Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Why 10AM from Lae?  (Read 67008 times)

pilotart

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Why 10AM from Lae?
« on: October 27, 2009, 11:31:42 PM »

Public Television just ran an encore of The Final Hours: Amelia Earhart's Last Flight and USMC Major Bowen Weisheit (ret.) made a point of how Fred planned that exact 10 AM take-off time from Lae in order to cross the Equator at the 180° Meridian at exactly local sunrise.

 ??? He said this would give Fred the best sunrise shot to extend his LOP through Howland, still over 200NM @ 076° or 077° TC or about two hours at 'light weight' max range cruise speed with a little headwind.  (He also mentioned that Fred would have off-set a little South from that point to aim between Howland and Baker.)

I am asking on Celestial Choir because I thought all you needed for that Sunrise LOP would be an accurate chronometer and an estimated Latitude and elevation.

Was there ever a thought or recommendation for an earlier take-off time?

I know that I would want All Possible NavAids available for spotting that tiny island and an 8AM Departure would have allowed triangulation (or quadrangulation?) before daylight obscured Star Shots and allowed more precise Latitude as well as Ground Speed estimates further into the flight.

More importantly, the Itasca could have added her powerful searchlight which Amelia could have easily seen (before the ‘grey-of-dawn’) for 100NM or more (123NM @ 10K alt., clear night) depending on aircraft altitude and availability of clouds above Itasca to illuminate.

Major Weisheit also wrote a book:   http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Last-Flight-of-Frederick-J-Noonan-and-Amelia-Earhart/Bowen-P-Weisheit/e/9780965856003# in 1996 and he made a point (in the TV Show) of how Amelia had over-ridden Fred’s instruction to turn South for Dakar at the coast, causing that loss of positional awareness.

He seemed to think that the greatest error came from Amelia discounting Fred's Nav Advice and ‘circling’ something like 15NM before Howland.  (He was from the 'splashed-down' crowd,  :-\ but that was before TIGHAR had found all that evidence.)  :)

'LTM'

Art

ps: Link to IMDb page for the TV show:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0835032/





Art Johnson
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2009, 07:24:58 AM »

Public Television just ran an encore of The Final Hours: Amelia Earhart's Last Flight and USMC Major Bowen Weisheit (ret.) made a point of how Fred planned that exact 10 AM take-off time from Lae in order to cross the Equator at the 180° Meridian at exactly local sunrise.

He said this would give Fred the best sunrise shot to extend his LOP through Howland, still over 200NM @ 076° or 077° TC or about two hours at 'light weight' max range cruise speed with a little headwind.  (He also mentioned that Fred would have off-set a little South from that point to aim between Howland and Baker.)

How good are Weisheit's sources?  Does he have letters from Fred?  How much is his argument based on the conviction that "this is what Fred could or would or should  have done"?

Playing "coulda woulda shoulda" is fun, but it should be identified as a game and not as reliable evidence.   (Ooops!  I just noticed that I'm playing the game.  You have been notified!   ;D

The best documentation we have about the day itself is the Chater Report.  It suggests to me that 10:00 AM was the earliest they could get away after the final time check that morning.

Quote
I am asking on Celestial Choir because I thought all you needed for that Sunrise LOP would be an accurate chronometer and an estimated Latitude and elevation.

I'm not part of the choir, but I think you're right.   ;)

Quote
Major Weisheit also wrote a book:   http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Last-Flight-of-Frederick-J-Noonan-and-Amelia-Earhart/Bowen-P-Weisheit/e/9780965856003# in 1996 and he made a point (in the TV Show) of how Amelia had over-ridden Fred’s instruction to turn South for Dakar at the coast, causing that loss of positional awareness.

Here is a review from the old Forum by Jerry Hamilton:
Quote
Date:         Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:07:52 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      AE TV Special

Just saw the new public TV special about AE. It was produced by South Carolina E-TV (related to a university?). The best thing about it was the video. Lots of motion shots of AE, Fred, and the Lockheed. Also some nice in-flight shots of Lynch's Lockheed. The story narration mostly uses AE's own reports from the world flight, which I thought was effective. However, beyond the pretty pictures, it's difficult to understand why this special was produced. It offers no new information, theories, perspectives, or explanations.

Fred's "problem" is raised midway through, but disappears and is not mentioned again. They rely totally on Bowen Weisheit's theory of what went wrong, with a few additional comments by the National Air & Space Museum folks, and he gets lots of TV face time. He was a navigation instructor in the military, flew in the Pacific during WWII, and received training at the Weems school. Because of his background, he believes he knows how Fred would have planned and executed the Howland flight. Unfortunately, most of his theory is based on what he thinks AE did, not what Fred did. He believes that at 200 miles out Fred wanted to turn slightly to the south of the direct route to Howland to bisect both it and Baker (better odds of finding one or both). He says AE refused this direction and continued straight in. He further says she turned north on the 157/337 LOP instead of south as Noonan directed. In short, Bowen thinks AE totally ignored her navigator at the end of the flight and they splashed into the sea. No mention of other alternative flight endings, researchers, or even Elgin Long.

Watch it for the pretty pictures. Blue skies, -jerry

                               Marty
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: October 28, 2009, 07:27:38 AM by moleski »
Logged

Mark Petersen

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2011, 10:53:12 PM »

More importantly, the Itasca could have added her powerful searchlight which Amelia could have easily seen (before the ‘grey-of-dawn’) for 100NM or more (123NM @ 10K alt., clear night) depending on aircraft altitude and availability of clouds above Itasca to illuminate.

I was thinking about exactly this the other day.  The problem is that if they started the flight later in the day and missed seeing the searchlights they would have to continue on their path and wait for dawn (which would be about another hour or so away).  Once a dawn line is established, they would have their current LOP, and then they would have to backtrack to the advanced LOP (which would be about another hour back) and only then would they be in a position to spot Howland during the daylight.  All of this would increase their flight time, increase navigation error (longer flight means more dead reckoning errors) and burn their fuel reserves, so it would probably look like an all or nothing gambit to FN.  

I would think that FN would want to avoid overshooting Howland as a high priority and would therefore want to get a dawn line before hitting the LOP, and of course he was of the assumption that AE would be able to do the rest with her RDF skills (or lack thereof).  

LTM,
Mark
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2011, 04:45:49 AM »

More importantly, the Itasca could have added her powerful searchlight which Amelia could have easily seen (before the ‘grey-of-dawn’) for 100NM or more (123NM @ 10K alt., clear night) depending on aircraft altitude and availability of clouds above Itasca to illuminate.

I was thinking about exactly this the other day.  The problem is that if they started the flight later in the day and missed seeing the searchlights they would have to continue on their path and wait for dawn (which would be about another hour or so away). ...

So far as I know, TIGHAR has not found a document from 1937 explaining the actual rationale for the 0000 GMZ takeoff from Lae (10:00 AM local time). 

What we do have evidence of is the expected time of arrival calculated before the takeoff:

"Finally, just before 8:00 PM aboard Itasca, official notification of Earhart’s departure arrived from Lae, via Samoa: 'Urgent, Black, Itasca . . . Amelia Earhart left Lae at 10 AM local time July 2nd. Due Howland Island 18 hours time.' This information presented a new picture. The plane had left Lae two hours earlier than previously reported, and the eighteen-hour time-en-route estimate indicated that Earhart anticipated lighter headwinds than predicted in the most recent forecast. Itasca should now expect the plane to arrive at around 6:30 AM" (Finding Amelia, p. 85).
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Mark Petersen

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2011, 05:22:12 PM »

More importantly, the Itasca could have added her powerful searchlight which Amelia could have easily seen (before the ‘grey-of-dawn’) for 100NM or more (123NM @ 10K alt., clear night) depending on aircraft altitude and availability of clouds above Itasca to illuminate.

I was thinking about exactly this the other day.  The problem is that if they started the flight later in the day and missed seeing the searchlights they would have to continue on their path and wait for dawn (which would be about another hour or so away). ...

So far as I know, TIGHAR has not found a document from 1937 explaining the actual rationale for the 0000 GMZ takeoff from Lae (10:00 AM local time). 

What we do have evidence of is the expected time of arrival calculated before the takeoff:

"Finally, just before 8:00 PM aboard Itasca, official notification of Earhart’s departure arrived from Lae, via Samoa: 'Urgent, Black, Itasca . . . Amelia Earhart left Lae at 10 AM local time July 2nd. Due Howland Island 18 hours time.' This information presented a new picture. The plane had left Lae two hours earlier than previously reported, and the eighteen-hour time-en-route estimate indicated that Earhart anticipated lighter headwinds than predicted in the most recent forecast. Itasca should now expect the plane to arrive at around 6:30 AM" (Finding Amelia, p. 85).

Thanks for the info Marty.  I'm not a navigator, but given a long flight, it seems like common sense to measure the dawn line before reaching a destination (and not too long before reaching it).  I'm sure other factors might intervene in the decision making process, but from a navigational standpoint it seems like common sense.  Your info seems to support this logic. 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2011, 05:46:54 PM »

... I'm not a navigator, but given a long flight, it seems like common sense to measure the dawn line before reaching a destination (and not too long before reaching it).  I'm sure other factors might intervene in the decision making process, but from a navigational standpoint it seems like common sense.  Your info seems to support this logic. 

Sun lines are no more and no less helpful than any other celestial sighting.

Any observation gives you a LOP that you may cross with another LOP (or two) to give you a fix.

All we can say for sure is that AE and FN's original flight plan and ETA would have put them at Howland about a half-hour past dawn, which does mean that it would have allowed for a sun line to be derived from the dawn sighting.  But the plan including using Radio Direction Finding (RDF) to get the last bearings they needed to reach Howland; it's hard to guess how much weight Fred would have put on getting sun sightings while doing the flight-planning, given a pretty positive experience in the past with RDF.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Mark Petersen

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2011, 06:48:47 PM »

Sun lines are no more and no less helpful than any other celestial sighting.

Not more or less helpful, but I would think that sun lines are much easier to sight than other celestial sightings.  Trying to spot a rising star through a cloud at the horizon would probably be very difficult, but next to impossible to miss with the sun.  So I'm guessing (again not a Navigator) that sighting a dawn line not long before reaching a destination would be deemed by a navigator as the lowest risk option.  (Where is Bob Brandenburg when we need him?  :)  )

Quote
All we can say for sure is that AE and FN's original flight plan and ETA would have put them at Howland about a half-hour past dawn, which does mean that it would have allowed for a sun line to be derived from the dawn sighting.  But the plan including using Radio Direction Finding (RDF) to get the last bearings they needed to reach Howland; it's hard to guess how much weight Fred would have put on getting sun sightings while doing the flight-planning, given a pretty positive experience in the past with RDF.

Given the well known risks of such a long, over-water journey to such a small island in the middle of nowhere, I'm guessing (and again just a guess) that FN wanted to leave as little as possible to chance, even knowing that they had an RDF.  I'll bet that he applied his navigational bag of tricks to the best of his ability.  If anything, he did this just to give them a little extra fuel reserves to work the RDF if needed.  Just a guess though (sorry, but I can't help but conjecture and think aloud with these "what-if" discussions   :D). 

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5445
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2011, 07:29:07 AM »

The 10:00 a.m. local / 0000 Greenwich thing was apparently just a coincidence - a handy one to be sure - but not an essential part of the plan. The previous day Earhart had planned to depart at 09:30 local but Fred couldn't get an accurate time hack for his chronometer.

There is also the question of exactly what time the plane left the ground. Was 10:00 the time they started engines?  The time they taxied out?  The time they began the takeoff run?  We just don't know, but neither is it terribly important that we know.  We have so little real information about what happened once the plane left Lae that it's folly to think that it's possible calculate subsequent events with minute-to-minute precision. 
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2011, 02:31:49 PM »

Moleski . Bowen Weisheit , with his Earhart-Noonan disapproval theory is good in romanticism and less in Wisdom.
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2011, 02:57:13 PM »

R.G. By exact recomputation of the 0720 GMT radioed fix to 071545 GAT , 021930 GMT sunset , 67 percent of the journey´s half receives reasonable ETA - position groups : Gagan 043953 GAT , Fix 071545 GAT , Nukumanu 072633 GAT , Nauru In.Pt. 102945 ("lights in sight ahead" , radio , at 123 mi off Nauru´s industrial illuminations ; vis.range frm 8,000 ft 107 mls , frm 12,000 ft 132 mi to horizon). Earhart transmission heard at Nauru , reported "aircraft did not come nearer". From In.Pt. to Nikunau 766 mls , arrival 153611 GAT , 1540 GMT , to Howland distance 498 loxo.
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2011, 12:24:48 AM »

"Lights" , or , "Ship" in sight ahead , 1030 GMT. Purdue file VIII , I.6. : Cable Rabaul Isl. to Earhart (no date) : "New nauru fixed light latitude 0.32 S / longitude 166.56 E five thousand candlepower 560 ft above sea level visible from shios to naked eye at 34 miles (stat. vs naut. no indication , Ast) Also there will be bright lighting all night on island from phosphate workings" . We do not know if or not Noonan himself asked for a report on Nauru lights w.r.t. his flight plan. The "Lights in sight ahead" report is from a letter by T.H.Cude , 1937 Nauru director of police , to F.X.Holbrook claiming that the word "Lights" not "ship" have been heard in the Earhart transmission on 3105 kcs.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5445
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2011, 09:04:33 AM »

There is no indication that Noonan requested any information about Nauru. The cable mentioning the new light appears to have been simply a courtesy appended to a weather report.

The "Lights in sight ahead" report is from a letter by T.H.Cude , 1937 Nauru director of police , to F.X.Holbrook claiming that the word "Lights" not "ship" have been heard in the Earhart transmission on 3105 kcs.

The original source is a State Department telegram from Sydney, Australia dated July 3m 1937, which reads: “Amalgamated Wireless state information received that report from ‘Nauru’ was sent to Bolinas Radio ‘at 6.31, 6.43 and 6.54 PM Sydney time today on 48.31 meters (6210 kHz), fairly strong signals, speech not intelligible, no hum of plane in background but voice similar that emitted from plane in flight last night between 4.30 and 9.30 P.M.’ Message from plane when at least 60 miles south of Nauru received 8.30 P.M. Sydney time, July 2 saying ‘A ship in sight ahead.’ Since identified as steamer Myrtle Bank sic which arrived Nauru daybreak today."

Unless Mr. Cude  produced the actual radio log for that night, the contemporary written record (the State Dept. telegram) trumps his 20+ year-old recollection.
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2011, 01:35:49 AM »

More importantly, the Itasca could have added her powerful searchlight which Amelia could have easily seen (before the ‘grey-of-dawn’) for 100NM or more (123NM @ 10K alt., clear night) depending on aircraft altitude and availability of clouds above Itasca to illuminate.

I was thinking about exactly this the other day.  The problem is that if they started the flight later in the day and missed seeing the searchlights they would have to continue on their path and wait for dawn (which would be about another hour or so away). ...

So far as I know, TIGHAR has not found a document from 1937 explaining the actual rationale for the 0000 GMZ takeoff from Lae (10:00 AM local time). 

What we do have evidence of is the expected time of arrival calculated before the takeoff:

"Finally, just before 8:00 PM aboard Itasca, official notification of Earhart’s departure arrived from Lae, via Samoa: 'Urgent, Black, Itasca . . . Amelia Earhart left Lae at 10 AM local time July 2nd. Due Howland Island 18 hours time.' This information presented a new picture. The plane had left Lae two hours earlier than previously reported, and the eighteen-hour time-en-route estimate indicated that Earhart anticipated lighter headwinds than predicted in the most recent forecast. Itasca should now expect the plane to arrive at around 6:30 AM" (Finding Amelia, p. 85).

From telegrams it is known that several takeoff times have passed in review. Leaving the runway at your standard time zero hours is of practical importance for DR since it averts continuously reckoning backwards to non-zero time points. To reach the Greenwich anti meridian at exact sunrise is imho no option , since sunrise o/b of an aircraft is extremly dependent of the groundspeed which is for long range flights impossibly predictable in anticipation (Nukumanu , e.g. was reached with 44 minutes delay due headwinds stronger than from forecast).
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2011, 01:01:35 PM »

More importantly, the Itasca could have added her powerful searchlight which Amelia could have easily seen (before the ‘grey-of-dawn’) for 100NM or more (123NM @ 10K alt., clear night) depending on aircraft altitude and availability of clouds above Itasca to illuminate.

I was thinking about exactly this the other day.  The problem is that if they started the flight later in the day and missed seeing the searchlights they would have to continue on their path and wait for dawn (which would be about another hour or so away). ...

So far as I know, TIGHAR has not found a document from 1937 explaining the actual rationale for the 0000 GMZ takeoff from Lae (10:00 AM local time). 

What we do have evidence of is the expected time of arrival calculated before the takeoff:

"Finally, just before 8:00 PM aboard Itasca, official notification of Earhart’s departure arrived from Lae, via Samoa: 'Urgent, Black, Itasca . . . Amelia Earhart left Lae at 10 AM local time July 2nd. Due Howland Island 18 hours time.' This information presented a new picture. The plane had left Lae two hours earlier than previously reported, and the eighteen-hour time-en-route estimate indicated that Earhart anticipated lighter headwinds than predicted in the most recent forecast. Itasca should now expect the plane to arrive at around 6:30 AM" (Finding Amelia, p. 85).

From telegrams it is known that several takeoff times have passed in review. Leaving the runway at your standard time zero hours is of practical importance for DR since it averts continuously reckoning backwards to non-zero time points. To reach the Greenwich anti meridian at exact sunrise is imho no option , since sunrise o/b of an aircraft is extremly dependent of the groundspeed which is for long range flights impossibly predictable in anticipation (Nukumanu , e.g. was reached with 44 minutes delay due headwinds stronger than from forecast).


---------------------------

It appears that the 10 am takeoff was pretty random and not linked to navigational considerations. Although this time provided a convenient time to be approaching Howland, just shortly after being able to obtain a star fix and with the sun available for final approach (at least as a backup) , prior radiograms from Earhart had announced other, different, departure times. As further proof that having a recent star fix was not a consideration,  we only have to look at the planned Hawaii to Howland flight. They had planned to depart at 11pm Hawaii time (0930 Z) which would have put them at Howland at about 2100 Z, 9:30 am Itasca time. They actually attempted the takeoff at 5:40 am Hawaii time ( 1610 Z) so would have arrived at Howland at about 0340 Z, 4:10 pm Itasca time with no opportunity for star or moon fixes.

Gary LaPook
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2011, 01:57:53 PM »

Public Television just ran an encore of The Final Hours: Amelia Earhart's Last Flight and USMC Major Bowen Weisheit (ret.) made a point of how Fred planned that exact 10 AM take-off time from Lae in order to cross the Equator at the 180° Meridian at exactly local sunrise.

 ??? He said this would give Fred the best sunrise shot to extend his LOP through Howland, still over 200NM @ 076° or 077° TC or about two hours at 'light weight' max range cruise speed with a little headwind.  (He also mentioned that Fred would have off-set a little South from that point to aim between Howland and Baker.)

I am asking on Celestial Choir because I thought all you needed for that Sunrise LOP would be an accurate chronometer and an estimated Latitude and elevation.

Was there ever a thought or recommendation for an earlier take-off time?

I know that I would want All Possible NavAids available for spotting that tiny island and an 8AM Departure would have allowed triangulation (or quadrangulation?) before daylight obscured Star Shots and allowed more precise Latitude as well as Ground Speed estimates further into the flight.

More importantly, the Itasca could have added her powerful searchlight which Amelia could have easily seen (before the ‘grey-of-dawn’) for 100NM or more (123NM @ 10K alt., clear night) depending on aircraft altitude and availability of clouds above Itasca to illuminate.

Major Weisheit also wrote a book:   http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Last-Flight-of-Frederick-J-Noonan-and-Amelia-Earhart/Bowen-P-Weisheit/e/9780965856003# in 1996 and he made a point (in the TV Show) of how Amelia had over-ridden Fred’s instruction to turn South for Dakar at the coast, causing that loss of positional awareness.

He seemed to think that the greatest error came from Amelia discounting Fred's Nav Advice and ‘circling’ something like 15NM before Howland.  (He was from the 'splashed-down' crowd,  :-\ but that was before TIGHAR had found all that evidence.)  :)

'LTM'

Art

ps: Link to IMDb page for the TV show:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0835032/







---------------------------------------------------------

Weisheit's theory never made any sense since there is nothing magical or of any particular navigational significance of the intersection of the equator and the 180th meridian, his "Point X." Since these are imaginary lines they are very difficult to see from an airplane especially from 10,000 feet. (Maybe they can be seen from the level of a ship's bridge.)

The  sunrise table in the almanac states that the sunrise would occur at the equator at 6:00 am local mean time (LMT) on July 2nd but is only correct at the Greenwich meridian, not exactly half way around the world. And this table only states the time of sunrise to the nearest whole minute so the actual time of sunrise could be plus or minus 30 seconds making an uncertainty in the longitude of at least 15 or 15 NM. (This plus and minus 30 seconds is not a random type of error so there is no reason to believe that it would tend to be nearer to the center of the band of uncertainty, every time within the band is equally probable.) I say "at least" because there are other sources of uncertainty for such an observation. The time is stated for an observer at sea level and the sunrise is observed earlier at altitude. Weisheit  acknowledges this error by stating in his book that it would be 36' (36 NM) if flying at 1000 feet but it would be 147 NM if flying at 10,000 feet and the information to even compute this error was not available until 1951. Add to this additional uncertainty in the refraction of such low altitude sights and the uncertainty in the altitude of the plane after flying 2,000 nm without an updated altimeter setting, which would have affected the computation if it could have even been attempted by Noonan.

Gary LaPook

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP