Jump to content

Real world comparison: Skyranger, Zenith Cruzer, Savannah, Foxbat


Recommended Posts

Performance data are a difficult subject. If you compare published data of different aircrafts, there is only one certainty: You are comparing apples with pears. But: You guys like blueadventure, Michael Hille and lots more, you meet each other, fly with each other and you can give a much better insight.

Can you write something about the comparison of those aircrafts? Like how they compare in cruise speed for doing cross countries. Or how they perform at slow flight and short landing when used bush style. Which one is climbing faster, which one is climbing steeper? How do they compare in fuel economy? And how in space and weight for luggage and material to haul?

I would appreciate your comments, thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Here in the sunburnt country we have traditionally been a parochial bunch when it comes to brand allegiance. Eg. Ford Vs Holden, Vic Vs NSW, NT Vs Canberra and the eastern states, Jabiru Vs everyone else. Sometimes this is based on fact, but often it is not. It will be interesting to see if any brave soul is game to enter the fray and provide unbiased insights.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sam I have copied the following review by the late Ross Millard who was a regular contributor in the past. And a great personal friend.

 

My comments are:- I found the building of the nynja well supported with the manufactures build manual. In Australian they are rated to 540kg and have wing tanks designed for 52 liters each and I fitted a 6 litre collector / surge tank so have max fuel capacity at 110 litres and 107 litres usable. Rotax 912 100hp consume about 18 or 19 litres per hour at max rpm which will give 105 kts; I usually never cruise much higher than 95 kts. MTOW is 540kg and originals were tested to 550kg. All current kits produced by Flylight Airsport in UK are fitted with wings and airframe with the 600kg modification and are in the stages of the 600kg undercarriage. At 600kg it will be an awesome aircraft in the category. I'll upgrade mine when the undercarriage and development tests are signed off.

 

The aircraft responds great to all pilot inputs and will not surprise you with normal flying. Stall is benign. The vision is excellent due to the windscreen and side screen sizing so you are always aware of whats around and when near or on the ground, taxing etc.

 

Baggage is carried behind the seat and in a hammock style zipper bag above and some room under the seats and the floor.

 

Seats are rated to 120kg each seat and they can be adjusted to a high or low position during build or any time. They are a comfortable foam lined cover on a moulded fibreglass seat. I'm 186cm and have head room to spare so suit taller persons.

 

They are kit build only which is a shame as they would make a great training aircraft as well as introduce more pilots to them.

 

I have flown Savannah's, Foxbat A22, Lightwing, a Jabaru and owned a Skyfox Ca21 and my recommendation and choice is the Skyranger Nynja.

 

 

Ross's review story is:-

Finally had the opportunity at this weekends' Old Station Flyin at Raglan Queensland, to try on the Ninja aircraft. I had been wanting to do so for sometime. Dealer Greg Robertson was happy to offer me either seat, so I chose the left. Around 7 am as we strapped in the wind was probably gusting 10-12 kts crosswind from the left. The Ninja has interested me for sometime as the perfect aircraft for either the entry- level or experienced pilot looking for a good efficient cross- country aircraft. Another big advantage is it is available in kit form, which can save the buyer some cash.

 

The airframe is alum tube construction with wire bracing internally on the wings and other areas. The rear section of the fuselage is composite giving the aircraft a very clean, modern and strong appearance. The wings are strut- braced with neat composite upturned wing tips. There are numerous other composite fairings on the control surfaces and of course the engine cowlings are also composite.

 

Anyone questioning the alum tube wire- braced type construction may be reassured by the many other designs throughout the years which have demonstrated the strength and lightness of this method of construction ...globally. It offers lightness, considerable strength, and ease of repair or replacement if needed, plus has a very good safety record over many years.

 

The Ninja is of course powered with a Rotax 912 80 or 100 HP and is a great aircraft with either. On our aircraft a 3- blade Warpdrive was fitted.

 

The 912 started normally as usual and as we warmed up I found the cabin and seating very adequate, the visability most impressive, and the stubby centre stick and throttle very well placed for comfort. The main hydrylic wheel brakes are quite effective, and operated by a single lever mounted on the foward edge of the control stick. I am used to foot brakes in my current Lightwing, but I had no trouble getting used to this set up at all having previously used the same setup in Drifters. The Ninja also has flaps, however we decided on a no- flap takeoff and landing due the current conditions.

 

The main fuel tank on the standard Ninja is behind the seats however Greg has developed addition alum tanks which can also be fitted into the wing- roots, and then used in conjunction with a generous sump tank behind the seats. Total quantity is around the 100 Ltr mark if my memory serves me well, which should easily give around four hours endurance with reserve.

 

I lined up on Old Stations 06 and poured in some coals while doing my best to keep her on runway line in the strong crosswind conditions. She handled it all very well and all controls have good authority especially the rudder.

 

Once airborne I levelled around 1000' AGL in bumpy conditions which is a good test of any aircraft. Once level she showed a good tendency to achieve the claimed 90 kt level cruise speed at 5000 rpms which with two up shows real good overall design.

 

The aircraft is nicely responsive to all controls, and has a very solid trustworthy feel to it which should make flying it easy for most pilots regardless of experience. I did a tight observation turn around a house below which once again impressed me with the overall solid feel of the airframe and controls.

 

We returned then to the field so I could attend the RAA question and answer session with the CEO at 8 am. The approach seemed pretty normal with a very noticable increase in speed once the nose was dropped, once again showing how slick the design is. Even in the gusty conditions the throttle was at idle as we came across the fence, with no problem maintaining safety approach speed. Once in the flare the crosswind wanted to push me off the strip, but there was no lack of control authority to counteract it. In retrospect I probabily should have utilised more rudder, but the touchdown wasn't too bad for first landing in type in those conditions, with the aircraft probabily handling it better than I did.

 

I left the aircraft very impressed and satisfied, with no major negatives on the aircraft at all, and particularly impressed with the solid feel and control, and just how well the little centre stick works. As I suspected a very nice and capable aircraft which will certainly do well in our Australian fleet. With the additional wing- mounted fuel tanks the Ninja is very capable of long cross- country flying which Greg and others have already amply demonstrated many times. The seating and comfortable cabin should also have you arriving in pretty good shape.

 

Thanks for the fly Greg.......highly recommended as far as I am concerned.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

While recognising that you have limited your enquiry to very similar looking aircraft I would make the following comments:

 

Performance figures - high cruise, economy cruise, climb, stall, take off/landing ground role are subject to a list of influencing factors (temperature, fuel load, weight of test pilot, temperatures, wind speed & direction, runway conditions, propeller type etc) they ALSO seem to be the area where marketing/sales talk and "brand" allegiance can exaggerate (in some cases shameless) claims.

 

My advise ; try and get your own personal experience in each aircraft. Remember that flight instruments can be "out" by significant factors, so try some basic checks - distance/time, fuel used for whole of mission.

 

Sorry, as the local ATEC aircraft agent I can not resist suggesting you evaluate ATEC aircraft as part of your investigation - there is probably no other that has the wide flight performance envelope combined with value for money. Depending on model - 29 knot stall, giving STOL capability at one end, coupled with high cruise of 134 knot at the top end, making for true cross country capability.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam, there's one factor you've left out of the equation - pricing. I would think that what you get for your money, would be one of the major considerations - unless, of course, money is no real problem, then you can buy the very best.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam it depends on your "mission" savannahs and 701 cruise between 80 and 85 kts..simply a design reality. The cruiser is a bit faster the ninja cruises quite fast really as well 90 to 95kts. The 701 and savannah will beat the others every time in takeoff and landing distance and climb with the same given horsepower engines.. It all goes back to what you will be using it for...literally what do you want..a sedan?..a station wagon or a nice SUV or a full on 4wd ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Way back when - I did my GA flight training, I was told all aircraft are compromises when it comes to performance. I was not to expect great stall speed/ cruise/climb in the one aircraft.

 

This has pretty much held true while I stayed in GA BUT I have found, since becoming involved in the smaller recreational aircraft world, that this is now not always true -particularly but not exclusively the compost variety aircraft have managed to defy this "law"

 

As Kyle has said - "depends on your mission" objectives.:

 

Want an aircraft with very low stall, around the 30 knot mark ?

Want the same aircraft to be able to economy cruise at 125 knots on about 15L/h and the same aircraft to be able to take off from a short grass fields in well under 100 m/land on the same, climb out at 1200 ft/min, all while not requiring costly air-frame maintenance ??

 

My advice - they are out there just go and look.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your comments! I know that some of you, bluesadventure and skippydiesel, are dedicated to their brand of plane. But your input is appreciated.

 

Kyle, you are so right that it all depends on the mission. But as a plane renter it is not really easy to get a clear picture of the mission, as you are watching the minutes you pay. It is costly to rent a plane for a couple of days to investigate if you rather like to do long cross countries. Or when I want to go glacier flying, I need a special rating. But glacier flying is about the last freedom we have in Switzerland (in our heavily populated land it is not possible to land in your garden or on the farm of a friend. But at least there are a lot of aerodromes). Is it mountain flying that I would like to do most? I really like the rugged Alpes, even though flying there is on the dangerous side, and you don't want your motor to quit on you as the next flat area is far. Would I need a taildragger for glacier flying, and a rating for that as well? Or would a STOL trike be able to handle the stress of deep snow landings on skis (or on those pneumatic floats?).

 

And then again, one-track you are right. Flying is very expensive, owning an own plane even more. You probably have noticed that my preselection is a bunch of rather less costly planes. If ever I can get a plane of my own it will have to be one of the cheaper ones, so I still can fly it.

 

So, skippydiesel, what is the price tag on an ATEC, I guess FAETA (NG?). And you have the Zephyr on your site as a kit (didn't find that on the ATEC site): what is the price tag there, and what is the work?

 

Bluesadventure, it's great to here that the Ninja has a MTOW of 540 kg already, and that they are going to 600 kg. On the European sites I see but 500 kg, which would make a payload too small even in Switzerland. What is the penalty for the stall speed? Also your wing tanks seem to be unique to Australia, but are a big improvement. Another concern for me is the textile which probably makes hangaring obligatory. Or can you envisage a covering with oratex?

Besides, I know from your pictures that you are regularly meeting pilots of Savannahs and CH750 Cruzers. I know that each one likes his own airplane the best, but anyway, some comparisons?

 

The Savannah S is an option also as the company is not too far (Italy, next to Switzerland) and as it is a pretty common ultralight in France. In Switzerland, ultralight regulations are not very favorable, but we can get experimental if we want to avoid GA. And building a plane is an option for it would give the opportunity to profit from the advances of the last five decades in aviation without going bankrupt. The Savannah is advertised at a cruise speed of 96 knots, but as you say, Kyle, that is probably one of those numbers that are not realistic, as the stall speed of 27 knots. And that's the reason I opened this forum, to get a more realistic comparison.

 

Thanks for all contributing, keep it coming!

Sam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam I will give you real numbers for the Sav...In Europe you guys are only allowed 450kg MTOW and the speeds quoted you will find are for that weight. In Australia we can fly them at 600kg. In the new POH there is finally a update to the numbers for 600kg. At close to 600kg my XL stalls at 33 kts clean and full flap is 30 kts and these numbers are now in the new POH and are pretty close to my results. My cruise doesnt seem to change much depending on the load..pretty much average is 85 kts depending on the weather if its hot or cold then about 2 kts either side of this. Mine at 5600 rpm maxes out at 97 kts the S maybe only a little faster. I know a lot of Savannah drivers whether it be a XL or a S model and these numbers are all pretty close to each other. Some have told me their S cruises at 100 kts..well that doesnt happen the wing aerofoil just wont allow that unless you have about 140hp up the front. unless they are cruising at max RPM and that isnt practical. So these are real numbers that are common to 600kg models over here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam -

 

I wouldn't say I am dedicated to my brand (ATEC) but do believe they are a much underrated aircraft, with quite astonishing breadth of performance. There are many other aircraft I admire/praise some of which are very specific in their flight range.

 

Your questions regarding the ATEC range should be directed to your nearest agent , especially for pricing. You will find you nearest agent by contacting the ATEC v.o.s factory ATEC Aircraft - Czech manufacturer of light sports aircraft | ATEC Aircraft. The factory may also be willing to supply the aircraft fit- out and pricing spread sheets.

 

I can tell you that all the ATEC aircraft are :

  • Available in factory or kit build form. Kits are very very advanced - nothing like the metal frame/skinned aircraft kits.
  • Come with the customers selection, from factory avionics, factory engine (Rotax 80/100/115 hp), or you can supply your own engine & avionics.
  • To the best of my knowledge, all recently delivered Australian ATEC aircraft are rated at 600 kg but your country may have different rules on this.
  • The Zephyr 122 is the original design/production aircraft and has been flying for about 25 + years now - I have a 2000 model and she is a delight to fly. As you would expect production of this model has been refined over the years so the fit/finish is superb. Australia has about 10 of these aircraft, all but one are 100 hp (the one is an 80 hp).
  • Faeta comes in two models;
  • Faeta 321 - similar in appearance to the Zephyr but with all composite construction, a faster wing giving substantially higher cruise and at the slow end, a more capable flap design giving a lower stall - we have one of these in Australia, being used for flight training & glider towing.
  • Faeta 321 NG - this is the same aircraft as above BUT with a conventional empennage (tail). Somehow this change in appearance has also enhanced cruise speed further again. We also have one of these.
  • ATEC also have a single seater, the Solo 212 - We dont have any in Australia and so I cant comment on this model

 

For performance specifications check out the ATEC web site ATEC Aircraft - Czech manufacturer of light sports aircraft | ATEC Aircraft . I have found the factory figures to be conservative, most unusual in the aviation industry. Factory staff are very approachable and good to work with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your comments! I know that some of you, bluesadventure and skippydiesel, are dedicated to their brand of plane. But your input is appreciated.

 

Kyle, you are so right that it all depends on the mission. But as a plane renter it is not really easy to get a clear picture of the mission, as you are watching the minutes you pay. It is costly to rent a plane for a couple of days to investigate if you rather like to do long cross countries. Or when I want to go glacier flying, I need a special rating. But glacier flying is about the last freedom we have in Switzerland (in our heavily populated land it is not possible to land in your garden or on the farm of a friend. But at least there are a lot of aerodromes). Is it mountain flying that I would like to do most? I really like the rugged Alpes, even though flying there is on the dangerous side, and you don't want your motor to quit on you as the next flat area is far. Would I need a taildragger for glacier flying, and a rating for that as well? Or would a STOL trike be able to handle the stress of deep snow landings on skis (or on those pneumatic floats?).

 

And then again, one-track you are right. Flying is very expensive, owning an own plane even more. You probably have noticed that my preselection is a bunch of rather less costly planes. If ever I can get a plane of my own it will have to be one of the cheaper ones, so I still can fly it.

 

So, skippydiesel, what is the price tag on an ATEC, I guess FAETA (NG?). And you have the Zephyr on your site as a kit (didn't find that on the ATEC site): what is the price tag there, and what is the work?

 

Bluesadventure, it's great to here that the Ninja has a MTOW of 540 kg already, and that they are going to 600 kg. On the European sites I see but 500 kg, which would make a payload too small even in Switzerland. What is the penalty for the stall speed? Also your wing tanks seem to be unique to Australia, but are a big improvement. Another concern for me is the textile which probably makes hangaring obligatory. Or can you envisage a covering with oratex?

Besides, I know from your pictures that you are regularly meeting pilots of Savannahs and CH750 Cruzers. I know that each one likes his own airplane the best, but anyway, some comparisons?

 

The Savannah S is an option also as the company is not too far (Italy, next to Switzerland) and as it is a pretty common ultralight in France. In Switzerland, ultralight regulations are not very favorable, but we can get experimental if we want to avoid GA. And building a plane is an option for it would give the opportunity to profit from the advances of the last five decades in aviation without going bankrupt. The Savannah is advertised at a cruise speed of 96 knots, but as you say, Kyle, that is probably one of those numbers that are not realistic, as the stall speed of 27 knots. And that's the reason I opened this forum, to get a more realistic comparison.

 

Thanks for all contributing, keep it coming!

Sam

Hi Sam. Best to hangar. Xlam is very uv resistant compared to Dacron. Not an always leave outside wing covering. A good built point was that no painting required. Vision whilst taxing and in flight is very good. Venison stated as 117 kts and it good to be aware that testing result was 125knts vne; that would have meant a 140 ASI and their display is not as nice as the 120 it ASI instruments so they set vne at 117 (just nice to know a bit more up the design sleeve when getting up close to vne.) Stalling at 35 kts. 250 meters is plenty of strip. I like mine. A good feature I also like is that you can see every part without removing panels. Say you suspect a fuel leak you can trace the system visually every DI. All I can say is worth a look over anda fly. A search of the Webb will have Skyranger Swift and Nynja. Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Swiss guy. That sounds cool - flying through the Alps. That would be fun. You need to get a decent plane with lots of power due to wind - mountain waves and downdrafts. Having previously lived in Canada for years, I've seen some wild and cold weather like you have. A bit of weight and strength might not hurt either - I'm thinking about something a lot stronger than a Foxsplat - probably an experimental Supercub with about 250 plus horsepower or a Glasair Sportsman etc. The Jabiru airframe are pretty strong, but I'd want lots more than 120hp to get out of a glacier if the wind started howling - how about something with a turbocharger ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just say about the Savannah , if you go that way make sure you have the vortex generators. Compared with the slat wing version you really are getting something for nothing.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam I will give you real numbers for the Sav...In Europe you guys are only allowed 450kg MTOW and the speeds quoted you will find are for that weight. In Australia we can fly them at 600kg. In the new POH there is finally a update to the numbers for 600kg. At close to 600kg my XL stalls at 33 kts clean and full flap is 30 kts and these numbers are now in the new POH and are pretty close to my results. My cruise doesnt seem to change much depending on the load..pretty much average is 85 kts depending on the weather if its hot or cold then about 2 kts either side of this. Mine at 5600 rpm maxes out at 97 kts the S maybe only a little faster. I know a lot of Savannah drivers whether it be a XL or a S model and these numbers are all pretty close to each other. Some have told me their S cruises at 100 kts..well that doesnt happen the wing aerofoil just wont allow that unless you have about 140hp up the front. unless they are cruising at max RPM and that isnt practical. So these are real numbers that are common to 600kg models over here.

Thanks Kyle, this clarifies a lot to me. Being a plane renter and paying per minute wet (gas is included) I am used to run the motor just on the green side of the green/yellow mark using 20 or maybe even 22 l/h (and I learned it this way from the guys I rent the plane). If it is your own plane you maybe are a little more in the green, to lose 10% of your speed but save 25% of the gas used. I know that a Rotax can run for hours on 5500 rpm without a problem (our maintenance has just looked at a Rotax reaching 2000 h, always run like that, and they said it is a pity that it can't go further as everything looks great). Is there an other reason than fuel economy why you run your plane at presumably 4500 rpm? Noise? Vibrations of the airframe? I like to learn from you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Swiss guy. That sounds cool - flying through the Alps. That would be fun. You need to get a decent plane with lots of power due to wind - mountain waves and downdrafts. Having previously lived in Canada for years, I've seen some wild and cold weather like you have. A bit of weight and strength might not hurt either - I'm thinking about something a lot stronger than a Foxsplat - probably an experimental Supercub with about 250 plus horsepower or a Glasair Sportsman etc. The Jabiru airframe are pretty strong, but I'd want lots more than 120hp to get out of a glacier if the wind started howling - how about something with a turbocharger ?

The dreams run like that. But onetrack's remark will exclude Carbon Cubs and the like. Turbocharged, however, I have an eye on the Edge performance engine. That seems to be a hell of a motor at a price not extremely higher than the expensive Rotax anyway.

 

I am about 130 km away from the alps, so it takes some time to get there, not just hop in the plane and there they are. On the other hand that's pretty close if the plane is not too slow. Flying in the alps is great, but landing on glaciers is a different pair of boots. I would have to go back to schooling a lot until I can get that permit. And I would have to get it in a taildragger, as I know of nobody here that does glacier flying in a trike gear plane. So I am not sure and it will certainly be a few years before I would dare.

 

It's all about the mission, but I am struggling to find the mission before I tried the different ways. Maybe that's my way to go: Trying out.

 

But keep your suggestions coming, think work is an important part of the whole, especially in aviation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am about 130 km away from the alps, so it takes some time to get there, not just hop in the plane and there they are

By Australian standards that makes the alps "right there".....130km is nothing. some people here have neighbours further away. :thumb up:

I have been flying a Zenith 601HD. It's a low wing taildragger, all metal and a similar wing to the Savannah and 701 but no struts. It has a big bubble canopy with great visibility, but I think lacks the safety of the high wing if you flip it, although that's less likely to flip without nose gear. It's a little faster than the Sav and 701, but max cruise still tops out around 100kts (80 hp) because of the thick wing. It's MTOW is 544kg, with an empty weight of around 300kgso if you are limited to 450 it pretty much becomes a single seater.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't on your list but the Bushcat may meet your requirements. Similar construction to the Skyranger, but available in tricycle or taildragger and has good STOL capability with a solid 90 kt cruise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The performance figures if the aircraft are not the most important thing. Reliability and after-sales support are much more important. Perhaps your town has lots of one make, or the best flying instructor for Alps flying has a particular plane? Or there is a LAME that loves a particular make and that you can rely on them?

 

The Sivannah is all aluminium (good) but I did not fit because of headroom (bad). The Foxbat A22 is the 450 kg version of the A22LS. Cabin a fantastic 129 cm wide and great visibility with fully see-through doors and a narrow panel. The foxbat is aluminium except for the control surfaces and under the wings. My Foxbat cruises at 80 kts but has big tyres could do with a finer prop setting. Aeroprakt A32 is fast and has a very low stall speed - amazing.

 

I have not really considered the 450 kg planes because 600 kg is the limit here. Disclaimer:50 hr plt.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ultralight category in Europe is changing, but each country different. Germany has gone to 600 kg, in France the Savannah is now 525 kg (much better than 472.5 kg, but of course worse than your 600 kg). Switzerland is lagging behind, therefore the experimental category would be the only one usable for me until the MTOW is changed in Switzerland, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

APenNameAndThatA: What is your size (as you don't in the Savannah)? And as this is a game changer: Is your length rather in your legs or your torso?

I am 192 cm, but my length is rather in the legs: long under carriage :-).

Link to post
Share on other sites

By Australian standards that makes the alps "right there".....130km is nothing. some people here have neighbours further away. :thumb up:

I have been flying a Zenith 601HD. It's a low wing taildragger, all metal and a similar wing to the Savannah and 701 but no struts. It has a big bubble canopy with great visibility, but I think lacks the safety of the high wing if you flip it, although that's less likely to flip without nose gear. It's a little faster than the Sav and 701, but max cruise still tops out around 100kts (80 hp) because of the thick wing. It's MTOW is 544kg, with an empty weight of around 300kgso if you are limited to 450 it pretty much becomes a single seater.

M61A1, I tested it yesterday. Switzerland from the north end (Basel) to the south end (Lugano) 1h 43 min in the Tecnam P2008 I can rent. That was directly over the mountains. The way back over a lower pass and a little more direct took 1h 37 min. That shows Switzerland is rather small, and you don't need a fast plane to get around this country. East to west is a little longer, but it's not until you go all over Europe that you take time like in your country.

1505647806_BerneseAlps.thumb.jpg.cb7fd64dc2698c84d859736c45a4a9aa.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice pic...Looks very unforgiving. I was looking at a trip to Bourketown which is up in the gulf and I am in South East Queensland (not sure if you are familiar with the geography), so I'm not even leaving the state. At 90kts it's almost 10 hours of flight time and I need at least two fuel stops. It would be longer than that in reality because any airport or town I can get fuel at is not on the direct route.

Most of the terrain is quite forgiving though, with a safe forced landing being possible for almost all of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the "structure" just off centre??

I don't understand what you are asking for, maybe my language skill... The white part in the landscape which looks flatter? That's the firn field of the glacier to the right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...