Jump to content

Jumo-213A for Dora


Yo-Yo

Recommended Posts

Part of the reason the whole Dora line came into existence was due to the lack of the BMW 801's, the main factory was bombed and the only engine that was around was the Jumo 213.

 

Kurt Tank was not a fan of the 213 but I am not entirely sure why that was...

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the reason the whole Dora line came into existence was due to the lack of the BMW 801's, the main factory was bombed and the only engine that was around was the Jumo 213.

 

Kurt Tank was not a fan of the 213 but I am not entirely sure why that was...

 

ok thx for that.

 

 

would love to see a short nose version of this bird in the sim as well, with the bmw powerplant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BMW 801: The production curve for this engine is shown in Figure VII-5. Monthly data are given for each plant for the period 1942-1944. A raid on the Munich-Allach plant in March 1943 caused a loss of approximately 400 engines, or one month's production. Another attack in December 1943 caused a loss of about 200 engines. In May 1944 there was a heavy attack, but the effect cannot be distinguished from losses caused by dispersal. These losses mounted to several thousand engines. As a result of a raid in the summer of 1944 on the Klockner plant at Hamburg, licensee under BMW, operations were removed to Brno, Czechoslovakia. The attendant loss in production was approximately 700 engines.

 

http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/airrep.html#Ch7

 

Lists monthly production of BMW801 engines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Due to ROC thread beeing closed I have a question here. How is it possible that Fw190D9 has such an amazing increase in rate of climb when compared to Fw190A8. Even if we take the best Fw190A8 it is going to be 18m/s(ranging from 13m/s to 18m/s depending on power used etc.), while according to Focke Wulf the best ROC for Fw190D9 is just over 22m/s. How is it possible that we have 28m/s just because the engine change.

 

Taking into cosideration that A8 similar power to weight ratio to P-51D

and their climb rates was simiilar at 18m/s

 

How is that 2 070hp engine gives it 28m/s climb while 1 676hp engine gives is only 18m/s?

 

It was repedeatly reported that Fw190 serries were much worse climbers than Bf109 serries.

With A5 at 15m/s when compared to 109G2 at 21m/s. And Fw190A8 at 18m/s while Bf109G14 22m/s and Fw190D9 at 22m/s when 109K4 24m/s. Which makes sense for the power to weight ration just as it makes sense to other conteporary fighters of the time.

 

 

Spitfire MkXIV was capable of 25m/s while beeing 400kg lighter and having 3810kg while dora is 4270kg.

 

How is that? Lighter plane, with better power to weight ratio is outclimbed by a heavier plane?

 

So Dora is heavier has worse power to weight ratio?!

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/JF319-climb.jpg

 

So how is that possible that now Fw190D9 has 28m/s ROC while Spitfire MkXIV has 25m/s?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well actually, the 18m/s figure was with C3 injection, boosted to 2000hp. d to 2000hp, so yeah, 2250hp , with cleaner aerodynamics from inline engine, the 22m/s figure is completely reasonable.

 

And the Spitfire XIV can't be said to have worse aerodynamic seeing as they have similar speed at SL with similar power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to ROC thread beeing closed I have a question here. How is it possible that Fw190D9 has such an amazing increase in rate of climb when compared to Fw190A8. Even if we take the best Fw190A8 it is going to be 18m/s(ranging from 13m/s to 18m/s depending on power used etc.), while according to Focke Wulf the best ROC for Fw190D9 is just over 22m/s. How is it possible that we have 28m/s just because the engine change.

 

Taking into cosideration that A8 similar power to weight ratio to P-51D

and their climb rates was simiilar at 18m/s

 

How is that 2 070hp engine gives it 28m/s climb while 1 676hp engine gives is only 18m/s?

 

It was repedeatly reported that Fw190 serries were much worse climbers than Bf109 serries.

With A5 at 15m/s when compared to 109G2 at 21m/s. And Fw190A8 at 18m/s while Bf109G14 22m/s and Fw190D9 at 22m/s when 109K4 24m/s. Which makes sense for the power to weight ration just as it makes sense to other conteporary fighters of the time.

 

 

Spitfire MkXIV was capable of 25m/s while beeing 400kg lighter and having 3810kg while dora is 4270kg.

 

How is that? Lighter plane, with better power to weight ratio is outclimbed by a heavier plane?

 

So Dora is heavier has worse power to weight ratio?!

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/JF319-climb.jpg

 

So how is that possible that now Fw190D9 has 28m/s ROC while Spitfire MkXIV has 25m/s?

 

Could be FW190D prop is more efficient at combat and climb speeds - pilot anecdotes indicate better combat acceleration and that is probably the reason... I doubt it is a better climber than the mkivX. Bf109 I would expect to have better angle of climb due to wing character but not necessarily rate of climb. Think of effect of automotive gear on acceleration at different speeds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be FW190D prop is more efficient at combat and climb speeds - pilot anecdotes indicate better combat acceleration and that is probably the reason... I doubt it is a better climber than the mkivX. Bf109 I would expect to have better angle of climb due to wing character but not necessarily rate of climb. Think of effect of automotive gear on acceleration at different speeds...

The Manufacturer tells us that the plane has 22m/s cilmb rate. But DCS gives us 28m/s. And Spitfire was proved to climb better than 190D9

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the plane got 250 extra hp, cleaner aerodynamics,is 150kg lighter, of course it's gonna accelerate faster.

 

And it has a different prop... more like wider chord paddle-blade on late T-bolt - more efficient at translating thrust in the climb speed region, not as efficient for max speed. All props are not equal at different speeds.


Edited by Barfly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it has a different prop... more like wider chord paddle-blade on late T-bolt - more efficient at translating thrust in the climb speed region, not as efficient for max speed. All props are not equal at different speeds.

 

I am not arguing with that. Just the fact that increase in power and other improvemts do not justify 28m/s.

 

Manufacturer provided the plane with tests. Those tests show range of ROC. From 18m/s at low 22m/s at high power. But not a single test gave 28m/s that we have in DCS.

 

 

A8 is used as an example here as theD9 from DCS has increase of 10m/s with such improvment.

 

Additionally the D9 from DCS outclimbs lighter and more powerdul Spitfire with Griffon mk14.

 

Definitely something is wrong. Take into consideration that highest ROC of all props had F8F Bearcat in light weight version it gave 31m/s. So Dora in dcs falls short in her combat setting by 3m/s.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think YoYo already answered you that one - the Fw calculations of 22 m/sec do not take into account the exhaust thrust of the engine, moreover they are for an aircraft with an ETC bomb rack, so it has quite a bit more drag than a clean aircraft.

 

Essentially most of the performance increase of the Dora was due to its much smaller drag compared to the A-series, think about that.


Edited by Kurfürst

http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site

 

Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse!

-Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment

The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
I think YoYo already answered you that one - the Fw calculations of 22 m/sec do not take into account the exhaust thrust of the engine, moreover they are for an aircraft with an ETC bomb rack, so it has quite a bit more drag than a clean aircraft.

 

Essentially most of the performance increase of the Dora was due to its much smaller drag compared to the A-series, think about that.

 

Smaller drag, better L/D due to it, very different power vs altitude curves for the 213 vs 801.

Just compare at one graph 801 and 213 curves to see all integral increment of power in 0-10 km range.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick and dirty of course and I am missing the boosted output of the BMW 801 here (2100 PS at SL IIRC), whereas the Jumo curve is for full boost, with MW -50. The normal output was around 1770 PS.

 

At lower altitudes there is some advantage of the 213 of course, largely due to its more efficient supercharger handling (no see-saw curve), which should show itself between 2-4 km range mostly... However it is seen that actually above rated altitude, ie. 6000+ m for both engines, the two engines are almost perform the same, despite the common myth that the Jumo 213 somehow improved the poor altitude performance of the BMW 801D. It simply didn't, where it improved over it was the much smaller cross setion and smaller drag of the engine installation. So at least at higher altitude practically all of the performance increase is due to the lower drag of the D-9 compared to the A airframe IMO.

 

EDIT: Added a rough estimate of C-3 injection boosted BMW 801 power levels

67128812_chartJumo213A1.thumb.jpg.2cf89fb4917c46f1897298315225aba9.jpg


Edited by Kurfürst

http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site

 

Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse!

-Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment

The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
I love this stuff, don't understand much of it, but I love it.

 

Nate

 

Learn to understand it, and you'll love it more :)

 

These engines have a supercharger, a device that compresses the outside environment's air to above normal atmospheric pressure, so more air fits into each cylinder, so more fuel can be burned, increasing horsepower.

 

These graphs show:

 

-Engine power produced for a given air intake ('boost') pressure, and how this power output decreases as altitude increases (because the atmospheric air pressure decreases as you go higher, and the supercharger eventually loses its ability to compensate for that at higher altitudes.)

 

-Specific fuel consumption, which is the amount of fuel burned per hour, per horsepower produced. The higher the HP output, the dis-proportionally worse the 'gas mileage', but the better the acceleration, climb, & top speed. The airplane's range is shortened at higher power levels.

 

These 'ancient' WW2 piston engines (from all countries involved) were *incredibly* well understood and very highly developed for their time. People that tinker with cars today that have turbos, superchargers, 4-valve heads, etc. etc. and think they have something "high tech" are playing with 70 year old technology ;)

 

In the 1930s and 40s, the P-51 was today's F-18, the Bf-109 was an F-16, and the Fw-190D-9 was an F-22 :)

Kit:

B550 Aorus Elite AX V2, Ryzen 7 5800X w/ Thermalright Phantom Spirit 120 SE, 2 x 16GB Kingston Fury DDR4 @3600MHz C16, Gigabyte RTX 3070 Windforce 8GB, EVGA SuperNova 750 G2 PSU, HP Omen 32" 2560x1440, Thrustmaster Cougar HOTAS fitted with Leo Bodnar's BU0836A controller.

--Flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground, and having all the rules and regulations get in the way!

If man was meant to fly, he would have been born with a lot more money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick and dirty of course and I am missing the boosted output of the BMW 801 here (2100 PS at SL IIRC), whereas the Jumo curve is for full boost, with MW -50. The normal output was around 1770 PS.

 

At lower altitudes there is some advantage of the 213 of course, largely due to its more efficient supercharger handling (no see-saw curve), which should show itself between 2-4 km range mostly... However it is seen that actually above rated altitude, ie. 6000+ m for both engines, the two engines are almost perform the same, despite the common myth that the Jumo 213 somehow improved the poor altitude performance of the BMW 801D. It simply didn't, where it improved over it was the much smaller cross setion and smaller drag of the engine installation. So at least at higher altitude practically all of the performance increase is due to the lower drag of the D-9 compared to the A airframe IMO.

 

EDIT: Added a rough estimate of C-3 injection boosted BMW 801 power levels

I'm curious as to how the C-3 injection worked. As I understand it the 801 already ran on C-3 fuel, so the only reason I can think of for injecting more of it would be that the engine is capable of burning more fuel than the original injection system could provide. Obviously the additional fuel would also carry some charge cooling effect, but that is useless if you end up making the mixture so rich that the engine loses power.

 

Am I on the right track here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nerd right track C3 Fuel was injected in the supercharger the spray cool down the intake air with that engine can run more rich and produce more power.

MW50 had on the 801 Radial engine much impact in reduce life span, and the more Power output was marginal.

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
I'm curious as to how the C-3 injection worked. As I understand it the 801 already ran on C-3 fuel, so the only reason I can think of for injecting more of it would be that the engine is capable of burning more fuel than the original injection system could provide. Obviously the additional fuel would also carry some charge cooling effect, but that is useless if you end up making the mixture so rich that the engine loses power.

 

Am I on the right track here?

 

I might be necrothreading a bit but it's a poorly understood subject so worth stating.

The C3 injector and MW50 boost systems aren't about C3 or MW50 at all, in fact ideally neither would be required for what is being achieved by them.

It's all about over boosting the engine supercharger to accomplish higher than normally rated power outputs. Nothing to do with injecting anything, all about over boosting the blower.

 

This was a common practise for supercharged aircraft before boost regulators became normally fitted, for example the P40E doesn't have a boost regulator, so the pilot has to carefully manage the throttle below critical altitude or damage the engine with too much boost. This is because the throttle gives maximum boost at critical altitude, air is more dense at lower altitude, so the maximum boost is exceeded below critical altitude unless you have a boost regulator fitted, like a P40M. That one you can shove the throttle to its gate at take off and simply get maximum emergency power, try it in a P40E and you'll hit about 1900hp for half a second and explode the engine. Without a boost regulator you have to watch what you're doing with the throttle under critical altitude, hence it's called critical altitude because you need to be wary under it and not sad altitude because you lose boost above it. That's the way I like to think about it anyway.

 

Okay so the common practise was to richen the mixture a little too much for normal running and push the throttle a little too far forward, exceeding maximum listed manifold pressure, to exceed normal maximum outputs for a short period, 1-2 minutes tops. But then by midwar pretty much every aircraft had auto mixture and boost regulators so you couldn't do it without a built in override facility or mechanical adjustment, but it probably saved a lot of fighter engines from excited cadets. Simple version is you couldn't do it so easily once a lot of a/c management became automated or semi automated, but it was a common practise when everything was so manual the pilot had to spend more time looking at instruments than they could looking for e/a and broken engines in those days were very common indeed.

 

An example of this is the RAF operating P40E at 1670hp in North Africa and RAAF actually getting 1720hp from theirs by significantly over boosting using high grade fuels, documented by Allison Engineering in wartime correspondence records. Quite a bump from the 1150hp rated output. It was a letter advising against its continued practise as exceeding manufacturer operating procedure and dangerous for forthcoming engine type production, although Allison was apparently quite pleased their engine stood up better than their expectations in the field.

 

Adding a charge coolant injector obviously alters this field improvisation of boosted power to one of manufacturer installation under tested guidelines. Initially these did the same thing pilots used to do on their own initiative, ie. a modest boost increase for a very limited duration of 1-2 minutes before holing the pistons. With further development, improvements to the intended engine in chambering and so forth specific to the modification, by 1944 over boosting with a charge coolant got you up to ten minutes of continuous, significant over boost and power increase in hundreds of horsepower, without breaking the engine.

 

This took time to develop using synthetic fuels, Daimler worked closely with IG Farben to develop combustion chambering throughout the war, their original 1940 goal of 2bar over boost and 1.5bar military power in the forthcoming 605 engine was never actually achieved until the D motor of late44 (and 1.85ata was the best they got on B4). One way of cheating was to hotrod an engine with C3 (or C2) fuel like the 1940 601N motor, Daimlers normally run on B4 so the higher knock rating allowed a limited over boost for 1-2mins. But the BMW 801D already ran on C3 so unless you were going to run it on alcohol you couldn't really hotrod it.

 

Now the 801D2 was intended from the beginning of production to use MW50/over-boost kits but these weren't available from their manufacturer until February 1944 for whatever reasons. In the meantime Focke Wulf wanted a cheat for the FW190G to give over boost at low altitude for its schnellbomber mission role, which in modern terms you might call deep penetration strike. These were sent in raids against the British coast in 43 and had to outpace Spitfires by the dozen for any chance at survivability. So came the C3 injector, which also tended to find its way into the F series.

 

German engines use direct injection after the blower compresses raw air, which gets quite hot and throws out the mixture when you over boost. Boost enrichening is normally incorporated into factory tuning but when you over boost you go beyond normal tuning. Not such a big deal in a carb motor like the Merlin, which compresses a fuel-air mixture and can probably get away with manual mixture adjustment to compensate but a real problem in a German engine compressing raw air and then adding pre-calculated fuel metering that didn't have over boost in mind.

The C3 injector just adds an extra fuel injector to the supercharger intake for boost enrichment and it helps a little with charge cooling compared to compressing raw air. The over boost it can withstand is limited but there.

 

The MW50 is piped to the supercharger exhaust and uses a completely different set of playing rules, the direct injection itself is retuned for over boost enrichment and the injector just cools raw air coming out of the compressor. It allows significant over boost for long periods.

 

The FW190 radials got MW50 from February 44. The G and F had a much more limited C3 injector over boost before then.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injection of c3 fuel added cooling effect on copressed air, another thing aditional fuel decreased AFR even more allowing increase MP w/o danger to the engine. Engines at high power settings were running at about 10-11 AFR

lower AFR highest boost allowed if under high boost from some reason AFR jumps up it may overheat piston make it expand too much making damage to cylinder liner wall.

in some cases piston can melt but melting is extreem. so engine even reciving such a damage can still work ofc it will burn oil like crazy but it is still far from sezuiring


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be necrothreading a bit but it's a poorly understood subject so worth stating.

The C3 injector and MW50 boost systems aren't about C3 or MW50 at all, in fact ideally neither would be required for what is being achieved by them.

It's all about over boosting the engine supercharger to accomplish higher than normally rated power outputs. Nothing to do with injecting anything, all about over boosting the blower.

 

This was a common practise for supercharged aircraft before boost regulators became normally fitted, for example the P40E doesn't have a boost regulator, so the pilot has to carefully manage the throttle below critical altitude or damage the engine with too much boost. This is because the throttle gives maximum boost at critical altitude, air is more dense at lower altitude, so the maximum boost is exceeded below critical altitude unless you have a boost regulator fitted, like a P40M. That one you can shove the throttle to its gate at take off and simply get maximum emergency power, try it in a P40E and you'll hit about 1900hp for half a second and explode the engine. Without a boost regulator you have to watch what you're doing with the throttle under critical altitude, hence it's called critical altitude because you need to be wary under it and not sad altitude because you lose boost above it. That's the way I like to think about it anyway.

 

Okay so the common practise was to richen the mixture a little too much for normal running and push the throttle a little too far forward, exceeding maximum listed manifold pressure, to exceed normal maximum outputs for a short period, 1-2 minutes tops. But then by midwar pretty much every aircraft had auto mixture and boost regulators so you couldn't do it without a built in override facility or mechanical adjustment, but it probably saved a lot of fighter engines from excited cadets. Simple version is you couldn't do it so easily once a lot of a/c management became automated or semi automated, but it was a common practise when everything was so manual the pilot had to spend more time looking at instruments than they could looking for e/a and broken engines in those days were very common indeed.

 

An example of this is the RAF operating P40E at 1670hp in North Africa and RAAF actually getting 1720hp from theirs by significantly over boosting using high grade fuels, documented by Allison Engineering in wartime correspondence records. Quite a bump from the 1150hp rated output. It was a letter advising against its continued practise as exceeding manufacturer operating procedure and dangerous for forthcoming engine type production, although Allison was apparently quite pleased their engine stood up better than their expectations in the field.

 

Adding a charge coolant injector obviously alters this field improvisation of boosted power to one of manufacturer installation under tested guidelines. Initially these did the same thing pilots used to do on their own initiative, ie. a modest boost increase for a very limited duration of 1-2 minutes before holing the pistons. With further development, improvements to the intended engine in chambering and so forth specific to the modification, by 1944 over boosting with a charge coolant got you up to ten minutes of continuous, significant over boost and power increase in hundreds of horsepower, without breaking the engine.

 

This took time to develop using synthetic fuels, Daimler worked closely with IG Farben to develop combustion chambering throughout the war, their original 1940 goal of 2bar over boost and 1.5bar military power in the forthcoming 605 engine was never actually achieved until the D motor of late44 (and 1.85ata was the best they got on B4). One way of cheating was to hotrod an engine with C3 (or C2) fuel like the 1940 601N motor, Daimlers normally run on B4 so the higher knock rating allowed a limited over boost for 1-2mins. But the BMW 801D already ran on C3 so unless you were going to run it on alcohol you couldn't really hotrod it.

 

Now the 801D2 was intended from the beginning of production to use MW50/over-boost kits but these weren't available from their manufacturer until February 1944 for whatever reasons. In the meantime Focke Wulf wanted a cheat for the FW190G to give over boost at low altitude for its schnellbomber mission role, which in modern terms you might call deep penetration strike. These were sent in raids against the British coast in 43 and had to outpace Spitfires by the dozen for any chance at survivability. So came the C3 injector, which also tended to find its way into the F series.

 

German engines use direct injection after the blower compresses raw air, which gets quite hot and throws out the mixture when you over boost. Boost enrichening is normally incorporated into factory tuning but when you over boost you go beyond normal tuning. Not such a big deal in a carb motor like the Merlin, which compresses a fuel-air mixture and can probably get away with manual mixture adjustment to compensate but a real problem in a German engine compressing raw air and then adding pre-calculated fuel metering that didn't have over boost in mind.

The C3 injector just adds an extra fuel injector to the supercharger intake for boost enrichment and it helps a little with charge cooling compared to compressing raw air. The over boost it can withstand is limited but there.

 

The MW50 is piped to the supercharger exhaust and uses a completely different set of playing rules, the direct injection itself is retuned for over boost enrichment and the injector just cools raw air coming out of the compressor. It allows significant over boost for long periods.

 

The FW190 radials got MW50 from February 44. The G and F had a much more limited C3 injector over boost before then.

 

yes british were less caucious in term of boost for example p-51 on 150fuel was set to run 75" and the same plane called MUSTANG IV(british version of p-51) was allowed to run 25lbs boost which translate to 80"

i could not find any data about almost certain engine loss due to use of wep like it is happening in dcs with p-51 this thing i will not understand

i read couple raports of much longer WEP operation then allowed and plane return to base intact any no fatal damage to the engien was done to couse engien seizure

if it was a realy thing army would throw WEP in to trash can


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...