The Steampunk Forum at Brass Goggles
October 19, 2017, 07:24:08 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Support BrassGoggles! Donate once or $3/mo.
 See details here.
 
   Home   Blog Help Rules Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Airship specifics  (Read 2352 times)
Keith_Beef
Snr. Officer
****
France France


« Reply #50 on: February 13, 2014, 12:59:41 am »

If you could theoretically make no dew or condensation appear on the deck then yes it could possibly work.
I'm just theorising as I like to make my story as realistic as possible.
I should have mentioned it earlier but, the coal I used to get for our open fire was always damp. When a ship is full of several dozen tons of wet coal, would the damp not cause problems?

The coal might have been wet because the coal merchant stored it outside on a big pile. But in my memory, coal always looks wet, even when it's dry, because the surfaces left by breaking it are always more or less smooth and shiny. Then when you bring it up from the cold coal cellar to the warm parlour, condensation forms on the cold chunks of coal.

In any case, any condensation that forms on the chunks of coal are a result of the humidity of the air, it is not new humidity being brought along by the coal… it's not as if each chunk of coal is a sponge carrying more than its own weight in water.
Logged

--
Keith
CPT_J_Percell
Board Moderator
Zeppelin Captain
**
England England


The werewolf Airship Captain.


WWW
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2014, 07:40:33 am »


The coal might have been wet because the coal merchant stored it outside on a big pile.

That never actually dawned on me.
Logged

I suffer from a random misfiring synapse and a bad case of wolfen the turns me into a seven-foot-tall werewolf or a seven-foot great wolf!
https://dragon-rehoming-centre.myshopify.com/
http://purbry.wordpress.com
Angus A Fitziron
Zeppelin Overlord
*******
United Kingdom United Kingdom

Research Air Ship R.A.S. 'Saorsa'


« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2014, 10:42:10 am »

If you are looking for 'realism' then I think you should make your version of the physics involved plausible and consistent. The trouble with airships is that they need to be BIG to do useful lift. For example you mention several dozen tons of coal as fuel. That presents a number of issues. Firstly the weight means a pretty big airship, something like Graf Zeppelin which could carry 40 crew and 20 passengers. It's fuel was Bleugas, a hydrocarbon compound gas which had the same specific density as air so as fuel was burned, the space left by the gas in the containers was replaced by air so the mass and balance of the airship was unaffected. It also used petrol but the burning off of that fuel resulted in a net loss of mass, so the airship would rise unless it could gain weight (captured condensation?) or vented lift gas. The problem with venting lift gas is that the next time you need lift it can only be done by dumping ballast and ballast is mass you have to take off with...

A second problem with coal is the relatively low power outputs available with the small lightweight boilers and engines capable of being lifted by an airship of modest proportions. Henri Giffard's steam airship worked because it was quite small. Bigger airships needed much more horsepower. Graf Zeppelin had 5 engines, each capable of 2,500 hp, a total of 12500hp! This was barely adequate to maintain headway in the face of headwinds whilst crossing the US coast into a line squall in 1928.

A general rule of thumb was to fly at a height of no lower than 2.5 times the length of the airship to avoid crashing in the event of hitting a low pressure pocket or a severe pitch problem - it was not unknown for an airship to stand on its end which was a position that was hard to recover from, often terminal! Operational ceilings of the Zeppelin height climbers was about 6000m and going beyond this ~ the highest survived was about 7300 feet ~ resulted in the crew losing consciousness and the engines freezing up. So, that gives you parameters that are believable. The physics within those bounderies should be believable, otherwise you end up in handwavium territory which, to my mind soon collapses unless you can be consistent. I particularly like the way H.G.Wells and C.S.Lewis wrote science fiction based on Schiaparelli's observations of Mars and passed over the problem of getting to or from Mars with just a simple statement which they then ignored resolutely for the rest of the book! No attempt was made to explain the technology used nor to observe how the Martians survived being fired out of massive cannons! All of it was balderdash but by not dwelling on it and trying to make it realistic they both created great stories that have stood the test of generations.

Logged

Airship Artificer, part-time romantik and amateur Natural Philosopher

"wee all here are much troubled with the loss of poor Thompson & Sutton"
George Salt
Zeppelin Captain
*****
United Kingdom United Kingdom



« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2014, 11:46:58 am »

My airship is a converted wooden hulled sailing ship, the power is generated via a train style boiler.. ..

.. ..has me thinking about the realistic ability's of the engine combo.

As soon as you start thinking about wooden-hulled ships suspended beneath balloons, real world physics starts to disappear beyond the far horizon and a bucket of handwavium is required somewhere.  I wouldn't get too bothered about how your airship works - typically with steampunk literature, the more you explain your fantastic technology the more doubts are created in the readers mind about whether it's consistent or sensible.

Look at Dishonored, there's a lot of unlikely tech in the game - but hands are waved and phrases like "whale oil" are muttered, and as a player you just accept that things work and no-one wastes plot time telling you how it works or why it should work.  Only the truly geeky are to be found examining turnouts in the cobbles to figure out how multi-gauge vehicles  navigate the rails.. .. Wink


As an idea for how to handle airships and keep the balloon capacity manageable for writing and modelling.. make a mental fudge and apply different scales to hull and balloon. A 1:32 hull and a 1:76 balloon will work as a stand-off scale model, just remember to make all the balloon fittings at the same scale as the hull fittings.  The handwavium element is a scaling of the lifting capacity of the gas.

There is a point though that stand-off starts to look like a caricature.  I suspect the balloon needs to be at least twice as wide as the hull, and three times as long as the hull.  And there's probably a ratio between balloon diameter and balloon length that avoids it looking too squat.
Logged
Angus A Fitziron
Zeppelin Overlord
*******
United Kingdom United Kingdom

Research Air Ship R.A.S. 'Saorsa'


« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2014, 02:04:29 pm »


There is a point though that stand-off starts to look like a caricature.  I suspect the balloon needs to be at least twice as wide as the hull, and three times as long as the hull.  And there's probably a ratio between balloon diameter and balloon length that avoids it looking too squat.


I think George makes a good point about the shape probably being more important than the correct size for lift capacity. The balloon on LZ127, Graf Zeppelin, was accepted as being too long and thin because that was the only shape they could build a maximum sized ship in the shed available at Friedrichshaven.

wikipedia commons


LZ120 Bodensee and LZ121 Nordstern had better and more aerodynamic properties, which gave them very good performance as well as looking, intrisically, 'right'.

air-ship info

This had a fineness ratio (length divided by diameter) of 6.5 to 7:1. There is a good PDF here about this tidy little 'ship.
Logged
CPT_J_Percell
Board Moderator
Zeppelin Captain
**
England England


The werewolf Airship Captain.


WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2014, 07:10:39 pm »

As mentioned in the argument about Aether, My ship (The size of HMS Warrior) uses speres full of Obscurum which when charged produce a field which makes anything inside them lighter then the equiv object outside the field however, I still picture it with one heck of a balloon, however, the technolagy does improve so that the modern smaller metal hull (she was a converted prototype sailing ship) ment that the obscurum spheres could keep vessels aloft without airbags.
Logged
GCCC
Zeppelin Admiral
******
United States United States


« Reply #56 on: February 14, 2014, 08:23:58 am »

A Couple of Quick Notes of Interest, Part I:

At a (more-or-less recent) conference, I attended a session where a science-fiction editor from the Golden Era of Pulp Magazines told his writers (I don't remember who said what to whom; I'm old, and my memory...Wait; who are you and why are you in my living room?):  Do NOT waste time explaining your technology, unless you're trying to explain it to someone in the story who has no idea of what's going on, and even then...

The logic behind this exhortation runs like this:  Everyone in your story already lives in that world, and so is sufficiently familiar with their own technology that it shouldn't require any wasted story-time explaining it. The example given was in reference to detective stories (the hard-boiled, film-noir type detectives of the day)...The PIs and the cops use guns, but those stories don't spend any time explaining how the gun works...You might mention type, caliber, make, model, but the mechanics? Of course not, because everyone knows what it is and what it does (and at least a very rough idea of how and/or why it works).

So, as a couple of the earlier posters have commented...Don't try to explain your technology (airship or otherwise) except in the very broadest terms, and be consistent.
Logged
GCCC
Zeppelin Admiral
******
United States United States


« Reply #57 on: February 14, 2014, 09:08:36 am »

A Couple of Quick Notes of Interest, Part II:

I agree with earlier posters who mention that you should ground your technology in as much reality as possible. To this end, I had already made notes for myself regarding matters concerning airships and altitude, gathered from a variety of sources, which I will attempt to paste into this comment.

(CAVEAT:  I copied these from a variety of online sources, but as these were for personal use I did not bother to preserve their links, so the wording is, by-and-large, NOT my own, and in some cases may actually be copyrighted. In other words, I'm not trying to pass this off as my own work, and neither should anyone else. This is provided for personal edification only!)

Altitude at which “space” begins:  62 miles (327,360 feet) above sea level (the Karman Line); alternately, in the U.S., 50 miles (264,000 feet) above sea level (mesosphere ends, thermosphere begins).

Altitude at which blood boils:  It doesn’t (it is self-pressurized).

Note:  …However, at an altitude between 62,000 – 63,500 feet (about 12 miles), the atmospheric pressure is so low (0.0618 atmosphere) that water boils at the normal temperature of the human body (98.6° F) unless he or she is in a pressurized environment (for our purposes, a pressurized suit or the interior of the airship). Sweat, tears, saliva, and the liquids lubricating the alveoli in the lungs will boil away without either a pressurized suit or environment.
See also: “Altitude at which water in the body (moisture in lungs, saliva, etc.) boils” below.

Altitude at which icing occurs:  varies between 1000 – 4000 feet (0.18939393939 – 0.75757575758  miles) (up to maximum 24,000 feet, or 4.5454545455 miles) depending upon cloud type and temperature; approximately 40% chance when temperature is between 32° – 14°F, approximately 6% chance when temperature about 22° F.

Note:  (1) The aircraft must be flying through visible water such as rain or cloud droplets, and (2) temperature at the point where the moisture strikes the aircraft must be 32°F or colder. Aerodynamic cooling can lower temperature of an airfoil to 32°F even though the ambient temperature is a few degrees warmer.
Note:  All clouds at subfreezing temperatures have icing potential.
Note:  Pilots usually avoid cumuliform clouds when possible. On rare occasions icing has been encountered in thunderstorm clouds at altitudes of 30,000 to 40,000 feet (5.6818181818 – 7.5757575758 miles) where the free air temperature was colder than minus 40° C/104° F. 
In layer type clouds, continuous icing conditions are rarely found to be more than 5,000 feet (0.94696969697 miles) above the freezing level, and usually are 2000 – 3000 feet (0.37878787879 – 0.56818181818 miles) thick.
see also:  lapse rate (a discussion of which is not in this document)
see also:  http://www.ehow.com/how_7863484_calculate-change-freezing-point-altitude.html

Altitude at which oxygen is required:  depending upon the individual, between 8000 – 29,000+ feet (1.5151515152 miles – 5.4924242424 miles).

Altitude at which water in the body (moisture in lungs, saliva, etc.) boils:  between 62,000 – 63,500 feet, or about 12 miles (the Armstrong Limit). This DOES NOT apply to bodily fluids wholly contained within the body (blood, urine, etc.) with no exposure to the outside atmosphere.

Note:  A pressure suit is customarily required at 50,000 feet.

Altitude Sickness:  above 8000 feet (1.5151515152 miles).

Primary Symptoms:
Headaches are the primary symptom used to diagnose altitude sickness, although a headache is also a symptom of dehydration. A headache occurring at an altitude above 8000 feet, combined with any one or more of the following symptoms, may indicate altitude sickness.

•   Lack of appetite, nausea, or vomiting
•   Fatigue or weakness
•   Dizziness or lightheadedness
•   Insomnia
•   “Pins and Needles”
•   Shortness of breath upon exertion
•   Nosebleed
•   Persistent rapid pulse
•   Drowsiness
•   General malaise
•   Peripheral edema (swelling of hands, feet, and face)

Severe Symptoms:
Symptoms that may indicate life-threatening altitude sickness include:

Pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs):
•   Symptoms similar to bronchitis
•   Persistent dry cough
•   Fever
•   Shortness of breath even when resting

Cerebral edema (swelling of the brain):
•   Headache that does not respond to analgesics
•   Unsteady gait
•   Gradual loss of consciousness
•   Increased nausea
•   Retinal hemorrhage

Maximum altitude at which a human can survive unaided:  between 19,685+ feet – 22,965+ feet.

Note:  A normal human, without any special training and normal constitution, can reach about 19,685+ feet (3.728219697 miles) and survive. This expects you don't need to do physical work and the transition to the pressure is slow enough.
           If you are used to high altitudes and have good training, you can reach about 22,965+ feet (4.3494318182 miles) without danger, but then, things will get worse. You will not survive around 26,246+ feet (4.9708333333 miles). You are alive there, and you can reach higher, but your clock is ticking.
           At these altitudes, safety measures, like oxygen tanks, become necessary.

Maximum altitude of gas-envelope airships:  helium – between 3000 – 7500 feet (0.56818181818 – 1.4204545455 miles) (could rise to 10,000 feet, or 1.8939393939 miles, but would need to release too much helium to correct for pressurization, then wouldn’t have enough to stay afloat at lower altitude);  hydrogen – between 5500 – 19,600 feet (1.0416666667 – 3.7121212121 miles).

Note:  The practical limit for rigid airships was about 3,000 feet (0.56818181818 miles), and for pressure airships around 8,000 feet (1.5151515152 miles). (hydrogen)
Note:  Modern airships use dynamic helium volume. At sea level altitude, helium only takes up a small part of the hull, while the rest is filled with air. As the airship ascends, the helium inflates with reduced outer pressure, and air is pushed out and released from the downward valve. This allows an airship to reach any altitude with balanced inner and outer pressure if the buoyancy is enough. Some civil aerostats could reach 100,000 feet (18.939393939 miles) without explosion due to overloaded inner pressure. (helium)

Hope this is useful.
Logged
GCCC
Zeppelin Admiral
******
United States United States


« Reply #58 on: February 20, 2014, 10:42:23 pm »

Based on the frequency of posts prior to my previous posts, I'm hoping I haven't accidentally killed this thread...

(I'm hoping the absence of newer posts simply means you are all ironing out the details of your aeroships, the results of which I, for one, am eagerly awaiting...)
Logged
Angus A Fitziron
Zeppelin Overlord
*******
United Kingdom United Kingdom

Research Air Ship R.A.S. 'Saorsa'


« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2014, 12:00:09 am »

Yes, I hope it hasn't died - I thought those kind of things only happened to me...

Currently reading 'Dr Eckener's Dream Machine' the definitive book on the Graf Zeppelin round the world voyage. It is interesting to note how airship aviation is so different from other forms of travel. For example, reading about the state of airships in 1929, they make little sense when compared to heavier than air aircraft. They can have fantastic range but speed is marginal and ground handling facilities are much more complicated than for aeroplanes. However - compare them to ships and the picture is different. Eckener describes his skill as a yachtsman and having a seaman's ability with weather forecasting and analysis and his method of steering the 'ship as being critical not just to passenger comfort and speed but also to safety of the vessel itself. So, it may be we have to forget largely about fixed wing HTA aircraft and consider maybe 'sailing' through the air, more akin to a submariner than a pilot.

Another interesting story from the book is when the Graf tries to land at Los Angeles. The approach was through an inversion layer, ie the ship had to vent a lot of hydrogen in order to sink through the very buoyant boundary layer. Similarly, the flight nearly ended when they had to punch their way back through using dynamic lift to gain altitude and had to hurdle over power lines, as they had so little hydrogen lift left and the remainder of the journey was at risk because they carried so little ballast as a result.

All these aspects make airship descriptions in literature so fascinating but it is potentially a massive trap if the science doesn't at least sound plausible. I can only recommend aspiring authors get hold of these few books that describe real world airship flying, so they can at least capture some of the magic and thrill.

Another good book is R34 Twice Across the Atlantic (if you can find it! - I got a loan of one from the library). I am sure people will come up with others (or I hope they will...)
Logged
RJBowman
Zeppelin Captain
*****


« Reply #60 on: February 21, 2014, 12:00:37 am »

Logged
Keith_Beef
Snr. Officer
****
France France


« Reply #61 on: February 21, 2014, 08:30:24 am »

Yes, I hope it hasn't died - I thought those kind of things only happened to me...

Currently reading 'Dr Eckener's Dream Machine' the definitive book on the Graf Zeppelin round the world voyage. It is interesting to note how airship aviation is so different from other forms of travel. For example, reading about the state of airships in 1929, they make little sense when compared to heavier than air aircraft. They can have fantastic range but speed is marginal and ground handling facilities are much more complicated than for aeroplanes. However - compare them to ships and the picture is different. Eckener describes his skill as a yachtsman and having a seaman's ability with weather forecasting and analysis and his method of steering the 'ship as being critical not just to passenger comfort and speed but also to safety of the vessel itself. So, it may be we have to forget largely about fixed wing HTA aircraft and consider maybe 'sailing' through the air, more akin to a submariner than a pilot.

Another interesting story from the book is when the Graf tries to land at Los Angeles. The approach was through an inversion layer, ie the ship had to vent a lot of hydrogen in order to sink through the very buoyant boundary layer. Similarly, the flight nearly ended when they had to punch their way back through using dynamic lift to gain altitude and had to hurdle over power lines, as they had so little hydrogen lift left and the remainder of the journey was at risk because they carried so little ballast as a result.

All these aspects make airship descriptions in literature so fascinating but it is potentially a massive trap if the science doesn't at least sound plausible. I can only recommend aspiring authors get hold of these few books that describe real world airship flying, so they can at least capture some of the magic and thrill.

Another good book is R34 Twice Across the Atlantic (if you can find it! - I got a loan of one from the library). I am sure people will come up with others (or I hope they will...)

I'm still waiting for my copy of the book to arrive.

What you say makes a lot of sense, although the comparison to a submarine has a big limitation. A submarine can take on ballast (water) whenever needed, and can pump it out at any moment: it is much easier to master the buoyancy of the vessel.

There's a modern Zeppelin model in FlightGear flight simulator; it should be possible to create a model for a 1920s - 1930s airship and to practice flying it in order to understand how it moves, and thereby improve the descriptions in works of literature.
Logged
Angus A Fitziron
Zeppelin Overlord
*******
United Kingdom United Kingdom

Research Air Ship R.A.S. 'Saorsa'


« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2014, 09:50:02 pm »


What you say makes a lot of sense, although the comparison to a submarine has a big limitation. A submarine can take on ballast (water) whenever needed, and can pump it out at any moment: it is much easier to master the buoyancy of the vessel.

Good point - the restrictions on how much ballast can be carried and on how much lift gas can be ventilated makes it much more restricted than a submarine. Interesting to note that it would appear to be easier to navigate a submarine than an airship! Puts it into perspective.

Quote
There's a modern Zeppelin model in FlightGear flight simulator; it should be possible to create a model for a 1920s - 1930s airship and to practice flying it in order to understand how it moves, and thereby improve the descriptions in works of literature.

No! Don't tempt me - I already spend too much time on a computer as it is...

Now, what did he say? Flightgear??

 Cool
Logged
GCCC
Zeppelin Admiral
******
United States United States


« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2014, 03:54:35 am »

So...apparently this was a thing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Scaphandre_Carmagnolle_MnM_Paris.jpg/398px-Scaphandre_Carmagnolle_MnM_Paris.jpg
(built by Frenchmen in 1882)

Designed to withstand underwater pressures, might this be adaptable for high altitude pressurized suits, allowing our hypothetical aeronauts to function past the normally safe altitudes? Or does what works underwater not translate well going the opposite direction?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 06:38:09 am by GCCC » Logged
Narsil
Immortal
**
United Kingdom United Kingdom



WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2014, 04:37:29 am »


Even very high altitudes don;t generate anywhere near the pressure differentials of even relatively modest depths of water as the required pressure for the human body is by definition 1 atmosphere and so even in total vacuum the biggest pressure differential you can get is 1 atmosphere.

Also the effects of vacuum on the human body aren't quite as severe as sometimes imagined. Obviously the most immediate concern is lack of oxygen, although arranging breathing at altitude is relatively straightforward compared to the problems of very high pressure environments. Low oxygen pressure can cause problems even at quite low altitudes and some people have serious medical complications on high mountains although individual sensitivity varies a lot.

The next issue is that at reduced pressures fluids form the mucous membranes (particularly eyes and mouth) will boil away quickly although this is usually solved by the breathing mask/helmet. In terms of immediate survival a helmet would be perfectly adequate although in practice by the time you have achieved an adequate seal you are most of the way towards a full suit in any case. The altitude at which this becomes necessary for life is around 19000m, the point at which water boils at human body temperature.

For the rest of the body the main issue of very low pressures is that tissues will tend to expand because of blood pressure. Note that contrary to popular belief your blood will not boil even in a total vacuum because your blood and other internal fluids are an encloses, pressurised system. This tissue expansion can be controlled either by a fully pressurised suit or by a tight fitting elasticated suit which resists this expansion. The problem with both methods is that they tend to restrict movement to a degree.

There are actually hard shell space suite very similar to that image . The idea here is not so much that the need to resist large pressures but to maintain a constant volume. If a sealed fabric suit was pressurised it would become pretty rigid, much like the inner tube of a tyre and any movement at arm and leg joints would change it's internal volume, requiring a great deal of extra effort. Therefore many pressure suits have a mixture of fabric sections and articulated joints as a compromise between weight/bulk and flexibility.

Logged







A man of eighty has outlived probably three new schools of painting, two of architecture and poetry and a hundred in dress.
Lord Byron
MeanMachine
Swab

Canada Canada



« Reply #65 on: March 09, 2014, 05:55:17 pm »

I guess I’ll post the “airship” that is the main focus of my WIP. Note: This isn’t “dirigible” airship, in this story’s world airship floats thanks to applied phlebotinum/magitech.

Name: Acheron  (Originaly named the Gerald von Eskyr)

Captain: Noah L. Warmatch, age 28. 
 
X.O.: Simon A. Valentine, age 33

Class: Originally a fast battle cruiser. Now no one is sure how to classify this thing.

Length: 320 Meters (305.5 before refit)

Beam: 36.5 meters

Height: Haven’t quite figure that one out yet. :S

Operational Weight: Roughly 50,000

Armor: 10 inches of laminated, high strength steel plates thorough the main body.

Armament:    24 x 16 inch guns in double turrets. (Originaly 32)
      40 x 5 inch multi-purpose, rapid fire canons, mounted in double turrets.
      Many x 40mm/20mm Anti-Air/Anti-Personnel auto canons.

Crew: 1954 souls on board, (full complement should be 2600.)

Aircraft complement: 24

Number of launch Catapults: 4

Length of Flight Deck: 150 meters.

Power source: Twin Goliath Auracite* Reactors, roughly 155,000 kW Each. (310,000 total)

 Main Propulsion: 10 Typhoon Mk 4 DP Compression Turbines

Means of flight: 8 Skyward auracite* Float Coils

Maximum Air Speed: Roughly 100 knots if you push it

Maximum Speed while on water: 38.2 knots

Operational Range: On paper, 80,000 miles.

Operator: Atlantean Federation’s Combined Navy

Builder: Roxenburg’s Imperial Arsenal

Age, counting since launch: 36 years and 7 months.

*Auracite would be the blue/purple-ish mineral that’s the source of the aforementioned applied phlebotinum/magiteck.

History: The ship was captured from the Old Empire and renamed by Nicholas Warmatch, Noah’s father, during the Atlantean war of independence some 30 years ago. Her top rear was severely damaged during the later stage of that war, and she was fitted with flight deck, mostly to launch scouting planes. After Atlantean’s independence from the Old Empire was achieved, she served a few more years in the regular navy until she started being used as a testbed for new weapons and aircrafts. She was eventually mothballed, and stayed as such for 15 long years, rusting away.
Today, Atlantea is facing a new threat: Pirates.  Very well equipped and organized pirates. Scrambling to offer an adequate response to this situation with a navy which had been severely reduced in number, Naval Command decided to re-commission the Acheron, with the purpose of patrolling the areas where most of the attack took place. And so, she was given to the less than enthusiastic command of the son of the man who had captured her, and all the misfits, rejects, freaks, lunatics, screwballs, and oddballs in the Navy were gathered to crew her. Truly, a proud crew for a proud ship….
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.42 seconds with 16 queries.