many of the folks I flew with used them to help cool the engine case and to provide a drain for all the crap that built up there from the exhaust. I don't see them on any of the current ships probably because engines run cooler and cowlings stay dry inside.  The one I used was patterned after the one Bob Gieseke used which was a version of drawing "A".  I have been convinced here that two of these will probably vent enough air to keep the ESC from overheating and I don't need to add the blisters.

Ken

    I think picture "A" is all you need. I have learned through the years from observation and reading, that you need more exhaust opening than you need intake. You have air flowing down the sides of the fuselage past that opening creating low pressure at the opening. By not having any restriction through the area where  your components are, any air that comes in would pack a positive pressure build up in that area. Unless you allow that pressure build up to exhaust, the air stays in the compartment. If you have an intake opening of say, 1 square inch, and you have exhaust opening or multiple openings of 2 square inches or more total, should should be "cool." Add that to the already low pressure at the opening, and you have flow. If you have a similar set up for an IC power plant through the engine compartment, you should be "cool" also. If the head and cylinder fins are doing their job along with the oil in your fuel, cooling for the bottom end of the crank case is not needed. One way to check that is, if you have a metal spinner on your model, as soon as your airplane rolls to a stop, grab the spinner to feel if it's hot, cold  or what ever. You have to do it immediately. If you do it quick enough, and it feels cold, in a matter of seconds it will get warmer, almost hot, as the heat from the top end creeps down the crank case, to the crank shaft, forward to the drive plate and then the spinner ( as long as the spinner back plate isn't rubbing the nose ring.). That is the second main reason engines are made from aluminum, because it conducts heat so well and rapidly. When the engine is running, the venturi effect of the air and fuel being drawn down the intake and through the bottom end of the engine keeps things pretty cool as long as the engine keeps running. When the engine quits, the physics of convection takes over and it heats up quickly. Want a demonstration of this effect? Take a bowl of warm or even hot water. Soak a rag in it and get it thoroughly soaked. Wring it out, and the rag will be pretty warm. Grab a corner and swing it around like you are rooting on your favorite sports team for about 5 or 10 seconds, then feel the rag. it will be very cool to almost cold. I figured this out, oddly enough, by racing Fox .35's on Sky Ray .35's at the SIG contest. Fox .35's can be pretty hard to start hot. That is, I believe, because if you come in after running at a leaned out condition with a 9-7 prop loading things down, the top end gets really hot. When landing for a pit stop, it takes just seconds for the bottom end to get hot enough to boil fuel. Have you even noticed that castor never get baked on to the bottom end of a Fox .35? I noticed other guys were squirting syringes of fuel on their engine to cool it. I remembered from science class that alcohol has a much lower boiling point that water and does a lousy job of that, so i started to take a couple of syringes full if ice water to use for that purpose. Plane lands, crew recovers the model, hits the engine with the full load of water as quickly as possible, fuel, flip and fly. On a profile model, there is nothing getting in the way of the engine radiating heat out to ambient air, unlike a cowled engine.  I know why the think they put that hole their in the old days, and maybe it did help, but if everything else about the engine installation was correct, there was no problem in the first place. Read some of Al Rabe's old articles on how he dealt with cooling issues on his early scale stunters. Pretty interesting reading.
  Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here