German Props in World War Two 3 vs. 4 blade

greetings this is greg let's start off with a quick review of the previous video between the early 1900s and about 1940 we saw propellers go from fixed pitch to two position pitch then to variable pitch variable pitch props allowed the pilot to change the blade angles within a certain range using a control in the cockpit these variable pitch props didn't last long because it wasn't a big step from there to add a governor to these types and make them into constant speed propellers in other words they added a governor to vary the pitch to keep the rpm set at the level selected by the pilot within certain limitations of course the details of how all this works is in my previous video and i'll put a link in the description that brings us up to about 1939 and maybe as late as 1941 that's when nearly all the front line u.s or british fighters were being equipped with constant speed props meanwhile over in germany they were working on constant speed propellers of their own it's very difficult to put exact dates on german technology from that era but as near as i can tell the first mass-produced constant speed propellers on german warplanes were junkers hydraulic propellers and they seemed to start showing up in 1938 these were used on stukas ju-88s ju-188 and dornier 17s and maybe some others a wartime allied report says that the euchre's constant speed prop configuration was designed for ease of mass production and was not of typical german precision thus it was quite heavy and that could be one reason it wasn't seen on their fighter planes another reason it probably wasn't seen on fighters is because as with the u.s hamilton standard hydraulic or the u.s curtis electric props the euchre's unit didn't allow for a gun to fire through the propeller hub the germans seemed almost obsessed with firing a gun through that hub they set the 109 up that way from very early on and nearly every 109 that fought in world war ii had a cannon firing through the hub the 109s cannon is mounted a lot farther back than most people think the majority of it is in the cockpit between the pilot's legs and at about groin level i imagine it's quite loud in there when you fire it the german gunnery manual hurrito makes clear comparisons between guns and women this cartoon from the manual points out that they both go bang when you press their buttons this page on targeting makes another clear comparison german manuals are full of cartoons if you're watching the public version of this sorry i had to censor it but hey it's youtube now the us and british manuals were pretty boring by comparison but generally have a lot more detail so i guess they're not boring in a technical sense for example this british manual will sometimes kind of put you to sleep but it has all the facts you need the panther tank manual makes it look like being a panther crewman in world war ii is just party time i don't want to get sidetracked here i may talk about the panther another time and that manual is a good resource so for now i'll put it in the patreon section uh you might enjoy it it's quite good okay where were we canons the 109 almost always had one firing through the propeller hub the fw 190 didn't at least not initially that's because there was no way to do it with an air-cooled radial engine the 190 dora 9 has an inverted v12 but was a stop gap airplane i think it's likely they wanted to fit a centerline cannon to it but just didn't get to it because they were really rushing that plane into production we do know that all subsequent fighters from focal wolf the d11 d12 and d13 seen here as well as the ta-152 all had cannons firing through the hub these planes at least for the most part used the german vdm propeller vdm stands for united german metalworks or whatever that is in german exact dates are hard to come by here but it appears that the vdm variable pitch propeller not the constant speed props okay we're going to talk about that later but the vdm variable pitch propeller showed up on the scene around 1935. it was used on 109s fairly early on probably starting with some of the b models pictures and diagrams of this system are very scarce even information on it is scarce at least in the english speaking world so bear with me here this is a picture of an aero products propeller as used on the p-39 era cobra notice the large central hole for the cannon and the way the gears have to be positioned around it that makes this entire package larger than it otherwise would need to be the vdm system in the 109 is a bit like this however it uses a worm gear instead of beveled gears to engage the beveled gears on the prop blades on the back side of the prop and again this is arrow products you will find the mechanism that turns the gears in this case it's hydraulically driven and on the vdm system it's electrical here is one of two diagrams i have for the vdm system you can clearly see the worm gear drive but i really don't know if this is the way all vdms were set up or only this version i don't even know if it's one worm gear per blade or if the blades are interconnected somehow here's another this also shows the worm gear there are three main things you should know about the vdm system so far it's electrically driven it has a large overall diameter because it has to to surround the hollow prop shaft and notice that the spinner can barely cover the prop hubs and you're going to have to have this have a spinner for reasons that are going to be going to become apparent so most of all here i want you to notice this thing is big moving on this is a dremel tool perhaps you have one it's an electrical motor and in this case it's driving a flexible shaft this person's using it to grind the ports of an intake manifold but the point is it's an electric motor driving a flexible shaft now if you were to take that motor and make it reversible and keep that shaft you have pretty much exactly what drives the prop pitch controls on a 109 the 109 uses a reversible electric motor and a flexible shaft to drive the pitch changing mechanism the motor is about the size of a starter motor on a typical automobile the flexible shaft allows it to be mounted in a large variety of places as long as there's space for it and you don't have to bend the shaft too much it's going to fit in there it's usually mounted to the engine so it's in different spots on different planes for example a 109f with a dv601 it's going to be in one place and then in a different spot on a 109k with the db605 the motor is controlled by a switch which on the early 109s is on the instrument panel here is a picture of a 109 d cockpit it is the only picture of a 109 d cockpit i can find that's from the period this is the prop pitch control it's not located in a great position however they kept the switch there inconvenient as it is for the pilot through at least the early e models this is a 109 e3 which was captured by the british and had a variable pitch prop with the control switch on the instrument panel as mentioned in the british report anyway so far we have 109s with a variable pitch prop which is manually controlled by a switch on the instrument panel and this was the configuration used on the d models and at least up through the e3s and it probably started with b models these variable pitch props created considerable workload for the pilot i explained all that in my previous video which is why as with the spitfire and other fighters they were changed to a constant speed unit pretty early in the war and the germans of course did the same thing so far for the german vdf correction vdm variable pitch unit we have several components the pitch change mechanism the reversible electric motor with flexible drive shaft and the pilot control to manipulate it and there's one more key component to this system now we need to talk about the prop pitch indicator and why it's there the next couple images i took from uh one of sheriff simshacks videos that's an excellent channel and i'll put a link to uh this exact video in the description he describes the usage of this thing pretty well this is the cockpit of a 109 f which has a constant speed prop so that's later than what we're talking about right now but the pitch indicator is the same as the earlier variable pitch prop airplanes as you can see it looks a lot like a clock but without numbers the 12 30 position on the clock indicates minimum pitch and as pitch increases the clock runs backwards and vice versa why does this gauge exist you don't see this in very many u.s or british aircraft well i think the reason is because it makes it very easy to verify that the prop is in the correct position for takeoff it also makes it easy to check for correct operation on the ground without even starting the engine you can do that of course because it's electric once you're in the air it's not going to be used as much as engine rpm for purposes of setting propeller pitch because engine rpm is a better indication of whether you need to increase or decrease pitch although the gauge would still have some minor amounts of usefulness now at some point they decided to make this system the variable pitch system into a constant speed system and all they really had to do was put some sort of governor on there as they already had an electric variable pitch prop so that's what they did of course it was a bit more complex than that and they also linked into the throttle but essentially it's just the old variable pitch system with the governor they did not bother to install a propeller control lever to manipulate the governor like we discussed with hamilton standard or curtis electric instead the governor is controlled by the throttle lever so advancing the throttle would not only increase manifold pressure it would also set the governor to some higher rpm full throttle would give maximum manifold pressure maximum rpm in most cases as the throttle is pulled back they both decrease they didn't get it perfect throughout the entire range in other words for example best fuel economy happened at a specific manifold pressure and rpm combo like most airplanes and the automatic pitch control when rigged to the throttle didn't allow for the ideal setting so for maximum economy pilots would use manual pitch control in the 109 using manual pitch control on the 109 was exactly the same as using the previous variable pitch propeller because it was essentially the same mechanism again the constant speed prop was really just an upgraded variable pitch prop with the governor now exactly when 109's got constant speed props is a bit of a mystery as far as i can tell no 109 ds as in delta or earlier ever had a constant speed prop if somebody can prove me wrong on that i'd love to see it all 109 f's as in foxtrot or frederick and later did have constant speed props so the changeover happened somewhere in the e models i have this translation of a november of 1940 german technical order saying that an automatic air screw that means constant speed prop had been introduced and was being retrofitted on 109s it also mentions the thumb activated switch for use during manual control so we know that by november of 1940 they moved that pitch control switch from the instrument panel to the thumb activated switch on the throttle which is far superior so we know they had that as well by that point now from the pilot's perspective the only change in the cockpit was a switch that changed things from automatic aka constant speed prop control to manual manual was simply the manually controlled variable pitch pro system that had been in use up to this point now it's unclear if the conversions to the constant speed unit also added that thumb switch or if it was already present in some 109s that only had variable pitch props the history there is a little bit murky either way every 109 cockpit that i have ever seen that has a constant speed prop has the thumb switch for use during manual pitch control most also have the prop pitch indicator that was probably more important during the era of variable pitch although i've seen some 109s including the g10 at the u.s air force museum that don't have the prop pitch indicator so it's not clear to me if some of the planes were built without them or if there were post-war changes i i think the former is more likely i think some of the planes were just not built with that indicator because it wasn't critical and they probably had supply shortages normally the prop would be in automatic mode but in the event of a system malfunction or battle damage it could be put into manual much like the curtis electrics as mentioned earlier manual control could also help with range at least on the 109e manuals they may have got that fine-tuned more on the later ones now starting with the e7 and possibly a little earlier all 109s used this system an electrically controlled constant speed prop with a backup control using an electric increase slash decrease switch to manually adjust pitch in terms of operation it's quite similar to the us curtis electric this brings us to the big question of blade count i get this question all the time why didn't the germans use a four-bladed prop on their late war fighters and that's a complicated question and that's why there's all this build up to it i want to start off by saying that this question assumes that four bladed props are always better but that's not true there is a school of thought which seems to be valid that fewer blades are more efficient i went to hartzel's website they make good propellers and they address this very question they point out that bladed props are more efficient but efficiency doesn't move the airplane that's an interesting statement and it will probably make more sense as we move along here's a statement from arrow toolbox they make it clear that you need more blades to absorb more power but increasing the number of blades actually makes the prop less efficient which agrees with what we read from hartsell so i would describe that as the modern viewpoint they also mention that a single bladed prop is the most efficient type that's because the more blades you have the more you lose due to the vortexes at the tips we kind of got into that in the previous video ideally what you want is one single very thin but infinitely long blade but of course reality gets in the way of that plan now there were single bladed props in production at least to some extent at one time these may have been better in theory as compared to a two bladed prop but not once reality sets in there are several problems first they have to be counter weighted that counter weight is not only weight it causes drag and adds no thrust if the counterweight was shaped to add thrust so it wouldn't be just a worthless weight out there well then it wouldn't be a single bladed prop anymore next you need to keep the total blade area about the same as you had with the two bladed prop or three or whatever you had before trying to make it a single blade but if you make the single blade two or three times as long as the other you're going to run into tip speed and or ground clearance problems if you increase the cord instead in other words make the prop blade fatter that itself decreases efficiency as explained in the previous video so you're back to square one then you have the issue of an asymmetrical load being applied to the engine bearings engines weren't really made to take such loads so there were concerns there these props and for some reason i don't fully understand they cost several times that of a typical two-bladed prop back in in this early era when they were doing it yet due to the extra drag of the counterweights they didn't really provide any measurable increase in performance thus you know you spend twice as much on your prop and you go out and fly the airplane and you're not even sure if you gained you know two miles an hour or whatnot so these died out pretty quickly and they've not made a comeback and i doubt they will although sometimes you see a piper cub that appears to be flying around on a one-bladed prop and what what actually is going on there there's some videos of this on youtube is that somebody cut the blade somebody cut one blade off of a two-bladed prop um to do this as kind of a cool experiment and i do think it's really cool but that's not the same thing as a prop designed to have one blade in the first place it's just a two bladed prop they cut off a blade added to counterweight so it's not really the same thing i've also seen a design for a stowable electric motor using a folded single bladed prop for use on sail planes it's an effort to get a big reduction in space and weight and then when your sail plane needs a motor this thing unstows and it starts spinning and uh and there you go but i haven't ever seen that work in reality i don't know if that was just a design phase thing or what anyway one bladed prop neat idea but not once you get hit in the head with the reality of trying to make it work in the real world by the way what is helen adjusting here with that screwdriver moving on of course the length of the propeller blade is a big factor in propeller design long thin blades are ideal but it's just not that simple as you need a certain amount of blade area to absorb all that power you can't just keep making the blades longer and longer plus remember you've got tip speed limitations and ground clearance and other things and the propeller also has to have a certain amount of size just to be strong enough to handle the power so there are a lot of factors here now the ground clearance issue was a pretty big deal that's the reason that you started to see four bladed propellers as early as world war one this wasn't usually done for performance these planes had very low rpm engines less than 400 horsepower in almost all cases well within the ability to of a two bladed prop they went with four blades because they could use shorter blades thus increase the prop to ground clearance in the case of the dh4 seen here the four-bladed prop allows for a decent amount of blade area and the use of very short stubby landing gear reducing drag and increasing strength all while retaining pretty decent prop clearance as compared with what you'd have with a two blade in other cases as seen here the four blades keep the blades away from the airplane itself now propeller design is very complicated i would describe it as wing design with extra complications thrown in and the math involved is way above my level i do basically low level algebra and kind of stop there here's a naca report from 1926. it discusses blade element theory which i'll get to in a moment the point i want to drive home though is that these people were doing all this sort of math without any sort of electronic calculators there are symbols here i don't even recognize now there are some aviation youtubers that can burn through this kind of stuff i don't know if it'd be popular enough to make a video on the math problems of propellers but like i say i do think there are people on youtube that can do that david lednesser certainly comes to mind i'm sure millennium 7 could do it that's a channel worth watching i don't know if i've brought it up before and uh adam the engineer engineered um i'm almost certain can do all this stuff too but again this math is way beyond what i can do so we're not going to be going over it thankfully i don't think we need to naca put a lot of stuff in text to summarize all this stuff so what is blade element theory blade element theory well let me back up a second let's look at the actual explanation from a nacca report a different report but nevertheless blade element theory states and i'm paraphrasing here that if all other factors are equal more blades means that the prop can absorb more power and will be more efficient more blades better at first that would seem to contradict what we saw from those modern sources earlier but i don't think it does back to our 1926 report this report makes it clear that blade element theory doesn't take certain real-world realities into account like the fact that the blades interfere with each other when installed on a real propeller it's also true that it doesn't take into account the extra hub drag you get with extra blades although that's discussed in another report so that brings us to this statement from the 1926 report the way i see it the author here is pointing out that because of the complexities of the subject actual testing is needed to validate any calculations involving propellers and based on the huge number of naca tests and the amount of money they spent on doing propeller tests i'm sure he was right that brings us to naca report 698 i think this one is very important it's from 1939 which means likely this is the one that was studied by teams designing the corsair the thunderbolt and other upcoming frontline fighters now there's a lot to unpack here just on this title page alone let's start with that word solidity because we need to know it here is a late war p47 i can tell from here that's a curtis electric prop because of the round decals on the blades hamilton standards were more oval so let's zoom in okay now let's put a circle around the prop the amount of area within the circle that's taken up by the blades is the solidity so if we double the number of blades or just double the width of the existing blades within the circle the solidity would double when comparing three bladed props to four bladed it has to be done at equal solidities otherwise you're comparing different sized props not different blade numbers while i'm here let's take a high res look at a higher resolution picture of that prop blade notice that the inboard sections of the blades have a sort of cover on them those are propeller cuffs and they are primarily there to aid in cooling they were normally made from a hard rubber like a hockey puck type material and are correctly called cooling cuffs these are much like the fan on the fw 190a's engine it performs the same function only it's attached to the prop these were very common on p47s especially later ones you can also see these on many wartime p51s in the case of the p51 they not only improve cooling but also increase ram air pressure to the supercharger at low air speeds much like in the fw 190a back to our naca report this one is from the daniel guggenheim lab at stanford the guggenheim's were a major player in the mining industry and thus very wealthy daniel's son harry was a pilot and flew in world war one although although i don't think he was a combat pilot i think he served in some other capacity they became very active in funding and promoting aviation a lot of the naca reports were privately funded which some might find surprising anyway back then stanford was known for engineering and one of the guggenheim labs was built there i don't know if it's still there today but many of the others still exist or at least the buildings still do one of their big projects was in 1929 when they held the guggenheim safe aircraft contest there was a one hundred thousand dollar maximum prize and there were all sorts of criteria for judging to determine what was the safest aircraft these criteria included things like minimum takeoff distance stability and so on and there was a point system involved to determine the winner this is the aircraft that won the contest it's the curtis tannager this plane from hanley page took second place and was the only other plane to even remotely come close to meeting all the requirements of the competition the curtis plane won by only one point and that one point was based on a slight superiority in slow flight however the curtis plane was using hanley page leading edge slots to enable it to do this curtis never paid them any royalties thus lawsuits ensued glenn curtis was no stranger to patent infringement or being sued for it he had been sued by the wright brothers nine times and curtis lost all nine cases he also sued the wright brothers three times and as you could probably guess he lost all three of those cases it's ironic that curtis and wright eventually joined forces and formed curtis wright glenn curtis literally died as a result of an appendicitis that happened while he was in court fighting a lawsuit from a former business partner that was in 1929 during world war ii curtis wright the company went on to build a large number of engines and propellers for the war effort as well as some famous planes like the p40 back to our naca report they tested two three and four bladed props of equal solidity at various blade angles because of course you can't just check the prop at one blade angle because it's going to work you know within a range and one prop might be superior at fine pitch and another superior course pitch anyway they found that the advantages of the extra blades were largely offset by the extra hub drag so they fitted spinners to reduce hub drag and sort of reduce that effect then as predicted by blade element theory they determined that four bladed props had the highest efficiency compared to two or three blade and could absorb the most power so the next question is well how much better was the four-bladed prop as compared to a three-plated unit and the answer is not much the four-bladed prop was about two percent more efficient and could absorb about four percent more power you might say well four percent more power i'll take it well first of all if your existing three-bladed prop can already absorb that power just fine it may not be worth going up to a four-bladed prop i feel this statement from naca summarizes this concept pretty well when you factor in the extra complexity of the constant speed mechanism needed with more blades it just might not be worth it i'm hugely paraphrasing this report here so i will include it in the patreon folder so if some of you guys want to peruse this stuff on your own you'll be able to but regarding this four blade versus three blade thing not a huge amount of difference there is some yes especially at high altitude but think about this from the german standpoint their three-bladed prop can handle the power they have if they increase it to four blades with the same solidity then sure it would be slightly more efficient but that's about it with the state of things in germany in 1944 if you were in charge would you have decided to hold up production and try to gain two percent more efficiency out of your prop probably not i don't actually think though that's the main reason they stayed with the three-bladed design but i do think it's a factor so let's talk about the p51 for a moment the p51a has an allison engine and a three bladed curtis electric prop at low altitude it has about the same amount of horsepower as the p51b which of course has a merlin engine and a four-bladed hamilton standard prop yet even with about the same amount of horsepower a three-bladed p-51a is the faster of those two airplanes at low altitudes now these are both aircraft they're running in the neighborhood of 1400 horsepower now i know there's no apples to apples comparison it's never perfect but this is pretty much as close as it gets for a comparison between three and four blades on a real airplane so let's look at the p51b chart i'll add a line where it has fourteen hundred and forty horsepower at five thousand feet exactly the same amount as the three bladed p51a at that altitude and under those conditions the p51a is still about 15 miles per hour faster now it may have some minor aerodynamic advantages and there like i say it's never apples to apples but clearly the four-bladed prop is not providing any really significant advantage here because the a model is still 15 miles per hour faster where the four bladed props seem to shine was at very high altitude or later at very high power levels the p51b was intended to fly at higher altitudes and thus it had a four-bladed prop the same is true of the p-47 thunderbolt the corsair and hellcat had 2 000 horsepower in the early versions and these early versions still had three bladed props they were naval fighters of course and so were typically going to be expected to be fighting at lower altitudes although when power went up the later dash four corsair did get a four-bladed prop the four-bladed prop corsair had 2450 horsepower depending a little bit on exactly when you're looking at the plane in terms of time but that 2450 that's up from the original versions 2000 so yes more blade area was needed and the only good way to do that was to add another blade you couldn't make the prop much bigger in diameter on the corsair now with both of those airplanes the early corsair and later dash 4 running at 2 000 horsepower down at sea level they appear to have about the same maximum speed i say up here because there aren't many tests of the dash 4 that i could use for a really apples to apples comparison there so i guess my point is that i don't think a 1455 horsepower 109 g6 is really going to benefit from a four-bladed prop and if it does it would be up at very high altitudes now maybe the later 109s that had up around 1800 or 2000 horsepower they might have had a little bit of a gain at high altitude but i don't think it would have been worth the effort even the focal wolf their final fighter in the war the ta152 that's really designed almost entirely around the idea of high altitude fighting and yet it still uses a three-bladed prop why is that well i'm getting to that one theory i'm hearing a lot is that the germans kept the three-bladed prop due to the machine guns firing through the propeller disc and at first that kind of makes sense but i don't think it's correct first of all if they went to a four-bladed prop and kept the same solidity then the total amount of blade area in front of the guns is going to be the same furthermore synchronizing to fire through four propeller blades is not a big deal the p-63 king cobra is set up that way in fact the germans even in world war one had machine guns firing through four bladed props on the siemens shooker d4 as well as the d3 and there were some others the fw 190a models and the dora 9s have four guns firing through three prop blades so synchronizing two guns to fire through four prop blades seems to me to be much less of a problem the fw190 dora 13s have no machine guns firing through the propeller just the two wing cannons but they still have a three-bladed prop the same is true of the ta-152 so clearly adding a fourth blade shouldn't be an issue since that would only require two guns to fire through the four blades and we know they'd been doing that as far back as world war one however both the late doras and the ta-152s have cannons firing through the prop hub like a typical 109 and i think that is the main reason they stuck with the three bladed prop you see here's the problem again this is the arrow products prop but the idea is the same if you are going to add a fourth blade to this thing you're going to have to do one of three things you can make the prop hub bigger or you could remove the cannon and use that space or you could retool and re-design the entire mechanism using smaller parts i don't think smaller parts were an option for the germans at this point their industry was in really bad shape by 1944. removing the central canon would have freed up enough room but i doubt that was seriously considered as evidenced by the armament setup in all the jets the 109s the late doras and the ta152s the germans loved that central cannon that leaves us with making the prop hub bigger take a look again at that vdm constant speed setup you remember that worm gear from earlier well that worm gear alone means that you've got to make this thing bigger to add another blade remember this picture that spinner barely covers the prop hub there's no extra room there and it's the same way on the dora 13. so why not just make it bigger and use a bigger spinner let's look at this finish 109 g2 and you probably see the problem that spinner is sized perfectly for the airplane you make the spinner bigger and you need a bigger plane to fill in the space behind it so i just don't think it was an option on the 109 unless they wanted to get rid of that cannon what about the dora 13 and the ta-152 well i think it's the same basic problem if you make the spinner bigger that's going to block off the cooling air for the radiator and oil cooler that means you would have to add cooler somewhere else to the airframe which is probably going to cost you more than you're going to gain by adding a propeller blade to the prop so we don't have a really great smoking gun here you know no solid evidence about why the germans stuck with the three-bladed prop on their late war fighters i wish i could tell you that you know i had the secret stash from kurt tank that explained why he did what he did well we don't have that but we do have a lot of factors we can see and i think that all of these are factors the germans would have been considering back during the war i think they would have considered the possible gains with a four-bladed prop but probably concluded it wasn't worth it for three main reasons chief among them they wanted to keep that central cannon they didn't want to retool for an all-new constant speed mechanism and i'm not even sure they could have done it and still fit it onto their existing planes yes the p-63 king cobra has a four-bladed prop machine guns firing through the propeller and a 37-millimeter cannon through the spinner but it's a much bigger plane than a 109 there are other factors there too it had the might of u.s industry behind it and aero products who made the propeller really wasn't that busy anyway because few planes used their props the p63 p51k bearcat and not much else so they could focus on development of the prop for the p63 and nobody was bombing them while they were doing it let's also remember that the p63 has a lot of extra room behind the spinner for mechanisms because it doesn't have an engine there and that may have been a factor as well in short i can't think of any world war ii fighter with a four-bladed constant speed prop that has a cannon firing through the spinner except the p-63 so i don't think the germans could have built a four-bladed constant speed prop and kept the central cannon and even if they could have it still makes more sense to me to increase the solidity of the three-bladed prop with big fat blades which is exactly what they did that way you can keep your central cannon keep drag low only take a very small hit in efficiency and thrust and maybe no hidden thrust at all and all of this without retooling and slowing down production that's all for now i hope everybody has a great day i do want to thank my supporters especially my patreons for you guys i'm adding a new folder with the reports i used in this video as well as some others i read on topics that i didn't get to cover like the contra rotating six blade props i may do that another time i'll also put that panther tank manual in there and add some more 109 manuals they're in german but a lot of my supporters speak german please check out my teespring store and buy a nice mug like the 109 mug i have that one myself it also has specks on the back or the ever popular pby catalina black cat mug um we have posters and other stuff as well anyhow thanks a lot and again have a good day

Channel: Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles

Views: 312,506

Rating: 4.8818564 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: EKR-Obdq8_E

Length: 41min 46sec (2506 seconds)

Published: Sun Apr 25 2021