Fokker M.3

Fokker M.3

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Fokker M.3

The Fokker M.3 saw another advance in the design of Fokker aircraft. The M.2 had seen the adoption of a welded steel tube fuselage, but covered in a complex streamlined wooden outer structure. The improved aerodynamics provided by the “torpedo” shape did not make up for the weight of the wooden structure.

For the M.3 Fokker retained the welded steel tube fuselage but abandoned the outer shell. The fabric covering was placed over the simple rectangular fuselage. The first M.3 was powered by a 95hp Mercedes engine, contained within aluminium cowling. The rest of the aircraft was similar to the M.2, with the same rectangular swept-back wings, tail assembly and landing gear as the earlier aircraft.

The first flight of the M.3 came on 26 September 1913. It was a difficult aircraft to fly. A further variant powered by a 70hp Renault engine was even worse, and was destroyed in a crash in Russia during 1914. The Fokker M.4 would be a rather different (although no more successful) aircraft.

Books on the First World War |Subject Index: First World War

Fokker’s wing

Each and every of important Fokker’s airplanes had mostly one key innovation in its design. E.I-E.III monoplanes, of modest performance, had machine guns synchronisers allowing them to shoot through the rotating propeller. That ability made them the first real fighters. Dr.I Triplane’s wings were thick and short so they needed no rigging in order to avoid the drag caused by the rigging wires. Additionally, thick airfoil gave excellent climb. Fokker’s D.VII advantage over enemy airplanes was the nearly perfect, tuned for high altitudes BMW IIIa engine. Also ‘Fokker’s Razor’, E.V monoplane, besides the conservative fuselage and powerplant design unchanged since Dr.I, had ‘this thing’. The revolution was in the wing.

Operational history [ edit | edit source ]

The E.III was the first type to arrive in sufficient numbers to form small specialist fighter units, Kampfeinsitzer Kommandos (KEK) in early 1916. Previously, Eindeckers had been allocated singly, just as the E.I and E.II had been, to the front-line Feldflieger Abteilungen that carried out reconnaissance duties. On 10 August 1916, the first German Jagdstaffeln (single-seat fighter squadrons) were formed, initially equipped with various early fighter types, including a few E.IIIs, which were by then outmoded and being replaced by more modern fighters. Standardisation in the Jagdstaffeln (and any real success) had to wait for the availability in numbers of the Albatros D.I and Albatros D.II in early 1917.

Turkish E.IIIs were based at Beersheba in Palestine while others operated in Mesopotamia during the Siege of Kut-al-Amara.


  • Fighter Fokker D.XXIII / Andrey Krumkach. /
  • Alternative History. Experienced fighter Fokker D-XXIII / Ivan Byakin. /

December 05, 2019
In those years, pilots did not like to fly with an engine installed behind their backs. The pilots were confident that in the event of an emergency landing, they would be crushed between the front and rear motors. There were no ejection seats at that time, and leaving the plane in an emergency did not leave any chance of success. The nickname "flying hoe" (hachoir volant fr.), Which received this aircraft, shows that few believed in a favorable outcome.

Brick Rigs: TDAC Fokker Dr.I “Red Baron” Remake

Here it is! The Remade Fokker! We are updating/remaking our current WW1 planes and we are going to upload the Sopwith next! This remake flies better and smoother, it is also smaller which makes it lighter. The wings are thinner and made of foam (Don’t worry, they have some wood) while the fuselage is made of oak. It has the unique skin of the famous ace called the Red Baron. You can also repaint it by pressing P on a brick which has the colour you want to change.

-New prop
-Lightning on MGs’ shots.
-Smoother and better flight
-Unique skin
-Explosive “darts”
-And more!

Instructions to exterminate trenches:
1-Dive from a big altitude.
2-Take some speed.
3-Fire the darts with Action 2.
4-Pitch up, uugggh.
5-BOOM (*phew*)

4 Pohang Test Results

Flow rate and pressure data had to be preprocessed before the application of the FFT algorithm to maximize the information achieved through HPT interpretation. First, SPP data were synchronized and resampled to 1 s, with a stepwise linear approximation, to have the same regular sampling as the rate data and test sequences of complete oscillations were extracted. No bottom hole pressure data were available however, SPP data were considered reliable since problems related to phase separation (segregation, etc.) from bottom hole to wellhead conditions were no issue. Wellhead data were not used in the frequency analysis because of the low resolution (0.1 MPa). Then, data were detrended with a heuristic approach suggested by Viberti et al. ( 2018 see Appendix B for details) to improve the identification and extraction of the signal periodic components as well as to enhance the quality of the results. Finally, a selection of the oscillations to be used is required because a minimum number of regular pulses is necessary to identify the frequencies. Oscillations were not perfectly regular because flow rate variations were imposed manually by an operator. Additionally, unstable flow rates may be observed for values about 2 l/s or lower because the mud pumps are not designed for such low flow rates (

1 l/s is the limit) as for drilling, higher rates are used. Moreover noise was observed on SPP data, especially at high-pressure levels as in HPT-5. Most likely the noise is imputable to the low precision of SPP pressure gauge, which is usually just used to give a rough number of the pressure for drilling operations. Oscillations characterized by irregular duration and rates or very noisy pressure data must be discarded. Selection was made after statistical analysis of durations and rate values of flow periods making up each sequence of pulses.

We deemed interpretation of HPT-2 and HPT-3 unfeasible because of a too short oscillation period (6 min), which corresponded to a small investigation radius and a pressure response of the formation completely masked by wellbore storage. Interpretation of HPT-4 was not completely reliable due to the limited number of complete oscillations available (only 4). Conversely, interpretation of HPT-1 and HPT-5 was successful.

Comparison of injection test with baseline test HPT-1 and test performed during the soft stimulation HPT-5 is summarized in Table 4. An increase in permeability can be seen, probably due to the fracture opening caused by increased pressure, while the skin value is coherent. Interpretation details are given in sections 4.1 and 4.2.

Test Permeability thickness (mD m) Skin (−) Wellbore storage (m 3 /bar) Investigation radius (m)
Injection/fall-off 84 −3.68 0.005 73.5
HPT-1 84 −3.6 0.005 18.5
HPT-5 (oscillations 1–6) 350 −3.3 Not detectable from derivative imposed according to HPT-1 interpretation results 53.5
HPT-5 (oscillations 7–12) 440 −3.3 Not detectable from derivative imposed according to HPT-1 interpretation results 60

4.1 Baseline Test: Injection 2 and HPT-1

The injection fall-off test was successfully interpreted using conventional type curves. Pressure data were quite clean (Figure 3) and, despite the short fall-off duration (2.5 hr), the horizontal stabilization was clearly visible. From the derivative of the injection period and subsequent fall-off (Figure 4), a clear difference in stabilization is observed, which is due to the difference in temperature between injected fluid (ambient temperature) and reservoir fluid (about 130 °C). The interpretation was performed with a commercial software (Saphir by KAPPA Engineering). Thus, the conventional-type curve analysis was adopted to match pressure variation and pressure derivative curves on the log-log plot ([Figure 5a], measured pressure vs time profile [Figure 5b] and Horner plot [Figure 5c]). The interpretation led to assessing the transmissivity value before the stimulation process (kh = 84 mD m). Negative skin is observed (S = −3.68), which is coherent with a well connected to a pattern of natural fractures (Lietard, 1999 ).

(9) (10)

In the presented case history, the derivative of HPT-1 superimposes on the derivative of the fall-off period of the injection/fall-off test in dimensionless terms (Figure 7), thus assuring coherence in wellbore storage, skin, and permeability estimate. Taking into account equation 9 and knowing that the duration of the fall-off is 2.5 times the duration of oscillation period of HPT-1, the derivative of the fall-off covers a dimensionless time interval 5π times greater than the derivative of HPT-1. The corresponding radii of investigation, calculated according to equations 2 and 8, respectively, are reported in Table 4. The results obtained from the interpretation in the frequency domain of HPT-1 are in very good agreement with those provided by the injection test (see Table 4 and Figure 8). Thanks to the quality of the pressure data, affected by limited noise, the derivative in the frequency domain is smooth and allows clear identification of interpretation models especially for early time phenomena. Middle time phenomena can be recognized but are less evident and affected by uncertainty as a consequence of the short oscillation period. As expected, this does not allow robust identification of the horizontal stabilization and, in turn, of the match point. Three possible matches are shown in Figure 8, characterized by different permeability-thickness product values (kh). The blue and the green matches identify an uncertainty range of kh, which is 70–110 mD m. No acceptable matches were obtained with smaller nor higher values of kh. The uncertainty is thus limited. Moreover, a visual inspection of semilog plot of amplitude ratio versus oscillation period (analogous to Horner plot) and the phase delay plot helps reducing uncertainty by indicating the red match as the more reliable.

It should be noted that phase delay fitting is generally less representative than derivative match, especially for low oscillation period components, which are strongly affected by irregularity in the periodicity. Such components represent the early time effects (i.e., wellbore storage and skin). However, being skin detectable in semilog plot and log-log plot from high oscillation period components, the joint inspection of the three graphs should prevent erroneous interpretations.

4.2 Soft Stimulation Test: HPT-5

The HPT-5 recorded data are reported in Figure 9. The SPP data measured during the entire test are affected by significant levels of noise, increasing with injection rate and pressure, from high ( ±0.25 MPa) to very high ( ±1 MPa). WHP were affected by a significantly slighter noise, which was maintained constant during the test however, the gauge resolution (0.1 Mpa) was too low to allow a derivative analysis. Regardless, comparison with WHP allowed to assess SPP noise that is likely due to the low precision of the gauge moreover, WHP data showed that the maximum pressure increase observed during each semiperiod of the test would decrease gradually with progressive oscillations (from about 2.5 M Pa on the first semiperiod to about 1.5 MPa on the last one), which could be symptomatic of a slight increase in permeability during the stimulation itself. This behavior is present also in the SSP pressure data but is less clear due to the significant amount of noise. A subdivision of test data into two groups helped to isolate the effect of very high noise to a subset of data as well as to possibly confirm the permeability increase. Therefore, the test was divided into two groups of oscillations: oscillations 1 to 6, less noisy, and oscillations 7 to 12, noisier. Oscillation 13 was discarded due to the anticipated interruption of the second injection semiperiod.

Log-log plot of the derivative of the first six oscillations is shown in black in Figure 10. In this case the early time effects were not detectable because of the background noise on pressure data that affected mainly high frequency components of the signal (T < 0.1 hr) thus, C = 0.005 m 3 /bar was assumed based on HPT-1 interpretation. Conversely, horizontal stabilization corresponding to middle time behavior is clearly detectable, due to the longer oscillation period, thus assuring good interpretation robustness.

Log-log plot of the derivative of the last six oscillations is shown in red in Figure 10. The measured pressure data are affected by a high level of noise that reflects on an amplitude ratio derivative which is quite noisy until T = 0.39 hr. The comparison between the derivative of the first and the second group of oscillations confirms around 20% increase in permeability.

Comparison between derivative curves obtained for HPT-1 and for HPT-5 showed higher permeability in the latter test (Figure 11 and Table 4): a fourfold increase was observed. The increase could indicate effectiveness of the stimulation treatment, but this cannot be unequivocally proven. The increase could also be due to temporary opening of fractures during injection as a result of increased injection pressures. Whether stimulation should be considered effective depends on the post-treatment performance for which no information was available. Injection was stopped, and flow back was initiated after a Mw = 1.9 event triggered the seismic traffic light system.

Fokker T.V “Luchtkruiser’ History, camouflage and markings

Another very interesting new book in the DUTCH PROFILE series was released by the end of 2009. Just like the earlier described Fokker D.XXI volume it is a book on aircraft types used by the Dutch air force and naval air service. This new publication is written by mr. Frits Gerdessen, also author of the earlier D.XXI book and a specialist on Dutch military aviation. This new release gives an in-depth story on the Fokker T.V bomber. The author gives in the first part of this book a short overview how the Dutch military forces were organized at a moment the German military threat became appear ant. At that time the Dutch politics had a very strong ‘broken gun’ attitude, but this soon changed when they realized Dutch operational types were in fact totally outdated.

The Dutch government finally decided to order at Fokker a modern warplane, following the philosophy of the ‘aerial cruiser’. Multi-engined and heavily armed and armoured it was intended to destroy incoming enemy bombers. In fact this idea totally failed and the new plane, designated as Fokker T.V, was not more than a medium-class bomber with a defensive armament falling more or less in the same class as the British Armstrong Siddeley Whitley.

However, the T.V could hardly be regarded as a very modern type when it was introduced in the years preceding the outbreak of WW-II. The twin-engine bomber was of mixed construction with wooden wings, a light-alloy front fuselage and a rear fuselage made of welded steel tubes covered with fabric.

Front armament was a 20 mm Solothurn cannon. It carried further four 7,9 mm drum-fed Lewis machine guns at various positions including in the tail. In fact the tail gun position was the same as used on the Fokker G-1.

The plane was not fitted with a heating system for the crew and since the gun openings were not perfectly sealed the crew had to fly under very draughty and very cold conditions.

The T.V was introduced in a new bomber flight department (BomVa or Bomvliegtuigafdeling) and became operational in 1939. Including the prototype, a total number of sixteen T.V’s was built and supplied, carrying the registrations 850 – 865.

During the five-days war in May 1940, only 12 were combat-ready. They all flew operational bombing missions, but during this period all T.V’s were lost over a number of days in various air battles with German fighters. In fact the T.V was totally unsuitable for daylight operations and also escorting D.XXI fighters suffered heavy losses. At the capitulation the German forces captured the four remaining non-combat ready machines.

In this 56-page book many details on operations are given with many, sometimes very rare, photographs. Also photographs of the T.V in German markings are included! In total 80 photos are used in this book.

The book also shortly mentions the international interest from Argentina, and Sweden.

Further, extensive details are given on the typical 3-colour camouflage and on markings. Detailed colour profile drawings are given for the prototype, the operational planes both with Dutch ‘rozettes’ and orange triangular marking and a T.V (no. 859) in German markings. On the back cover profiles are given showing experimental circular markings.

In short: this is a very welcome publication, not only for the aviation historian, but also for the aircraft model builder. Unfortunately, there is very little on the market for the model builder, but maybe this will change in the future!


The cockpit lighting can be switched on and off on the central console. Look down and right! That only works in OSG, as do the other clickable cockpit objects.

To twiddle knobs (OSG only again, I'm afraid! Use LMB to increment by 1, MMB to decrement by one. The scroll wheel increases and decreases in larger steps. At least it will if your mouse buttons are mapped in the same way that mine are! Hold the mouse cursor over the standby digits of NAV/COM/ADF boxes to adjust, then press the button to flip the freqs. You can also adjust CDIs and the heading bug using the FMP on the glareshield.

A brief history of Fokker

FOKKER'S BANKRUPTCY may seem like a thoroughly modern phenomenon, but a glance through the company's 80-year history shows that this was not the first time the Dutch manufacturer had sailed close to collapse.

1912 Dutchman Anthony Fokker registers a company in Germany to put his monoplane design into production.

1913 Fokker builds fighters for the German army and continues through the First World War, including building Baron von Richthofen's Dr.I triplane.

1919 Fokker returns to the Netherlands to found factory in Amsterdam.

1920 Fokker produces its first airliner, the C.II, leading to a series of successful civil launches. It goes on to become the world's largest aircraft manufacturer, with bases in the Netherlands and USA.

1931 US production ceases as General Motors pulls out.

1934 in the aftermath of the Wall Street crash, Fokker asks the Dutch Government for financial aid.

1939 Anthony Fokker dies aged 49. A state subsidy is agreed, but war intervenes.

1941 Factories taken over by occupying German forces

1946 Government agrees to a cash injection.


1955 Fokker marks return to civil-aircraft market with maiden flight of the F27 Friendship.

1958 First Dutch-built F27 goes into service. The first US-built aircraft, produced under licence by Fairchild, had gone into service shortly before. Orders temporarily dry up, however, and Fokker is forced to seek help from banks and the Government.

1967 Fokker's first jet airliner, the F 28 Fellowship, has its maiden flight, while the F27 becomes the world's best-selling turboprop.

1969 Fokker merges with Germany's VFW.

1980 The merger with VFW, which was always tense, is abandoned

1985/6 Fokker 50 and Fokker 100 have maiden flights

1987 Development costs push the company towards bankruptcy. Dutch Government steps in with a rescue package and a 49% stake.

1990 Fokker is back in profit but begins search, for an industry partner.

1992 Alliance approved with Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA), the called Deutsche Aerospace, but negotiations drag on with the Dutch Government.

1993 March: Faced with dwindling profits, the company plans to shed 2,100 jobs and cut back production.

April: An agreement is signed with DASA, under which it takes control of Fokker with 51% of a new majority holding company. Fokker 70 has maiden flight.

1994 March: Management announces a further 1,900 staff cuts and caps annual production at 40 aircraft.

July: DASA agrees on a capital injection of DF1600 million ($350 million), while the Dutch Government supports the company indirectly through a DF1420 million sale lease back of patents.

1995 February: With sales sliding and losses mounting, a new rationalisation plan is launched, including the closure of two plants and another 1,760 job losses.

July: After massive half-year losses Fokker reveals that it needs Df12.3 billion of fresh capital to keep afloat.

August: DASA provides bridging finance worth around DFl1.5 billion, while talks take place with the Dutch Government over refinancing. DASA's support includes agreement to take 69 leased aircraft off Fokker's books.

December: DASA says that it will continue its support until the end of the year after Fokker's shares dive on rumours of imminent collapse. DASA makes clear that it will only join the refinancing if the Dutch Government puts up half the funding.

18 January: DASA makes unsuccessful last-ditch attempts to win concessions from the Dutch Government.

22 January: Daimler-Benz ends financial support.

23 January: Fokker seeks court protection from its creditors. Starts search for new partners.

26 January: The Dutch Government extends bridging finance of DFl365 million to keep the company open "at least until the end of February".

27 February: Bombardier pulls out of take-over talks. Fokker is given a two-week stay of execution, as other talks continue. A group of Dutch businesses and banks look at forming a consortium. China's Aviation Industries and South Korea's Samsung emerge as possible buyers.

Nieuport 11 (Bebe)

Authored By: Staff Writer | Last Edited: 05/28/2019 | Content © | The following text is exclusive to this site.

The Nieuport 11 "Bebe" (or "Baby" - known officially as the "Nieuport 11 C1") was one of the first true Allied fighters of World War 1. Developed from a prewar design intended for competition, the militarized form brought with it the expected excellent performance inherent in a racing platform. Designed in a mere four months, the Nieuport 11 - retaining the "Bebe" nickname of its predecessor - proved instrumental in ending the dominance of German Fokker-based aircraft during 1916 in what came to be known as the "Fokker Scourge". The French Nieuport series, as a whole, would end up becoming one of the best fighter lines in all of World War 1, eventually becoming collectively recognized by the name of "Nieuport Fighting Scouts".

Societe Anonyme Des Etablissements, established in 1909 and founded by Eduoard de Nie Port, had delved successfully into racing sesquiplane airframes for some time prior to World War 1. The sesquiplane approach was something of a biplane configuration though the lower wing assembly was decidedly smaller than the upper. With the war reaching its stride by August of 1914, and a growing faith in biplane winged aircraft, the Nieuport firm was charged with production of Voisan biplane aircraft which sported a "pusher" propeller arrangement, necessitated by the lack of a competent machien gun synchronization system when firing through a spinning propeller. These platforms proved adequate attempts at countering German fighter designs of the time but German offerings were seemingly always one step ahead which helped to maintain the tactical advantage for the interim.

Nieuport Chief Designer Gustave Delage began designing a new type of biplane prior to World War 1 which would have competed in the 1914 Gordon Bennett Trophy Race. The aircraft was of a sesquiplane wing arrangement and given the company designation of "Nieuport 10". However, with France's commitment to open war in the middle of 1914, thought turned to developing the single-seat Nieuport 10 into a militarized form capable of competing with German offerings on equal terms. The aircraft's staggered wing configuration required support of distinctive V-aligned struts and applicable wire bracing - the latter common to aircraft of the period. The Nieuport 10 was itself adopted as a general purpose mount (sometimes armed with an upper wing Lewis machine gun) and two-seat trainer platform by the French Air Force during the war. It garnered the nickname of "Bebe" - or "Baby" - a name that stuck with the militarized version for the span of her operational career. The Nieuport 10 was further adopted by Britain, Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Italy, Japan, Russia, Serbia, Thailand, Ukraine, the United States and the Soviet Union.

In the new militarized form, Delage attempted to retain much of the excellent performance specifications inherent in the preceding competition-minded racer. This approach would lay the foundation for a whole line of excellent French fighting aircraft still to come and make the Nieuport name a household brand by war's end. Delage's pursuit eventually realized the "Nieuport 11", a lightweight, single-seat fighter-type with the same single-bay sesquiplane wing arrangement of the Nieuport 10. The Nieuport 11 was the quintessential fighter of its time featuring a fixed two-wheel undercarriage with tail skid, an open-air cockpit and biplane wings. The aircraft owed its fine lines, smooth contours and general pedigree to the Nieuport racer prior and were fielded with a front-mounted 80 horsepower Le Rhone 9C, 9-cylinder, air-cooled rotary piston engine powering a two-blade propeller. The pilot sat positioned just behind and below the upper wing element with a generally good view out of the cockpit.

Primary armament was a single Hotchkiss- or Lewis-type 7.7mm (.303 caliber) machine gun fitted in the center of the upper wing as the Allies still lacked a viable synchronized machine gun solution that the Germans were already operating with. However, early Nieuport 11s were not armed in any way, being true scouts in their reconnaissance role (primarily with British and French scout squadrons). Only when armed did they become "fighting scouts" and could be operated in a fighter-type role when countering enemy aircraft and balloons. The Nieuport 11 was later cleared to fire up to 8 x Le Prieur anti-balloon rockets - these weapons, crude by modern standards, looked like nothing more than oversized bottle rockets fitted in a staggered arrangement along the sides of the V-struts.

Production of Nieuport 11's was handled by Societe Anonyme des Etablissements Nieuport with first deliveries beginning in 1915. The type was fielded operationally for the first time on January 5th, 1916 and utilized in a frontline role until the summer of 1917 before given up for better, modern types.

Upon its introduction, the Nieuport 11's biplane wing design (generating more lift at the expense of increased drag) allowed Allied pilots to easily outmaneuver their German Fokker Eindekker monoplane contemporaries thanks, in part, to the utilization of ailerons in the design (as opposed to the rather utilitarian "wing-warping" action fielded by German Eindeckers). Additional benefits of the Nieuport 11 design lay in its excellent inherent speed, rate-of-climb and agility for the period. If the Nieuport 11 had but one limitation, it was in its lack of a synchronized machine gun system which limited armament. The placement of the machine gun along the upper wing forced a special reloading process to be worked, an operation that took the aircraft and pilot out of the fight for dangerously long periods of time. It should also be noted that the Nieuport 11 held a propensity for the wing assembly to buckle violently in high-speed flight, leading to fractures or outright break ups (mainly due to the single-bay, V-strut nature of the design). As such, it often took an experienced pilot to overcome these drawbacks and eventually make a name for himself while flying the Nieuport 11. Several names did, in fact, earn the status of "Ace" after having flown Nieuport 11s during portions of their career - names such as Ball, Baracca, Bishop, Navarre and Nungesser.

Italy produced the Nieuport 11 under license in 646 examples as the "Nieuport 1100". Sources suggest that local production occurred in Russia, Spain and the Netherlands as well. Such production and reproduction of Nieuport 11s proved - both directly and indirectly - the excellence of the Gustave Delage design.

The Bebe was officially retired from front-line service sometime in the summer of 1917 with the last Bebe squadrons being fielded in Italy. During its reign, the Bebe was largely responsible for a change in tactics on the part of the Germans - particularly during the pivotal Battle of Verdun (1916) where the "Baby" inflicted heavy losses on the enemy. As such, the value of the Nieuport 11 system to the Allied cause could not be overstated.

Back in 1916, Nieuport also unveiled the "Nieuport 16" in an attempt to modernize and improve the Nieuport 11 design for the changing requirements of war. The Nieuport 16 fielded a Le Rhone 9J rotary engine of 110 horsepower in a revised cowling. The attempt was more or less abandoned when the designed proved too "front-heavy". This initiative, however, led to the direct development of the "Nieuport 17" which went on to replace the Nieuport 11 beginning in March of 1916 and, itself, would become one of the most famous warplanes of World War 1.

Despite its relatively short career in the air, production of Nieuport 11s totaled approximately 7,200 Bebes which was an impressive number when accepted in the scope of World War 1 fighter production.

Watch the video: WORLDS LARGEST FOKKER DR-1 RC SCALE PLANE. Faszination Modellbau Friedrichshafen 2016 (September 2022).


  1. Stefan

    yes ... such a thing would not hurt me)))

  2. Sherbourne

    Wonderful, this is a funny answer

  3. Gardagor

    I consider, that you commit an error. Let's discuss.

  4. Hernandez

    Sorry for interrupting you, but you couldn't provide more information.

  5. Arnan

    HURRAH!!! HURRAH!!!!!! HURRAH!!!!!!!!

Write a message

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos