What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV horizontal stab crack reporting thread

No cracks

RV6A
2009 build
1477 hours
light acro, some grass
My highly skilled partner drilled a 3/8 inch hole through two end caps with foam in between and we had 8 rivets with no cracks. One scratch on the front of the spar, but that was it. Took about 1 hour for both sides. We didn't have any holes on the end.
 
Cracks

RV6
2 cracks, one per side
2004 build (SN 60504)
1673 hours
4th owner - little acro, grass field
shop heads aft facing forward
200HP
Whirlwind CS
 
No Cracks

RV6A 1996
600+ Hours
Shop Heads Forward
Very Light Acro
200 HP Angle Valve
Hartzell CS
 
RV-6, no cracks

1999 RV-6
1660 hrs
O-360, Hartzell C/S (balanced)
Shop heads fwd
Regular light aero & 10% rough / soft field ops
No cracks
 
RV-8 no cracks

RV-8; IO-360; Whirl Wind 200RV prop
first flight 05/28/2022
total time to date 87.8 hrs
Shop heads fwd; no cracks
 
200+ responses, results tabulated

Folks,

I count over 200 RV horizontal stabilizer aft spar crack reports gathered from the original thread, this thread, which was established at Greg Hughes' request to collect reports, Facebook, and the Google form I created. I've tabulated those reports here.

Speaking very informally, the data show that for airplanes in the RV-3(B) through RV-8(A) models, tailwheel airplanes are more likely to have HS aft spar cracks than nosewheel airplanes, and airplanes with manufactured heads on the aft side of the spar are more likely to have cracks than airplanes with the manufactured heads on the forward sides of the spars.

No cracks have been reported among the 30 RV-9(A), -10, and -14(A) airplanes for which I've tabulated reports, which have a different HS rear spar design (thickness, straight vs tapered, lightening holes vs no lightening holes). But you might be well-advised to keep a close eye on it, esp. if you have a tailwheel airplane that you operate on rough surfaces.

I will not tabulate more reports after this point. You are more than welcome to continue posting reports on this thread, or in the Google form, which I will leave open for now.
 
Google Forms crack reports

I've shared the 48 (so far) Google forms crack reports at this link.

If you think you reported on a specific airplane more than once, please send me a PM with your vansairforce.net screen name, the airplane model, and the approximate airframe hours, and I'll try to scrub the table.
 
odds

Folks,

I count over 200 RV horizontal stabilizer aft spar crack reports gathered from the original thread, this thread, which was established at Greg Hughes' request to collect reports, Facebook, and the Google form I created. I've tabulated those reports here.

Speaking very informally, the data show that for airplanes in the RV-3(B) through RV-8(A) models, tailwheel airplanes are more likely to have HS aft spar cracks than nosewheel airplanes, and airplanes with manufactured heads on the aft side of the spar are more likely to have cracks than airplanes with the manufactured heads on the forward sides of the spars.

No cracks have been reported among the 30 RV-9(A), -10, and -14(A) airplanes for which I've tabulated reports, which have a different HS rear spar design (thickness, straight vs tapered, lightening holes vs no lightening holes). But you might be well-advised to keep a close eye on it, esp. if you have a tailwheel airplane that you operate on rough surfaces.

I will not tabulate more reports after this point. You are more than welcome to continue posting reports on this thread, or in the Google form, which I will leave open for now.

so it looks like the odds of a crack in an RV 9A is less than 3 % ( 30 no cracks, so assuming the 31st has a crack). that is pretty good odds that the RV9A is different enough.

I would be curious to see the numbers if Vans sent out a letter to the RV9 9A owners asking for feed back directly, and not rely on people reporting. JMHO
 
Last edited:
RV-7 No Cracks

TT 898 hrs
IO-360-M1B engine
Hartzell C/S 2-blade Al Prop, dynamic balanced 600 hours ago, but never re-balanced
Shop head fwd
Occasional mild aerobatics
90% time on pave runway
 
11k plus aircraft built. 200 reported.
I didn’t major in statistics, but how can anyone make any assumptions on such a small sampling?

Unfortunately, only a small fraction of folks ever even look at VAF forums. I doubt we will get enough reports to make any reasonable assumptions.

Also, very few factors are even being reported. You can’t report build quality, (subjective), how the airplane is flown (rough field, paved, rough paved), hard landings, bad landings, wheelie, three point, aerobatics - type g’s pulled, frequency, engine HP, prop , on and on and on……

…. , and to make this a rant, someone decided direction of rivets was important. Never heard of that in the history of aluminum aircraft construction as ever being an issue or that option wouldn’t exist.

Garbage in - Garbage out.
 
11k plus aircraft built. 200 reported.
I didn’t major in statistics, but how can anyone make any assumptions on such a small sampling?

That's not a bad sample size. *Assuming* the samples are taken at random from the population, 200 samples in a population of 11,000 will give you an MOE of 9.56% at the 95% CI.

Lots of people make this mistake...we see it all the time whenever polls come out about pretty much anything. "I don't believe it. They only asked 1,000 people, how can they say that means X% of the country ________?"

LOTS of assumptions have to be met for it to strictly hold, but it takes far fewer samples to reach a pretty good statistical level of certainty about the whole population.

The invalidating thing *here* is, of course, that the responses are NOT random, and are self-selected, which makes this really just anecdotal evidence.
 
That's not a bad sample size. *Assuming* the samples are taken at random from the population, 200 samples in a population of 11,000 will give you an MOE of 9.56% at the 95% CI.

Lots of people make this mistake...we see it all the time whenever polls come out about pretty much anything. "I don't believe it. They only asked 1,000 people, how can they say that means X% of the country ________?"

LOTS of assumptions have to be met for it to strictly hold, but it takes far fewer samples to reach a pretty good statistical level of certainty about the whole population.

The invalidating thing *here* is, of course, that the responses are NOT random, and are self-selected, which makes this really just anecdotal evidence.

That makes sense.
 
…. , and to make this a rant, someone decided direction of rivets was important.

I think I can make a case for this.

As the rivet is being squeezed, it initially swells to fill the hole, tight. That process is fairly uniform along the length of the rivet. Then, the final squeeze to form the shop head focuses additional hoop stress (tension in a circumferential direction around the hole) locally near the face where the shop head is forming. This leaves a residual tensile stress surrounding the hole, locally right on the surface under the shop head.

Most applications have rivets loaded only, or predominantly, in shear, and this small stress increase doesn't matter. In some cases the residual tensile preload may actually be beneficial. So, in general practice, the rivet orientation probably doesn't matter.

But, In the case of the rivets holding the hinge brackets on, there is a significant cycling of tension in the rivets. A vertical (upward) load on the hinge bolt produces a moment that is reacted as a combination of contact pressure on the face area above the hinge axis, and a tension in the rivets below the hinge axis. Similarly a downward vertical load on the hinge produces a moment that is reacted as a combination of contact pressure on the face area below the hinge axis, and tension in the rivets above the hinge axis. This tension is over and above the vertical shear that is shared among all the rivets in both directions.

So, any vibration that produces alternating vertical load on the elevator mass produces cyclic tension loading and unloading in the rivets. The rivet head (shop or manufactured) carries that tension load into the spar as a cyclic local deformation of the spar material around the rivet head. This will eventually cause a fatigue crack. Having the initial tensile hoop stress around the hole will likely cause the fatigue crack to start sooner.

Remember, aluminum does not have an endurance limit, meaning that there is no minimum stress threshold below which fatigue will not occur. In aluminum, any cyclic deformation will eventually cause a fatigue crack. For low stress, it may be trillions of cycles. For higher stresses, it takes fewer cycles.
If the stress levels are such that sometimes fatigue cracks appear after a few thousand hours of service with certain service exposures (higher horsepower, lots of dirt landings, aerobatics, out of balance propeller, whatever), then the spectrum of which particular conditions may cause cracks to show up sooner is certainly influenced by the small residual stress distribution in the spar material around the shop head. But it is also likely that given enough service exposure, examples with the manufactured head against the spar will eventually show cracks too.
 
Builders......

11k plus aircraft built. 200 reported.
I didn’t major in statistics, but how can anyone make any assumptions on such a small sampling?

As stated above (eg RV-7A Flyer), an assumed trend can be determined by a small sampling of the "population" being poled. It is impossible to ask EVERY builder what his aircraft looks like. But I think the information here can allow us to make some assumptions, which is what all poles are for, after all. What is the dominate trend, not what does every aircraft look like.

Also, very few factors are even being reported. You can’t report build quality, (subjective).........

My SO and I were talking about this the other night. She brought up the point about builder quality: the TAIL SECTION is what nearly all builders start with, sometimes just to see if they have the skills and patience necessary to make an entire airplane. Thus, their construction methods may be the worst on the tail section and likely improve as the airplane progresses. I've known some builders who decided to make a second tail section as what they learned as their project advanced made them aware their building skills on the tail were not up the standards they developed on the subsequent build. With as few cracks as we are seeing (NOT implied due to builder skills), that is a testament to the great designs we were given to build in the first place! Thanks, Van!

Garbage in - Garbage out.

On this, I might have to disagree with you. Any information we can acquire to make our aircraft safer, whatever that might be, is a good thing! And I got to see what the inside of my horizontal looks like! Looked pretty good!:)
 
I think I can make a case for this.

As the rivet is being squeezed, it initially swells to fill the hole, tight. That process is fairly uniform along the length of the rivet. Then, the final squeeze to form the shop head focuses additional hoop stress (tension in a circumferential direction around the hole) locally near the face where the shop head is forming. This leaves a residual tensile stress surrounding the hole, locally right on the surface under the shop head.

Most applications have rivets loaded only, or predominantly, in shear, and this small stress increase doesn't matter. In some cases the residual tensile preload may actually be beneficial. So, in general practice, the rivet orientation probably doesn't matter.

But, In the case of the rivets holding the hinge brackets on, there is a significant cycling of tension in the rivets. A vertical (upward) load on the hinge bolt produces a moment that is reacted as a combination of contact pressure on the face area above the hinge axis, and a tension in the rivets below the hinge axis. Similarly a downward vertical load on the hinge produces a moment that is reacted as a combination of contact pressure on the face area below the hinge axis, and tension in the rivets above the hinge axis. This tension is over and above the vertical shear that is shared among all the rivets in both directions.

So, any vibration that produces alternating vertical load on the elevator mass produces cyclic tension loading and unloading in the rivets. The rivet head (shop or manufactured) carries that tension load into the spar as a cyclic local deformation of the spar material around the rivet head. This will eventually cause a fatigue crack. Having the initial tensile hoop stress around the hole will likely cause the fatigue crack to start sooner.

Remember, aluminum does not have an endurance limit, meaning that there is no minimum stress threshold below which fatigue will not occur. In aluminum, any cyclic deformation will eventually cause a fatigue crack. For low stress, it may be trillions of cycles. For higher stresses, it takes fewer cycles.
If the stress levels are such that sometimes fatigue cracks appear after a few thousand hours of service with certain service exposures (higher horsepower, lots of dirt landings, aerobatics, out of balance propeller, whatever), then the spectrum of which particular conditions may cause cracks to show up sooner is certainly influenced by the small residual stress distribution in the spar material around the shop head. But it is also likely that given enough service exposure, examples with the manufactured head against the spar will eventually show cracks too.

I guess you don’t agree with Vans engineering on this subject as stated In this post
https://vansairforce.net/community/showpost.php?p=1668639&postcount=142

The first key point says
“ Inspection per the SB is necessary, annually, regardless of any airplane-specific configuration or feature. For example, the location/orientation of the shop/manufactured heads does not modify the need or requirement to comply and is not statistically relevant based on our engineering assessment.”
 
Last edited:
11k plus aircraft built. 200 reported.
I didn’t major in statistics, but how can anyone make any assumptions on such a small sampling?
Well, hopefully there will be more. The letter has only been out for a few weeks and I suspect a lot of us are just waiting until annual inspection time to do it. Mine was due next month so I got to that a couple of days ago and reported it.
Unfortunately, only a small fraction of folks ever even look at VAF forums.
The crack reporting thread shows 10,885 views. Looking at the #views on other threads, I'm still optimistic that VAF remains active.
I doubt we will get enough reports to make any reasonable assumptions.
I hope you're wrong about that - time will tell. At any rate, the reports so far would seem to show this isn't a one-off, a useful data point in and of itself.
 
...
My SO and I were talking about this the other night. She brought up the point about builder quality: the TAIL SECTION is what nearly all builders start with, sometimes just to see if they have the skills and patience necessary to make an entire airplane. Thus, their construction methods may be the worst on the tail section and likely improve as the airplane progresses. ...

True - I'd wager that a perfectly deburred hole would be less likely to crack.

While clearly cracks are bad, have there been any total failures of the elevator?
 
Hey guys,

I'm very sorry. I'm just now catching up to this thread.

I believe I am the first one to have reported these cracks to Vans. I remember them saying that they hadn't heard of these cracks and wanted to make sure I wasn't referring to cracks in the elevator spar. It is my spar that is pictured in figures 3 and 4 of the Service Bulletin.

I discovered the cracks while re-skinning the right horizontal stab in Jan 2021. The cracks were visible only from the forward face of the rear spar. They hadn't grown to the point where they extended past the edges of the hinge brackets on the aft side of the rear spar.

Prior to contacting Vans I inspected the left stab with an inspection camera through the tooling hole in the outboard rib as stated in the SB. It too had cracks at the outboard hinge bracket location similar to the right side. Only the locations where the outboard hinge brackets were affected. The inboard hinge brackets were unaffected. Vans worked with me and developed a custom reinforcement kit to be applied to the forward face of the spar. Installing the kit on the right side was easy since I had access to both sides of the spar. On the left, I had to remove a couple dozen rivets on the bottom side of the skin to gain access to the forward face of the rear spar. In the end, it was relatively painless.

My airplane has 1800+ hours with heavy aerobatic use, especially from late 2016 through early 2019 when I was doing competition aerobatics in it. I've also flown lots of formation and have been in and out of many grass strips. My airplane certainly hasn't been babied, but has been well cared for and maintained.

1800+ hours, heavy use.
No hinge line mis-alignment.
No bad de-burring.
Prop dynamically balanced multiple times.
Shop heads on forward face.
 
Well, hopefully there will be more. The letter has only been out for a few weeks and I suspect a lot of us are just waiting until annual inspection time to do it. Mine was due next month so I got to that a couple of days ago and reported it.

The crack reporting thread shows 10,885 views. Looking at the #views on other threads, I'm still optimistic that VAF remains active.

I hope you're wrong about that - time will tell. At any rate, the reports so far would seem to show this isn't a one-off, a useful data point in and of itself.

I hope so too Randall.
You know you gave me my first ride in an RV. Ken Scott gave me my second. I blame you both for the fact I even built an RV!
 
I'm very sorry.

Hope you are Jerry, as you are responsible for having started this whole mess ;)

Seriously now, thanks for the detailed info about your discovery and aircraft usage history.
And who knows, you might even have prevented an accident by reporting the facts to Vans, thanks for that.
 
I hope so too Randall.
You know you gave me my first ride in an RV. Ken Scott gave me my second. I blame you both for the fact I even built an RV!
I blame myself.
As for the Fiat - you can't pin that on me. :rolleyes:
 
Hope you are Jerry, as you are responsible for having started this whole mess ;)

Seriously now, thanks for the detailed info about your discovery and aircraft usage history.
And who knows, you might even have prevented an accident by reporting the facts to Vans, thanks for that.

Guilty as charged!

Thank you very much for your kind words. No one like cracks. But that’s the good thing about metal airplanes. They usually start talking to you long before it gets to be a big problem.
 
-RV-4, SN 2112
-1658.3 Total, First Flight 1995
-Second RV-4 and third RV built by original builder.
-Two-blade, fixed pitch wood and Catto propellers throughout service life. Catto prop was balanced during installation and has been in service for 700 hours.
-Original Van's non-swiveling tailwheel, chains (loose)
-Operated off grass last 800 hours, previous history unknown
--Engine mount repaired for cracks in lower gusset/tube interface adjacent to landing gear sockets
--Firewall cracking repaired
--Cracks in rudder at forward and aft end of skin doublers stop drilled
-Shop heads forward, 5 rivets per hinge bracket:
3c039a_a8dd265c4f5046ebb0c0c34550adc1b2~mv2.jpg

-Operated for flight test last 400 hours. Extensive high AOA work, intentional symmetric and asymmetric departures.
--Regular 25 hour tail inspections due to buffet encountered during test

No cracks observed.

Found a very small diameter (5mm) borescope with a side looking camera that fit thru existing tooling hole after a bit of filing:

3c039a_330bcbe42bb442748035bd50a89d81e4~mv2.jpg


3c039a_a2a0c0bbcf494705bc69c976ab74076e~mv2.jpg


Depstech DS500. This inexpensive borescope will be a nice addition for regular visual tail inspections. More convenient and smaller diameter than my regular articulated scope.

FWIW, considerable aircraft sustainment engineering effort goes into dealing with cracking. I've flown airplanes with heavy strips riveted to the top of the wing to compensate for pilot-induced abuse. Looks like a well-engineered fix from Van's. Nice to have this kind of outstanding product support :)

Vac
 
Last edited:
What RV7A Flyer said...

That's not a bad sample size. *Assuming* the samples are taken at random from the population, 200 samples in a population of 11,000 will give you an MOE of 9.56% at the 95% CI.

I'd love to see a cite for that. I know it in general terms, regarding election polling, but I don't know the math, and my 50YO college statistics book is buried in a tote somewhere.


The invalidating thing *here* is, of course, that the responses are NOT random, and are self-selected, which makes this really just anecdotal evidence.

Absolutely agree. I think I made the same point to someone in a PM. My fear is that no-crack-found inspections are under-reported with respect to crack-found inspections, for one thing.
 
I'd love to see a cite for that. I know it in general terms, regarding election polling, but I don't know the math, and my 50YO college statistics book is buried in a tote somewhere.




Absolutely agree. I think I made the same point to someone in a PM. My fear is that no-crack-found inspections are under-reported with respect to crack-found inspections, for one thing.

First question, I just used any of the readily-available on-line stats calculators, because I don't have the time to re-read my college stats text, either (and even though I was a math major, I *hated* statistics in the first place). However, those figures jibe with what I was expecting, and I have no reason to doubt them. The point still stands. And the equations are readily found on-line (or in Chapter 1 of our old stats texts :)).

Actually, I'm thinking the other way...reports of cracks *over-reported* by comparison to reports of no cracks. Those who find cracks are possibly more likely to get worked up and feel it imperative to come here and report them. Those who don't find anything may go "meh" and move on to something else. Maybe? In any case, it's not a representative sample, so the stats are suspect.
 
I think we're in agreement regarding under-reporting no-cracks

Actually, I'm thinking the other way...reports of cracks *over-reported* by comparison to reports of no cracks. Those who find cracks are possibly more likely to get worked up and feel it imperative to come here and report them. Those who don't find anything may go "meh" and move on to something else. Maybe? In any case, it's not a representative sample, so the stats are suspect.

I think we're saying the same thing. My "no-crack-found inspections are under-reported" = your "reports of cracks *over-reported* by comparison to reports of no cracks".
 
I don't know that the no-cracks case is under-reported. I looked at RV-3, -4 and -6 taildraggers in the database and the incidence of cracks was only around 15%. So the preponderance of people who reported in that sub-sample, reported not having cracks.

Dave
 
Sampling theory

First question, I just used any of the readily-available on-line stats calculators, because I don't have the time to re-read my college stats text, either (and even though I was a math major, I *hated* statistics in the first place). However, those figures jibe with what I was expecting, and I have no reason to doubt them. The point still stands. And the equations are readily found on-line (or in Chapter 1 of our old stats texts :)).

I found a pretty good discussion at calculator.net. I see it's related to the z-score (how many standard deviations a sample data point is from the mean, assuming a Gaussian, i.e. normal, distribution). The z-score is also used in communication systems engineering, to calculate bit error rates assuming Gaussian noise.

I didn't like statistics either, but it does come in handy sometimes. And my last boss was a former Professor of Statistics in an engineering school, so I was motivated to re-learn some things.
 
I don't know that the no-cracks case is under-reported. I looked at RV-3, -4 and -6 taildraggers in the database and the incidence of cracks was only around 15%. So the preponderance of people who reported in that sub-sample, reported not having cracks.

Dave

The point is...they could be under-reported, over-reported, or neither. There's no way to know, and the fact that this sample is *self-selected* means that the usual rules of statistics no longer apply. You need a *random* sample for the kinds of things we're talking about here, and you don't have that.
 
I think we're saying the same thing. My "no-crack-found inspections are under-reported" = your "reports of cracks *over-reported* by comparison to reports of no cracks".

I don't think they're *quite* the same, but it doesn't matter since, as noted, it's a non-random sample in the first place.
 
No Cracks Vote

2006 RV7, 855 hrs, formation and some acro, balanced Hartzell...

No cracks
 
cracks and fuel stains

2130 hours and mostly competition aerobatic maneuvers.
Dynon G meter that I do not reset shows +6.0 and -3.8.
Typical practice flight about 1/2 hour pulling and pushing about + 5, -3 Gs
No cracks, but found blue fuel stains around the rivets and in the space.
Determined the fuel was being sucked out from the overfill vents during negative G maneuvers. Have no idea how to prevent this.:confused:
Bill McLean
RV-4 slider
lower AL
 
No Cracks

No Cracks, RV-8, 461hrs, 6years old, some acro, shop heads in front, Hartzell not balanced (just overhauled, plan to balance after annual)

Note: Drilled 1/4" hole 5" in front of rear spar, centered vertically for bore scope
 
RV-8A crack

One small crack lower outboard rivet of inboard bracket. 1,000 hrs, regular aerobatics <4Gs, 200HP Lycoming, prop dynamically balanced in Dec 2021.

Steve Booher
N72JH RV-8A
Double Eagle Airport
Albuquerque, NM
 
One small crack lower outboard rivet of inboard bracket. 1,000 hrs, regular aerobatics <4Gs, 200HP Lycoming, prop dynamically balanced in Dec 2021.

Steve Booher
N72JH RV-8A
Double Eagle Airport
Albuquerque, NM

Inboard bracket?
 
FWIW, the problem with a sample of convenience (such as a sample of airplane owners who report here whether they found a crack) is not a statistical problem, per se. The problem is that any observations or summaries made from that sample may - or may not - be applicable to the population (ie, all RVs for which there is concern about stabilizer cracks) from which that sample was obtained. In sample survey nomenclature, results from the sample of convenience are not "generalizable" to the larger population.

So, whatever is observed in such a sample applies only to that sample, and not to the other members of the entire class or group (ie, all RVs for which there is concern about stabilizer cracks). Stated another way, the proportion of airplane with cracks in the convenience sample has no known relationship to the proportion of cracks in the full population of airplanes at risk.
 
Last edited:
Still, apparently there are sufficient reasons to recommend inspecting the fleet. We make decisions every day based upon imperfect data. The question isn't overall applicability, it's whether the number observed cracks plus Van's engineering is enough reason to inspect your plane or implement this SB.

As a (retired) aerospace structures engineer, I would say yes. In fact, Van's engineering assessment alone is plenty.

Dave
 
RV-8, 22 yrs young, 1800 hrs, lots of acro. lots of non-paved runway ops, cracks on both sides.

I would never have found these cracks had it not been for the SB. All contained behind the bracket but visible on the inside (boroscope). After drilling off the hinge bracket the cracks were barely visible and looked like a mere surface scratch.
Although not recommended in the SB,

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND USING DYE PENATRANT

in order to observe the prescense and/or extent of cracking.

My crack pattern was very consistent side to side. Only the two rivets on both brackets closest to the hinge were affected. The top holes had longer cracks.

It was easy to drill out the skin rivets with minor paint damage by using a #40 hole duplicator. The back side of the pin that goes in the hole is concave and fits perfectly over the shop head. This aligns the drill guide and allowes you to drill accurately through the center of the rivet.

Pictures show, inside, outside without dye, outside with dye, stop drilled.
 

Attachments

  • EF55D95E-CAAA-43FE-8EB4-4B6BF7D26724.jpeg
    EF55D95E-CAAA-43FE-8EB4-4B6BF7D26724.jpeg
    308.7 KB · Views: 166
  • C53B7446-ACEC-486B-9784-15AC1CB1E8C5.jpeg
    C53B7446-ACEC-486B-9784-15AC1CB1E8C5.jpeg
    287.2 KB · Views: 140
  • 5ACC4CD1-8D47-4921-A9CC-BE826D18CBBA.jpeg
    5ACC4CD1-8D47-4921-A9CC-BE826D18CBBA.jpeg
    86.7 KB · Views: 148
  • BB61FD4E-94AB-4389-88FD-A0A4F1F34921.jpeg
    BB61FD4E-94AB-4389-88FD-A0A4F1F34921.jpeg
    131.3 KB · Views: 124
  • 3BEE01FC-8671-41DE-8A5D-536599DD8555.jpg
    3BEE01FC-8671-41DE-8A5D-536599DD8555.jpg
    202.7 KB · Views: 183
  • 33CF7635-50CF-4247-BB63-56768601D6F8.jpg
    33CF7635-50CF-4247-BB63-56768601D6F8.jpg
    194.4 KB · Views: 187
Last edited:
Back
Top