Jump to content
Nick Filippone

re: Judging was: Haters group

Recommended Posts

It is not a micrometer that careful, competent and scrupulously objective judges use to assess alignment. (A micrometer is used to measure the thickness of an item.) Rather, most of us use a hem measurer to, as always, compare one model to another. Such a measurement should not nor would not disqualify a model on that basis alone in the hands of a conscientious IPMS judge. It would permit he or she to decide which models achieved the best alignment AS ONE OF THE SEVERAL CRITERIA that the IPMS Judge's Handbook mandates that we use to evaluate entries. As the hem measurer is brutally objective, it also helps to put the lie to the opinions of those less than careful judges who stand ten feet back from table and swear that a model is out of alignment. A quick application of the hem measurer will prevent this modeler's entry from being unfairly eliminated from competition by sloppy, lazy judges. 

The hem measurer is an excellent way to make rapid and very accurate assssments of alignment. As usual, if mistakes are being made in its application, don't blame the tool. Blame the workman! 

Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been entering contests for over fifty years and I have never seen anyone use a measuring device to judge a model except to determine if something was out of line....like one wing being higher than the other. For the past thirty-five or more years judging at various IPMS style contests, I have always been admonished not to worry about accuracy. And any question of accuracy would only come in the end when we were trying to separate first from second, etc. And then we were told to give the entrant the benefit of the doubt.

Given the IPMS system of judging models against others in a category, and not some set standard, putting calibers to a model seems pointless for a tiny measurement of a few millimeters.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2018 at 9:55 AM, Nick Filippone said:

It is not a micrometer that careful, competent and scrupulously objective judges use to assess alignment. (A micrometer is used to measure the thickness of an item.) Rather, most of us use a hem measurer to, as always, compare one model to another. Such a measurement should not nor would not disqualify a model on that basis alone in the hands of a conscientious IPMS judge. It would permit he or she to decide which models achieved the best alignment AS ONE OF THE SEVERAL CRITERIA that the IPMS Judge's Handbook mandates that we use to evaluate entries. As the hem measurer is brutally objective, it also helps to put the lie to the opinions of those less than careful judges who stand ten feet back from table and swear that a model is out of alignment. A quick application of the hem measurer will prevent this modeler's entry from being unfairly eliminated from competition by sloppy, lazy judges. 

The hem measurer is an excellent way to make rapid and very accurate assssments of alignment. As usual, if mistakes are being made in its application, don't blame the tool. Blame the workman! 

Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge

Nick, with all due respect to your experience as a judge, a hem measurer would be one of the last tools I would use to assess general alignment for aircraft.  Primarily because there are so many other factors that play into the height of wing tips.  The predominant one is the construction and installation of the landing gear,  especially on a narrow undercarriage.    Any errors in the landing gear construction are multiplied exponentially by the time they get to the wing tips.  These errors could be manufacturing errors e.g., slight difference in length of the struts, slightly different sized tires, or side to side differences in the mounting points of the struts.  Not to mention building errors e.g.,  a builder who "bulges" or flattens the tires being over zealous in doing so, or not fully inserting the mounting gear pin into the mounting hole, or any variations on a multilink gear system.  All of these would give a difference at the wing tips not associated with the general alignment of the airframe.  

If you want to check the airframe alignment a far better tool would be a Weems aircraft plotter.  Align the center of the the plotter with the centerline of the fuselage and visually put the 90 degree line on the vertical stabilizer.  By looking through the plotter you will instantly see if everything is true and square.  I know because I just spent the better part of a week repairing a bent right gear on the A6M2 below.  It was bent in the care of its owner and he asked that I repair it, as I was the original builder.  Once I knew the airframe was still "square"  I could then use the green mat and a height gauge to correct the landing gear.  It also seems fitting that an aircraft navigation tool like the Weems plotter can be used this way.  By the way plotters are quite cheap. Typically under $20 for a 12" and less than that for a 6" plotter.  The 6" easily fits in a shirt pocket. 

Weems plotter.jpg

Zero headon.jpg

Edited by PeteJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know if you understand how a hem measurer works when assessing alignment or even if you understand what most judges mean by proper alignment. By setting the bottom of the hem measurer on the surface of the table adjacent to whatever structure on the airframe you are examining ( usually wing tips and horizontal elevator tips but occasionally underwing stores or propellor spinners), adjusting the cursor to the height of that structure and then moving it to the other side, those structures are either at the same height or they are not! If the heights are equal, those structures and the model are considered to be aligned. If not, they are considered not aligned. WHY they are not aligned is unimportant in judging ( except perhaps when many entries are misaligned and one is trying to decide whose error is less egregious ) although it is usually easy enough to spot the cause once one has been " tipped off" as it were by the hem measurer. I am not sure how your aircraft plotter works but if you are holding it up in mid-air and not resting it on a level surface, it is affected by slight movement by the holder and his or her subjective idea of what is horizontal. Also, without some type of gradation marks for vertical height, even if resting on a level surface, I cannot see how height can be assessed other than by " eyeballing it." In my experience as I pointed out above, that is not a reliable technique. Your plotter is also limited by its fixed width in the horizontal plane. Since models vary greatly in span, unless vertical gradations, even if they were there on the plotter, are exactly apart the same distance as the structures being compared, one still would have to guess to some extent that the heights off the table are the same. For judging purposes, the hem measurer does not even need any gradations or units of measure. The cursor either hits the structures on each side at the same spot ( aligned) or it does not ( out of alignment.) Nick

 

 

 

Edited by Nick Filippone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nick Filippone said:

I do not know if you understand how a hem measurer works when assessing alignment or even if you understand what most judges mean by proper alignment. By setting the bottom of the hem measurer on the surface of the table adjacent to whatever structure on the airframe you are examining ( usually wing tips and horizontal elevator tips but occasionally underwing stores or propellor spinners), adjusting the cursor to the height of that structure and then moving it to the other side, those structures are either at the same height or they are not! If the heights are equal, those structures and the model are considered to be aligned. If not, they are considered not aligned. WHY they are not aligned is unimportant in judging ( except perhaps when many entries are misaligned and one is trying to decide whose error is less egregious ) although it is usually easy enough to spot the cause once one has been " tipped off" as it were by the hem measurer. I am not sure how your aircraft plotter works but if you are holding it up in mid-air and not resting it on a level surface, it is affected by slight movement by the holder and his or her subjective idea of what is horizontal. Also, without some type of gradation marks for vertical height, even if resting on a level surface, I cannot see how height can be assessed other than by " eyeballing it." In my experience as I pointed out above, that is not a reliable technique. Your plotter is also limited by its fixed width in the horizontal plane. Since models vary greatly in span, unless vertical gradations, even if they were there on the plotter, are exactly apart the same distance as the structures being compared, one still would have to guess to some extent that the heights off the table are the same. For judging purposes, the hem measurer does not even need any gradations or units of measure. The cursor either hits the structures on each side at the same spot ( aligned) or it does not ( out of alignment.) Nick

 

 

 

Nick, we are getting a bit far afield here but I think a picture will explain what I mean.  When you speak of alignment, I presume that you mean that the left and right sides of the aircraft are mirror images of each other.  In other words everything is aligned with the vertical plane of the aircraft.  The dihedral angles of the wings and horizontal stabilizer are the same left and right compared to the vertical plane and the vertical stabilizer is parallel to that plane and centered on it. 

The issue I take with your method (and yes I am familiar with a hem guide) is that you are measuring the height of the wingtips or underwing stores to the top of the table or base and if they are the same you are calling everything aligned.  In reality, the aircraft could be perfectly aligned  with the vertical plane but a slight difference in the length of the landing gear would make a significant difference between the left and right wing tip or any underwing stores.  This difference between the mounting point and the bottom of the gear doesn't have to be much to yield a significant difference.  The inverse of that is also true.  So long as the landing gear are equal length and the wings are joined very close to the middle, regardless of the alignment of other parts, the wing tips will be very close to the same height. 

On the aircraft I just did. I measured it and a difference of .010" in the right gear yielded a difference of more than a 1/16" at the tips.  .020" was off by just under 3/8ths of an inch.  Those differences are significant, and have nothing to do with the alignment of the major airframe parts.  The narrower the undercarriage  and the longer the wings, more exaggerated this difference becomes.

   The method I suggested is to visually line up the "zero"point at the base of the protractor and align the 90 degree line with the base of the vertical stabilizer.  That then gives you true horizontal lines(the bottom of the plotter) to compare to the wings and horizontal stabilizer.  With that reference any differences in those parts will be visually apparent. 

aircraft profile edited.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I see what you are saying with respect to the alignment of the LANDING GEAR. But your last post seems to assume that a misaligned landing gear is the only reason for a misaligned model. It is a very common reason but not the only one. Just as common is the builder who simply glued the wings or elevators on at incorrect or unequal angles such that one is higher or lower than the horizontal plane if the parts have no dihedral or the dihedral (when called for) is unequal. The landing gear could be "true" to each wing and/ or the fuselage and of equal length but the flying surface tips will not be the same distance off the table. An engine cowling glued on with a droop will also not be corrected by proper symmetric installation of landing gear.

Are you able to rest the bottom of the instrument on the table to do the manouvers you describe? If not, ( and your use of the word "visually" suggests that you cannot) then you are assuming that your perception of the horizontal when it is held in your hand in mid-air is always really horizontal and therefore the vertical line and everything parallel to it is also really  "plumb."

Any and all cases of misalignment will quickly and accurately and objectively be identified with the hem measurer with no opportunity for the eye to be fooled.  The CAUSE for the misalignment, as I said, is frequently irrelevant. 

I might add that I keep a hem measurer on my bench and employ it regularly as I assemble my models. It has kept me out of trouble on many occasions! 

Regards,  Nick

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nick Filippone said:

 I see what you are saying with respect to the alignment of the LANDING GEAR. But your last post seems to assume that a misaligned landing gear is the only reason for a misaligned model. It is a very common reason but not the only one. Just as common is the builder who simply glued the wings or elevators on at incorrect or unequal angles such that one is higher or lower than the horizontal plane if the parts have no dihedral or the dihedral (when called for) is unequal. The landing gear could be "true" to each wing and/ or the fuselage and of equal length but the flying surface tips will not be the same distance off the table. 

 I don't see how this is mathematically possible.  The height of the wingtips is determined by the trapezoid bounded by the landing gear, the table top, the bottom surface of the wing, and the height of the wing tip.  Anything going on above that trapezoid is not relevant to the measurement of those four sides.  Glueing the empennage or other parts out of alignment does not affect the height of the wing tips. 

An engine cowling glued on with a droop will also not be corrected by proper symmetric installation of landing gear.

100% agree.  If the wings and gear are done properly, any ancillary parts glued to the wing, bombs, engine nacelles, electronics pods , etc. should be equidistant from the reference plane(table top).

Are you able to rest the bottom of the instrument on the table to do the manouvers you describe? If not, ( and your use of the word "visually" suggests that you cannot) then you are assuming that your perception of the horizontal when it is held in your hand in mid-air is always really horizontal and therefore the vertical line and everything parallel to it is also really  "plumb."  The difference in our methods, I believe, rests with the reference plane we are choosing.  You are using the table top.  I am using the vertical plane described by the vertical stabilizer through the center line of the fuselage.   Yes, you can rest the plotter on the table and it will give you a  perfect visual reference line that will tell you if the vertical stabilizer is truly vertical to the table.   It will also give you a series of horizontal lines to compare wings and horizontal tail surfaces  to. 

Any and all cases of misalignment will quickly and accurately and objectively be identified with the hem measurer with no opportunity for the eye to be fooled.  The CAUSE for the misalignment, as I said, is frequently irrelevant.  Agreed that your method, it will tell you that something is out of whack.  My point is that a clever modler could easily modify the length of the landing gear to compensate of improper dihedral of the wings and your method would not catch that.  They could also compensate for warped wings or twisted fuselage parts as well.  The model would look off visually, but your method would say they are correctly aligned.    My point is that wingtips equidistant from the table does not equate to all the other angles being correct.  

I might add that I keep a hem measurer on my bench and employ it regularly as I assemble my models. It has kept me out of trouble on many occasions! 

I appreciate your methods and I also keep alignment tools on my bench.  As a table top machinist I have a plethora of measuring tools.  Those are precision squares, height gauges, parallels, micrometer, calipers and other steel rulers.  All of which I use to check alignment in all the models I build, including automotive subject. I am a hater in that respect.  I hate seeing car models with wheels pointing in all different directions with odd camber, caster and toe.  The kids driving around with tiny wheels at extreme camber angles make me question the builders sanity.  I am glad that you have a method that works for you and perhaps if we meet at a future contest, I can show you hands on how mine works.  Thanks for the discussion. Pete J. 

Regards,  Nick

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rusty White said:

Starting to wander here a bit guys.  Let's stay on topic.

Rusty, you are quite right to point this out.  Perhaps we should have taken this to another thread, but I think we are keeping it civilized and having a good technical discussion. No one is flaming anyone else I don't think and the tone has not gotten out of hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To pass muster with respect to alignment, the wings AND the empennage must align. 

And, ok, Pete. You caught me on a last ditch technique to correct a misaligned model: shaving the bottom of a wheel or shortening a landing gear leg to make a model "stand straight!"  If it's not too obvious, it will fool the judges' eye. But overdone it is easily spotted. Of course, I would NEVER do anything so sleazy LOL.

Yes, I would l like to see your device in use. Perhaps in Chattanooga. 

Rusty, Relax! We are all just having a little harmless fun. No need to summon the Forum police!

Nick

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

To pass muster with respect to alignment, the wings AND the empennage must align. 

And, ok, Pete. You caught me on a last ditch technique to correct a misaligned model: shaving the bottom of a wheel or shortening a landing gear leg to make a model "stand straight!"  If it's not too obvious, it will fool the judges' eye. But overdone it is easily spotted. Of course, I would NEVER do anything so sleazy LOL.

Yes, I would l like to see your device in use. Perhaps in Chattanooga. 

Rusty, Relax! We are all just having a little harmless fun. No need to summon the Forum police!

Nick

Nick, not going to Chattanooga, but San Marcos is definitely on my list.  I have good friends in San Antonio and Dallas that need a visit.  This is what I am working on for San Marcos.  

clips test fit.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete, Nick,

I understand that everyone has been civil, but unfortunately, I am the "Forum Police" (moderator) charged by the web master to enforce the rules of the forum.  Staying on topic is one of the rules, so all I ask is that you move your discussion to a new thread and debate away.  It's an interesting subject that should be discussed further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've split the Topic.  Original is still at: 

 

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, guys, strict accuracy is not important. Based on IPMS rules, on any given day two pieces of plastic glued together and dropped on the table can win by being the only thing there. Even if there were two other entries in the category, the object would still get a third place. If something leans and is noted it is done on purpose, then the judges will give it the benefit of the doubt.

Giving your airplane a flat tire in a diorama, to hide a twisted fuselage,  also works.

How would you check alignment on something like this broke chopper? For that matter, who would know if most of it was wrong in every detail? (I'm not saying it is). 

Dak

DSC05093.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys: THIS is why IPMSUSA gets the bad rap it does....rivet counters, color Nazis, and judges who are too intent on finding EVERY little flaw on an entry.

I'm all for assessing basic alignments, but rarely see the need for any device to actually check it. It's very simple....if it looks out, it IS out, especially if and when confirmed by your fellow teammates. But, if I THINK it may be out, but it's very tough to tell and hard to see, then it's too small an error to concern myself with. It may or may not be a flaw, but if so, is a VERY minor one and in my mind NOT a difference maker!

When we start zeroing in on such minutia we forget our job: judging CRAFTSMANSHIP! Which model displays that in the overall highest manner by comparison to those in its category? If you simply look for errors you lose the big picture. Just as any model can be more than the "sum of its parts"; it can also be more than the "sum of its flaws"!

 

GIL :cool:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I demand I high degree of precision to my judging as in everything else I undertake! I apply the same degree of precise scrutiny to every entry in every category I judge. "Eyeballing it" is imprecise and therefore unfair to the entrant. My personal experience is that people who criticize precision in judging and prefer sloppy judging work are likely sloppy in there own judging and therefore modeling. They don't want their own sloppy entries scrutinized too closely for obvious reasons, so, likewise, they do no want anyone else's scrutinized too carefully either. 

Craftsmanship and precision are synonomous. In a conscientious workman, they never take a day off! They are applied by him or her uniformly and consistently to everything he or she does. 

I am painfully aware that we now live in a mediocracy where the so-so is considered praiseworthy,  However, I was better brought up than that. Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil, Nick; I want to judge on a team with you two guys! What a scream that would be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick,

While I like accuracy, it is pretty absurd to think it can be achieved at our level of model work. Accuracy as you describe requires extreme information. That is not available to most of the people nor are thy interested. 

There are simply to many variables to consider and even top people writing the books make mistakes.

For example, you do an airplane with interesting markings in a photograph. Are those markings the same on the other side? With only one picture, you can’t know. 

Or there is a tank with a distinct feature. Maybe it got knocked off in the first few minutes of battle. 

Years ago, a guy kept telling me the measurements in several books were wrong on tanks. He had been measuring them in museums where they were missing parts. The books took those parts into account, he did not. 

The old 1/48th Lindbergh F-86 still looks like an F-86. 

If the difference in scale measurements is 5% or less, humans can’t normally see it.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with David. Modelling is dying and losing members due to the "strict accuracy" people. We build toys Period. Until someone can put jet fuel in one and it flies off, they are toys. I have been over the year corrected by some saying we make "historically accurate miniatures". Great but that is not what 99.999999999% want. And we chase them out witnthe accuracy attitude. It got so bad here we had a person go actually measure the wing tip to ground difference on a plane the accuracy Nazi's eliminated and guess what, the real plane was NOT level side to side on an operational aircraft.

And being labeled "rivet counters " cost us members and people enjoying this hobby so, IMO, it is wrong always. 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think the “hobby” is dying. There are way too many new kits produced too think it is dying. 

And I disagree our models are toys. To me, they are ART. The same as any sculpture or painting. No to models come out looking the same. Every builder interprets the subject in their own unique way.

If you want to expand IPMS membership, quit trying to appeal to children and aim at college age to mid twenties age people. Architecture, engineering, art schools, and history are all related to what we do. Run ads in college papers and such. 

But strict accuracy in a model seen at most IPMS contest is a myth. There are too many variables. That doesn’t mean some don’t get stuff wrong. And yes, I find it irritating when see someone get  simple things wrong or ignore that heartless bitch gravity.

For example, I once saw a Tiger tank with the entire engine deck HINGED....not lifted off....up because the builder didn’t understand there was a hatch for the engine. He told me it was the only way it could possibly work! In that case accuracy was an important feature. 

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my entire post, I never once used the word accuracy. You all keep harping on accuracy. Accuracy, the way you seem to use the word,  refers to how close are  colours to real life, where are panel lines, how many rivets, etc. Craftsmanship - the word I DID use- refers to properly  and neatly assembling and painting and finishing the kit such that mold marks and parting lines are removed, things that are supposed to line up actually do, things that are supposed to be at the same angle are, parts come together where they are supposed to without seams that do not belong,  paint is evenly, and smoothly and consistently applied, clear parts actually are clear, decals are applied without silvering and look painted on, and there are no glue marks and finger prints visible. ( If this all sounds familiar, you have hopefully seen it a least once in IPMS's Judging Handbook.)

I don' t give a tinker's dam what the true shade of O.D. is. Why would I count rivets? I don't know how many rivets there on the wing of a P-51. And how could any judge possibly take the time to count them? What some people cannot seem to get through their heads is that for skilled, experienced IPMS judges, these issues never come up because long before the shade of RAF Dark Green needs to be debated, so many of the other entries in the category have already been eliminated because of basic craftsmanship failures as described above, the point is moot.

I, of course, cannot speak for low level judging at low level shows. That is a crap shoot because anyone can judge where there are not the quality controls and the clear instructions we have at the National level. So, don't blame IPMS because some one-day show judges are trying to decide if someone's Skyraider has too many rockets under the wing. They choose not to follow or are ignorant of IPMS Judging Handbook criteria which clearly state that our competitions are evaluating craftsmanship NOT ACCURACY. It would seem, therefore, that the fault is not with IPMS's theories of craftsmanship, but with failure of some of its judges to execute them by not being able to correctly distinguish between said craftsmanship and accuracy.

 With our first, second, third system,all but but three entries are losers. There is no way everyone can win. My task, as a judge, is to apply the IPMS Judge's Handbook criteria as objectively, honestly, even- handedly AND PRECISELY as possible to decide who those three winners should be that day. This is the mandate issued to me by the National Contest Committee in certifying me to be one of their judges. If I fail to do so, I have no business judging. 

Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Nick, you did use the word precision and the word accurate is in the definition... I looked it up.:biggrin:

Is the precision measurement of the wing height from the ground done with hard inflated tires or with bulged tires. If you want precision in the wing span, then shouldn't you be concerned with the thickness of the canopy, too? I would think in true scale a 1/72nd trailing edge would probably be sharp enough with which to shave. If you measure the wingspan, do you also measure the propeller blade length? This is what I mean by too many variables. Who has ever put a hard measurement to a car model? Additionally, different things upset different people, just like the Tiger I I mentioned in the earlier post. And judges often don't pay attention to reality, even when they are faced with photographic proof. While it is true IPMS judging has really improved over the past twenty years, there are still moments when things are over looked.

However, we have to have some standards with which to work. There is a different mix of judges at every National and many become enamored with specific models. The rules for craftmanship are the only things that keep things in check. That the judging must be done in such a limited also means measuring every model for precision work is impractical. But checking to see if the all wheels touch the ground,  that wings are level or that the gun barrel is not warped are quite proper things to check.

Dak, National Judge

Edited by Dakimbrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I specifically did not use the word accurate because I sought to distinguish CRAFTSMANSHIP as the IPMS Judges Handbook  uses it( How skillfully the model is assembled, the criteria by which we are charged  to judge the  entries)  from ACCURACY the way the Judges Handbook  uses it ( how faithful the entry is in every detail-  colour, shape, number of rivets, etc to the prototype, criteria  by which we are specifically enjoined by the Society NOT to judge the entries.) 

 I looked up accuracy also. It uses the word "exactness " but I am not sure what cherry picking words out of a long definition has to do with anything. Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just making a point about the wording which illustrates my point....different things bother different people. 

For me it is lack of consistency. Particularly in detail and weathering. I have often see models with one area very well detailed and others ignored. Also weathering like muddy tracks, but hardly anywhere else.

I think the current guidelines work well, but some judges still tend to ignore things. That is why I like the collective judging method used by IPMS. It is the superior methodology. 

Dak, national judge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Nick's post proves my point about how IPMS judging is viewed.  We come off as rigid, demanding, and snobby; looking down on anyone who doesn't strive for "preciseness".

I totally understand the obligation of a builder to build to a standard in a contest. As far as alignment is concerned, it doesn't matter what "realism" shows....The model manufacturer has designed the kits to be symmetrical! If you build the kit CORRECTLY, the wings will be level and the gear and other items will at their correct angles, and in general be the same on each side. So, the idea you can point to something on a flight line as a reference....SORRY!

It really comes across as condescending to say that just because a judge (or a modeler) is more lenient in their approach they are "sloppy". I cannot totally disagree with Nick's conclusions....he has a point that as judges, we understand and have seen in contests. Unfortunately, MOST people (that means everybody else for the most part) will take Nick's attitude as typical of IPMS judging, and then spurn us because of it.

Gil :cool:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×