BF 109 Dive Rate (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Yes it could.

The Me-262 and Me-163 had problems at high speed.

They broke up and somtimes exploded.

The P-47 didnt realy unless you give the engine to many RPMs, whitch you can avoid by lowering the pitch.

You cant do that in a Me-262 or Me-163.
 
Yes it could.

The Me-262 and Me-163 had problems at high speed.

They broke up and somtimes exploded.

The P-47 didnt realy unless you give the engine to many RPMs, whitch you can avoid by lowering the pitch.

You cant do that in a Me-262 or Me-163.

They had problems at high speed, which is what they were designed for? Would you mind quoting a source on your claims?
 
The Me262's max dive speed was 654 miles per hour (Mach 0.86), at this speed, the controls would begin to freeze and the aircraft wanted to "nose down".

The Me163 reached 624 miles an hour in level flight, but started to get transonic buffeting. The fuselage on the Komet was too "stocky" to push closer to the barrier than the Me262. I have never heard of a Komet breaking up from a terminal dive. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I have yet to read about it.
 
Yes it could.

The Me-262 and Me-163 had problems at high speed.

They broke up and somtimes exploded.

The P-47 didnt realy unless you give the engine to many RPMs, whitch you can avoid by lowering the pitch.

You cant do that in a Me-262 or Me-163.

That's funny. The 262 and 163 could fly faster than the P-47 could dive, so how is that possible?
 
I agree with Kürfurst.

Messerschmitt 109 - myths, facts and the view from the cockpit

Diving - structural rigidity of 109 in dives

The Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 in instrumented tests. Slightly modified, it was even dived to Mach 0.80, and the problems experimented there weren't due to compressility, but due to aileron overbalancing. Compare this to Supermarine Spitfire, which achieved dive speeds well above those of any other WW2 fighter, getting to Mach 0.89 on one occasion. P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80. The P-47 had the lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."
- Source: Radinger/Otto/Schick: "Messerschmitt Me 109", volumes 1 and 2, Eric Brown: "Testing for Combat".
- (Comment: it seems Eric Brown's analysis is flawed, though, and test pilot Herb Fisher performed 150+ such dives: an example of a 0.79 dive. Several of the dives achieved Mach 0.83. Sources: Herb Fisher, Herb Fisher Jr., and Curtiss-Wright.

[/I]

I have read part of this report before, from Capt. Brown. The Spitfire that achieved .89 Mach had the nose case ripped from the engine and the wings were bent slightly backwards. Sorry, but I think that plane was beyond "redline dive speed". I love the Spitfire, don't get me wrong, but I just don't see how it can dive faster than a P-51.
 
The Spitfire use in this test was a special prototype prepared specifically for this test, and it had experimental laminar flow wings (a-la Supermarine Spiteful).
In actual service trim the highest official recording of compressability during dive was for the Mustang at 0.8 Mach, any 'stang could do it and that was exceptional.
It was Charles Lindbergh who put the cap on the Thunderbolt dive. The Republic corporation had used test pilots on the company payroll to set the safe dive speed at 550mph indicated. Following a series of accidents in the New York region among training squadrons equipped with the new type, Lindbergh was asked to give an independent appraisal by the DoD. He flew the P-47C and rated it as unstable in the dive at speeds exceeding 450mph indicated at 18,000 feet IIRC. By unstable he stated clearly the aircraft would likely kill the pilot in uncontrolled dives from extreme altitude and he was lucky to survive the test flight by attempting to achieve the manufacturer safe op guidelines.

It was noted by the DoD and NACA at the time (I can source references) that aircraft manufacturers in the US were routinely massaging listed performance specifications using paid test pilots rather than independent profiling of actual safe service operation (presumably in the competition to secure large contracts). Lindbergh was asked to test fly a wide variety of service aircraft for the DoD, there were others doing this job too. They travelled as civilians on the defence payroll even to field airstrips and tested aircraft under actual service conditions and trim for local revisions of operating procedures. I remember reading of a combat encounter by Lindbergh on one of these field test flights as a civilian contractor, apparently the combat zone had moved somewhat recently and the maps hadn't been adjusted. I don't think he was ever actually engaged by enemy aircraft though.

The phenomenal dive performance of the Thunderbolt is largely a myth, though the reality is still an extremely impressive dive performance. It's just that aircraft like the Messerschmitt, Focke Wulf, Tempest MkV and Griffon Spit could all match it. In fact the best divers according to British testing was the Griffon Spit and Tempest MkV in a power-on dive, although the Me-109G-2 they tested against them could still match initial dive acceleration (but not sustained power-on dives).

I've listened to the Luftwaffe aces in interviews being specifically asked about the P-47's dive performance, Rall for one, who comparatively tested these models as well as fought them in aerial combat had no idea it was even supposed to be quite so superior as the legend dictates. It had a good dive he said, nothing special. He liked the Mustang. To one persistant audience member, who asked what would you do if bounced by a Thunderbolt diving from altitude, he said well shoot it down of course. He did specify the P-47 had a great zoom, you couldn't follow it in the dive and get anywhere near the same altitude recovery afterwards, it was a severe mistake to try, that was the only notable thing about it he mentioned.
Anecdotal I realise.
 
I'm busy, so only a short comment, we have discussed this earlier.
RAE made numerous high speed dive tests, it had High speed flight for this. The Spitfires used were mostly Mk XIs, so unarmed photo recon a/c but anyway a service type. Max speed attained was Mach 0.91 by S/L Martindale. At least two Spit XIs were wrecked by Martindale during these tests. Later they used also Spit Mk 21s, from which armament and gun blisters were removed, Max speed reached with these was Mach 0.88.

Source:Richard Dennis' Royal Aircraft Establishment at war (2008 )

IIRC Spit XIs were dived several times to Mach 0.89 by pilots of the High speed flight. Mach 0.91 on the other hand clearly overstressed engine/propeller combination. But Spitfire with its thin wing was unbeatable among the prop planes in high speed dive tests even with its draggy radiator installation. I doubt that this generates to any tactical advantage in normal air combats, because these were long dives. Test dives began from up to 40 000ft.

Juha
 
I have read part of this report before, from Capt. Brown. The Spitfire that achieved .89 Mach had the nose case ripped from the engine and the wings were bent slightly backwards. Sorry, but I think that plane was beyond "redline dive speed".

There's a misunderstanding here.

The Spitfire involved was serial number EN409, a Spitfire XI.

It was flown in a series of dive tests by squadron leader Tobin, including at least 1 test that reached mach 0.89. The RAE released a report of these tests in January 1944.

The same Spitfire was flown in later tests by squadron leader Martindale. It was in April 1944 that the aircraft suffered a failure of the constant speed unit, which caused the propeller to come off and seriously damaged the engine.

So the Spitfire certainly reached 0.89 safely on at least 1 occasion, and indeed the RAE labelled that as "typical" high speed dive, which suggests it did so more than once.

I love the Spitfire, don't get me wrong, but I just don't see how it can dive faster than a P-51.

It had thinner wings. From Nasa:

There are a number of ways of delaying the increase in drag encountered when an aircraft travels at high speeds, i.e., the transonic wave drag rise, or of increasing the drag-divergence Mach number (the free-stream Mach number at which drag rises precipitously) so that it is closer to 1. One way is by the use of thin airfoils: increase in drag associated with transonic flow is roughly proportional to the square of the thickness-chord ratio (t/c). If a thinner airfoil section is used, the airflow speeds around the airfoil will be less than those for the thicker airfoil. Thus, one may fly at a higher free-stream Mach number before a sonic point appears and before one reaches the drag-divergence Mach number.

The Spitfire had thinner wings than any contemporary fighter, afaik.

The Spitfire use in this test was a special prototype prepared specifically for this test, and it had experimental laminar flow wings (a-la Supermarine Spiteful).

No, it was a normal recce Spitfire.

In actual service trim the highest official recording of compressability during dive was for the Mustang at 0.8 Mach, any 'stang could do it and that was exceptional.

Service Spitfires had a higher limiting mach number than Mustangs. Spitfire manuals note maximum mach as 0.85. The P-51D was limited to 0.7, the P-51B 0.75.

From Wings of the Weird and Wonderful Vol 2 by Eric Brown.
A Mustang III Ser No KH 505 was allocated to the RAE for high speed research, and this showed up some unpleasant compressibility effects, and indeed the aircraft was eventually lost in failing to recover fro a high mach number dive, killing the Canadian pilot, S/Ldr. E.B.Gale.
In such dives compressibility effects set in at M=0.71 with a slight vibration of the aircraft and buffeting of the controls, accompanied by a slight nose down pitching moment. These symptoms increased in intensity up to M=0.75 which was the limit imposed for service use. Above M=0.75 a porposing motion started and increased in intensity together with the other effects up to M=0.8, when nose down pitch became so strong that it required a two handed pull force for recovery.

From America's Hundred Thousand:
In July 1944 Wright Field test pilots explored the high speed dive characteristics of a Merlin powered Mustang. A series of dive tests were made starting from about 35,000 ft. in a test airplane equipped with a mach meter. The idea was to explore the effects of compressibility such as buffeting, vibration, control force changes, and so on. Initial dives showed the onset of the problem to occur at just under mach .75. Additional dives were made, usiung three test pilots, which carried the aircraft sucessively to mach .77, then .79, and up to mach .81, and finally to mach .83 (605 mph) As the dive mach number was increased the compressibility effects became more violent, but the aircraft wsa still controllable, and it was possible to fly it out of the problem when desired, at mach .83 the shaking and buffeting of the aircraft was so strong that it was decided to explore no further. The airplane had suffered considerable structural damage and was written off.
 
Ref: "Test Pilots" by Richard Hallion (all following excerpted from book)

According to data taken from DVL wartime testing
the Me-109 was stable to 0.79 Mach
Fw190 had trim changes at 0.78 Mach
Me163 was uncontrollable above 0.82 Mach (that must've been terrifying, it could get that speed in a climb couldn't it?)
Me262 had good control at 0.85 Mach

From the RAE
Tobin and Martindale both dived a Mustang III to 0.82 Mach
and a modified Spit Mk XI to 0.9 Mach (my mistake I thought it a Griffon protoype like PP139)

Martindale had several wrecked Spits in the course of testing. One shattered a supercharger, another the prop flew off and took most of the engine cowling with it (successfully dead sticked that one). The tests were described as beginning from 40,000ft gradually descending into an angle of 50-degrees. At around 32,000ft 0.88 Mach would be attained and 0.9 Mach at 29,000ft and 610mph (actually this is 0.895 Mach in standard atmospheric conditions). A 2.2g pull out would then be used to return to level flight at around 19,500ft.

These figures would appear to be an average example of typical test procedure, I don't have data for individual tests.

It is also my mistake about the Mustang and its laminar flow wing, the book states the Spit's eliptical wing had the highest critical Mach number of a wartime aircraft.
I think it was in an Alfred Price book, "Great Aircraft of World War Two" that I read the modified Spit used in postwar transonic dive tests was a modified Griffon Spit like the MkXIV fitted with laminar flow wings, very similar to the Spiteful prototype but no changes to the fuselage. As I can't find the entry with a quick hunt I'll accept I should stand corrected and either get some memory pills or drink more heavily as I like to be extreme.

In 1940 the USN and NACA test dived a Brewster Buffalo XF2A-2 to 575mph.
NACA also tested an XP-51 at "good controllability" for extended periods at 0.75 Mach which was a speed at which the airflow separation over the wings was noted (by fitted instrumentation in the gun bays) to be 1.2 Mach.

Up to 1943 the fighters noted for tail failures in high speed dives due to compressability issues were the P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47 and SB2C-1 Helldiver. The P-47 was "plagued with problems" and the Helldiver "troublesome" according to NACA pilots.

I've another correction to make too, since rereading this book for the first time in a few years, it also says Lindbergh test flew the P-47K and said it was unstable at 450mph at 8000ft (manufacturer says 550mph VNE which is a suicidal speed, it's even on a plate in the cockpit). Also he did perform a number of combat missions over Japan as a civilian advisor, and is credited with a Zero, and mounted the largest combat load ever put on a fighter to that time whilst convincing Corsair pilots they could carry 8,000lb bomb loads off carrier decks, by performing this for a ground attack mission himself.
Earlier he used to travel around French airfields helping them get used to their new Hawks even after the opening of hostilities, this was where I had read he didn't engage enemy a/c, well that is he didn't engage any German a/c during the war.
 
Last edited:
I think its worth remembering that we are talking here of tests done by test pilots in controlled conditions and sometimes with changes to the aircraft. This is not the same as being in a combat situation.

The Spitfire is probably the best example, for all its feats in testing, not even the Spitfires greatest fans would say that it was a good aircraft to dive in, during combat.
 
Service Spitfires had a higher limiting mach number than Mustangs. Spitfire manuals note maximum mach as 0.85. The P-51D was limited to 0.7, the P-51B 0.75.

:

Hop - From the Dive tests at Wright Pat - I'll try to find the Boscomb Down report but it is similar. The Spit had a slightly higher M for recommended maximum but your P-51 figures are understated and out of context from the actual USAAF and RAF dive test results and reports.

Additionally the 51 did not have much of a 'tuck effect' in dive, or high stick forces, with test noting that the biggest danger was over controlling the stick in a dive or entering a tuve from a roll or steep turn at high altitude and airspeed.

Summary
Manual - limit Dive = .75M recommended
Test - limit Dive = .8 M recommended as maximum

Test Summary

Compressibility effects noted at .76

Ultimate Dive = .81 to .83 (attain at high risk)

.84 to .85 actual achieved and with significant damage and very high risk - maximum dive attained in the Tests

Porpoising effects believed to be initated by 'ballooning' of fabric elevators (true - and fixed with metal elevator modifications in production P-51D-10 and retro fit kits for all prior models.

Actual Report
TSCHEP 5R/RLB/MEM/2-6258
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
Date:- 9th October, 1944

url
Note on Dive Tests on 'Mustang IV'


Details/summary
1. Reference is made to Inter-Office Memorandum, P.W. Nosker:ffc: 51 dated 27 June, 1944 and Lt. D. B. Parker:pC:51 dated 10 July, 1944 from Chief, Aircraft Laboratory to Chief, Flight Section requesting that compressibility dive tests be conducted on the P-51D airplane.
2. A series of thirty-one dives was conducted by the Flight Research Branch between 3 August, 1944 and 16 September, 1944. These dives included high and low altitude tests and limited stability tests at high Mach numbers. A complete report of these tests is in the process of preparation at the present: however, the necessary information is forwarded so that it may be made available immediately for operating instructions.

3. The results indicate that the airplane should be restricted to a Mach number of 0.80 due to compressibility difficulties which become increasingly dangerous beyond that point. It is recommended that the airplane be placarded with the following limit diving speeds:-


Pressure Altitude (Ft.) Pilot's IAS (m.p.h.)
40,000 275
35,000 310
30,000 345
25,000 385
20,000 425
15,000 470
10,000 505
5,000 505

4. Porpoising.- The P-51D airplane, at high speeds, is subject to the longitudinal instability commonly referred to as porpoising. The results to date indicate that the condition may be induced at a Mach number of 0.70 and above, but may be encountered at somewhat lower Mach numbers at low altitude. It is known that the fabric bulge in the elevator surfaces is more critical at low altitudes and may be related to the airplane's increased tendency to porpoise at lower Mach numbers in that range.

The porpoising is not a severe condition and can be controlled. In the first place, the condition is usually induced by the pilot, since any ununiform elevator stick force will result in the porpoising at high Mach numbers. Any effort on the part of the pilot to counteract this effect will result in increasing amplitude. It may actually be stopped by holding the stick firmly in one position or, in fact, eliminated by trimming forward gradually to near zero stick forces as the dive is entered, thus reducing the amount of forward stick forces necessary to maintain the dive angle.

5. Rolling.- As a Mach number of 0.75 is approached , a slight amount of rolling may become apparent with a simultaneous reduction in aileron sensitivity. This rolling does not become severe, and may be easily controlled.

6. Vibration.- At a Mach number of 0.76 a true effect of compressibility becomes evident in the form of a complete vibration of the airplane. This vibration is caused by a combination of compressibility effects on the wing and the horizontal stabilizer. The condition becomes increasingly severe as the Mach number increases and could eventually cause a primary structural failure.

7. Maximum Limit of Combat.- The airplane has been dived to a maximum Mach number of 0.85 and on several occasions to 0.84. In each case the pilots reported that the vibration became extremely heavy beyond 0.80. In each dive to 0.84 or above the vibration became so severe that the airplane was damaged. The leading edge skin of the wing flap was buckled between rivets, a coolant radiator cracked and hydraulic line broken due to vibration on various dives to 0.84 and above. In extreme war emergency the airplane can be dived to a Mach number of 0.83 (400 m.p.h. Indicated Airspeed at 25,000 ft.), if a very gradual pull-out is made.



From the P-51D Manual ( same as P-51-B)
P-51 Mustang Pilot's Flight Manual - Google Books
 
Last edited:
These guys were a little nuts.
Aircraft development and testing through the thirties until the fifties was every bit the equivalent of the later space program. Hacking a second supercharger on the Vega's wasp in the backyard and putting on a custom made rubber suit so you can cruise between 30-50,000ft and win races by riding in the "jet stream"
The USN experiments to use zeppelins as aerial aircraft carriers (F9C Sparrowhawks tested). Two aerial-aircraft carriers were made, carrying four fighters and a liason/trainer each and used in successful trials (consistent landings at 70mph, working with fleet manoeuvres in service trials) but both were lost in storms. The subsequent abandonment of this program of the thirties is cited by Hallion as "premature and a serious error," I'm starting to picture heavily armoured and armed US airships over Japan and North Africa in 42.

In 1935 the F3F was tested in a series of 9g dive recoveries, 9 successful attempts and then on the tenth somewhere between 11-15g was achieved and the plane broke up killing the pilot, Collins. The biplane could achieve 400mph in near vertical dives and the Navy subsequently lowered the g-limit to 7.5 amid some controversy (it is believe Collins overcontrolled the recovery on the final dive). That's one tough little biplane.

On the eve of WW2 the P-36A Hawk was the new star of the stables and French speculators were in the 'States to witness flight tests, having already placed a small order with a view to more. With a level top speed of 313mph already outclassed by the latest BF-109 and Spitfire developments in Europe, the French listed a requirement of a 500mph dive speed (!). H
Lloyd Child flew it on Jan24 1939 from 22,000ft in a dead vertical dive like it was a walk in the park, when it reached 500mph he started counting, considering pulling out at eight but deciding it was still flying so smoothly he'd continue...to seventeen and 5000ft for a 7g pullout. The recording instruments indicated 600mph at 9000ft!!
That's 0.813 Mach. Unsurprisingly the French not only placed further orders for the type, but increased them.

Hallion notes that the pressure sensitive equipment of the time may not have been entirely accurate, but still there can be no doubt the Hawk well exceeded its 500mph dive requirement. The part that gets me is the test pilot, Child, who decided okay, they want me to break 500mph in this baby well I'll do that and then count to seventeen in a vertical dive...
Child tested a total of 41 first flights of experimental prototypes in his career before retiring, testing several models for Curtiss.

About this time the new XP-38 and XF4U-1 Corsair were being developed which could accelerate too quickly in vertical dives so the Navy flight test guidelines of "zero lift vertical dive through 10,000ft altitude loss" was of course altered in line with advancing aircraft technological development, particularly when the XF4U-1 was routinely breaking 550mph and overspeeding the engine within these guidelines. Most test flight procedures had been developed during the twenties and had never really been revised.


a little personal amusement, the P-36A clearly outdives the P-47 according to actual flight testing (as opposed to manufacturer claims)...at least in terms of terminal dive speed (certainly not initial dive acceleration I'm not stupid). Still, when somewhen says blah blah P-47 amazing dive I get to say, meh, P-36 is better.
 
Last edited:
I still think the P-36 got the short end of the stick. It was a rugged little airplane, and could have done a better job than it got credit for.

At Pearl Harbor, 5 P-36s were able to get up and tangle with the Japanese, downing 2 A6M2 aircraft at the cost of one of thier own. Not bad for tangling with the infamous Zero, having no combat experience (the experience was soon to come) and an being "obsolete" fighter.
 
On the eve of WW2 the P-36A Hawk was the new star of the stables and French speculators were in the 'States to witness flight tests, having already placed a small order with a view to more. With a level top speed of 313mph already outclassed by the latest BF-109 and Spitfire developments in Europe, the French listed a requirement of a 500mph dive speed (!). H
Lloyd Child flew it on Jan24 1939 from 22,000ft in a dead vertical dive like it was a walk in the park, when it reached 500mph he started counting, considering pulling out at eight but deciding it was still flying so smoothly he'd continue...to seventeen and 5000ft for a 7g pullout. The recording instruments indicated 600mph at 9000ft!!
That's 0.813 Mach. Unsurprisingly the French not only placed further orders for the type, but increased them.

Hallion notes that the pressure sensitive equipment of the time may not have been entirely accurate, but still there can be no doubt the Hawk well exceeded its 500mph dive requirement. The part that gets me is the test pilot, Child, who decided okay, they want me to break 500mph in this baby well I'll do that and then count to seventeen in a vertical dive...
Child tested a total of 41 first flights of experimental prototypes in his career before retiring, testing several models for Curtiss.

About this time the new XP-38 and XF4U-1 Corsair were being developed which could accelerate too quickly in vertical dives so the Navy flight test guidelines of "zero lift vertical dive through 10,000ft altitude loss" was of course altered in line with advancing aircraft technological development, particularly when the XF4U-1 was routinely breaking 550mph and overspeeding the engine within these guidelines. Most test flight procedures had been developed during the twenties and had never really been revised.


a little personal amusement, the P-36A clearly outdives the P-47 according to actual flight testing (as opposed to manufacturer claims)...at least in terms of terminal dive speed (certainly not initial dive acceleration I'm not stupid). Still, when somewhen says blah blah P-47 amazing dive I get to say, meh, P-36 is better.

It is not credible that the P-36 attained 500mph.

None of the IAS readings of WWII were anywhere near accurate at close to and into critical mach. To say that the pressure sensitive (i.e pitot tube) 'may not have been entirely acccurate' is a gross understatement. Only a very small handfull of WWII Piston engine fighters were actually capable of attaining anywhere near .65 M (TAS) in the 1940 time frame (i.e P-38 and Me 109 and Spitfire - then P-47 and Fw 190 and F4U and P-51). The same issue exists for '550mph TAS' for F4U (or P-38).

Airplanes broke up from "Q" forces approaching those True speeds and never actually made them

I would be suprised but willing to supend disbelief if you can find a test report for the P-36 with the instrument conversions referenced.
 
Doesn't sound difficult drgndog, simply source the NACA report for Jan24 1939 pilot H Lloyd Child a/c P-36A, the flight was just before noon at Buffalo.

The book is quite well presented, with plenty of primary source references and a glowing foreword praising it is by NACA test pilot Richard Collins.

And the flight test itself is clearly explained and witnessed and published in the media as the dive that was "faster than a bullet," at the time it made Curtiss and the pilot Child quite famous. Hallion himself writes "one can have little doubt the Hawk exceeded 500mph during the dive but 600mph?" He also notes there was some controversy about the French recording instrumentation placed aboard the a/c as a result. In any case it is the pilot's testomony he exceeded 500mph by a count of seventeen seconds in a vertical dive. Child wrote "It was a good opportunity to see what the Hawk could do, if let out a little, and I gave the plane its head."
Child is one of the most respected test pilots who ever lived.

He was also quite explicit that the F3F biplane routinely attained 400mph in dives. The reference to the XF4U-1 routinely achieving 550mph in dive tests is also quite explicit.

Since this book is mostly based on the commentaries of the test pilots themselves and their official reports, I can really see little manner in which to challenge its voracity. It even goes so far as to directly challenge manufacturer listed technical specifications of aircraft, though again it uses test pilot reporting and service documentation (for example Lindbergh's contractual flights for the DoD in the P-47 and F4U) to do it.

I appreciate your personal disbelief, I find the challenging and controversial statements made by test pilots amusing and fascinating.
It is not only credible the P-36 achieved 500mph, it is really incontrovertible. Else you call the pilot, the French contingent, the airfield personnel, the testors, all liars, or a very detailed description of the test itself, referencing test pilot Child's own statements, obviously available official reports, media publication of the time, and with the support of Richard Collins on the general voracity of the author...complete fiction. Perhaps it could be, though I assure you I am more than satisfied.
 
A FASCINATING exchange guys, I'm learning things I never knew before! Keep it up! I haven't formed any opinion as yet - but oh, the things I'm learning!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back