Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I've been studying the Starship. I'm under the impression that the canard sweeps forward to balance the lift of the main wing flap deployment. So the question is. assuming the fuselage is basically left alone, can a higher front seat weight be achieved by A: moving the canard forward. B: make it with a longer chord in same spot. or C: making it of variable geometry dependant on front seat wieght?

Posted
mxman70 said:

I've been studying the Starship. I'm under the impression that the canard sweeps forward to balance the lift of the main wing flap deployment.

Almost. It sweeps forward to increase the moment arm to balance the increased moment coefficient of the main wing with the flaps out. The increased moment coefficient causes a nose down pitching moment, even as the lift stays constant (remember, in unaccelerated flight, lift ALWAYS equals weight). To react this nose down moment, you have to either increase the lift of the canard or move it forward.

mxman70 said:

So the question is. assuming the fuselage is basically left alone, can a higher front seat weight be achieved by A: moving the canard forward. B: make it with a longer chord in same spot. or 😄 making it of variable geometry dependant on front seat wieght?

The front seat weight of the COZY MKIV is determined by one of two things, depending upon which you think is more important:

1) Nat's arbitrary statement that it's 400 lb. based on some notion of how much margin should be maintained if the pilot forgets to remove the ballast when loading the front seat to high weights.

2) The front CG limit. This of course assumes that you pay attention to W&B and put ballast in when needed and remove it when it's not. In MY plane, using this criteria, the front seat weight limit is approximately 460 lb. Since I weigh 155 lb. dripping wet, the limit is higher than I can get to with the largest person that'll fit in the front seat with me.

That being said:

A) Moving the canard forward will move the Aerodynamic Center of the aircraft forward. This means that you'll have to move the CG RANGE forward as well, to ensure stability. If you don't move the front seats forward with the canard, then yes, you'll probably increase the front seat weight limit, at the expense of needing a lot more ballast when flying solo to keep ahead of the rear CG limit. If you do move the front seats forward with the canard (as Chris Esselstyn did in his stretched MKIV) then you'll have very little change to the front seat limit.

B) Enlarging the canard does two things - adds lifting surface area, decreasing the wing loading, and moves the Aerodynamic Center forward (as above). Since nothing's moving (see above), the front seat weight limit will increase, at the expense of needing more ballast when solo since the CG range will have shifted forward.

C) A variable geometry (chord, span, position) canard is clearly the most efficient plan aerodynamically - you can tailor the aerodynamics to the weight/CG of the aircraft as loaded. Good luck with this one from a structural standpoint - it's EXTREMELY complex and failure prone - the complications are not worth it. How many aircraft (out of all the ones out there) use variable sweep/span/chord wings?

<rant on>I really should start charging for this sh*t (huh - can't curse on the forum, eh, Jon?). 14 years of giving it away for free... I can really understand why so many knowledgeable folks choose to stay off of mailing lists and web fora - it turns into a full time job.

Not aimed at you, Patrick. I just can't count the number of times that the same thing has been explained over and over again, with the assumption that the explanation is OWED to folks that do no research on their own.<rant /off>

Posted

No offense to taken at the rant Mark. And it does seem you are the "Go to guy" I'm 250 lbs myself so was looking for a similar size passenger. After looking at cockpit dimenshions of several production aircraft the cozy seems more than roomy enough. I guess I'll buy the plans and find a smaller passenger. Now that i got rid of the wife I can start looking for a smaller, more efficient one.:D

Posted

....I'm 250 lbs myself so was looking for a similar size passenger. Now that i got rid of the wife I can start looking for a smaller, more efficient one.:D

WOW- BIG guys in Cozies...news at eleven.

Funny how guys want to shave maybe a few pounds off the airframe by vacuum bagging or making the lightest parts...and obsess about having a light plane...when losing some of their ''movable ballast'' is in order.

 

After the several years creep of lifes pressures and eating to fill them..I was faced with feeling really chitty about my body and how it felt to live in a heavy lard butt physique- hardly any energy...etc etc. I would sit in my Cozy and try and convince myself that it was just fine for me. A lot of things came together mentally about that time and I finally said enough is enough- I am not going to finally end up a diabetic. I started at 256 and weigh 195 after a year.

Get on a good ''eat A LOT less", no more sodas and fast food/pastries/sweets healthy type diet and drop 50 pounds.

I did.

You will be amazed at how you feel and look.:D

Your arteries will love you for it and you will fit very luxuriously in the Cozy.

I used to squeez (I left the e off because there was no room for it) in my plane but now it is a joy to sit in.

The last part of losing weight is what you offer out there in the ''mate finding'' world.

 

Here's a pic of what women think of us guyz...Funny how most guys want an attractive woman to spend time with but dont offer the same in return. Not that you have to be ''Steve Steller" like the guy in the left picture, but it sure is great, I must say to feel and look less like the guy on the right in this picture.

Lastly, diabetes SUCKS, and if you are stuffing your maw with the typical American diet, and a affectionately refered to a ''big and tall'' guy, you are scarily down that road pretty far.

Your mileage may vary.;)

 

In the karma of life, I offer the second photo, as appropriate matching for those looking for a mate....expect attraction from a similar body type to ones own physique. IMHO.

This along with my diabetes mental scare, drove me to diet. The sideline is now my Cozy fits.

post-4661-141090165517_thumb.jpg

post-4661-14109016552_thumb.jpg

Self confessed Wingnut.

Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.?

Get up off that couch!!! =)

 

Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs.

Posted

Take it easy man. You don't know this guy's height to weight ratio. Tell an NFL wide receiver that 250 lbs. is just to much and you are out of shape. 250 lbs. can be a very healthy weight for some people and not just NFL players. Being a former Marine, I saw many "big and tall" people that were just that. Big and Tall. 250 lbs. was very appropriate for the 6' 7" Marine with a size 14 shoe.

 

You are coming to a conclusion without the proper information. But, that is the European way...

 

:D

Posted

Good pics. My problem is not realyy losing wieght. I'm 6 ' with a 18 1/2' neck and a 54" chest. I could maybe get down to 225 Lbs. if I looked like Stallone in Rocky 3. I think the smaller girlfriend is easier :confused: Not to sound like a braggart, but losing size is not a option for me while still having enough limbs to operate the aircraft. I'm not smart enough to start modifying a aircraft either. Never stopped me with things on the ground, but up in the air? Two kids to support. I may do stupid things often but that's not going to be one of them.

Posted

Was not trying to offend, but this aircraft is COZY and smaller fits better. As a sideline, there's a lot of us guys who once played sports, gained a lot of FAT, and just want the ladies to accept our fatness....but want THEM to look GREAT. Not fair.

I am 5-11 with a 44 inch chest now and wide shoulders so I know how you feel. I just couldn't get around the fact that I wasn't just ''big boned'', I was bloomin' FAT. I had a GoodYear sized spare tire.

So. No cutting of limbs desired, just poking at those who may be thinking about losing 20+ pounds...and offering food for thought..Your Cozy will love you and your love life might get more cozy as well. ;)

Self confessed Wingnut.

Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.?

Get up off that couch!!! =)

 

Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs.

Posted

We really need an aircraft that is a Canard and not $$$$$ like the Avanti that seats comfortably 250+ lb pilots, pax, and full fuel load. No reason these people should be shut out of flying these awesome planes. No mods, no nothing, I really think we ought to have an aircraft that can carry this kind of payload aloft. Right now we have Canards that carry up to 1100 Lbs (I think this is what Velocity says anywho), but it still won't carry 4 full sized adults, baggage, and fuel and the engine is Megabucks and is 4 place instead of the 2 place I want to build. For better or worse, we larger people do exist, and losing weight to enjoy this sport may not be feasible, nor should it be a requirement.

As I see it an aircraft that will carry that much will either carry a couple big people in the front, or standard 180 lb people and a whole lotta baggage or an extra fuel tank for extended range... Or that elusive lavatory someone suggested ;).

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Posted

Yeah. It's always been my motto of "Go big or go HOME". It would be nice to have a single sized more like the defiant. Always has me thinking scale up. But like I said, I'm not smart enough for that. My ultimate would be to come up with some 80% Starship plans with a couple of 500 ci. Caddy engines hanging of the back. Not that I'd need a plane that big but, you know. It's like when I was at my buddies house this weekend drooling over his 119 inch TV. Some sort of anatomical envy I guess. Trying to keep clean for ladies.:D

Posted
mxman70 said:

Yeah. It's always been my motto of "Go big or go HOME". It would be nice to have a single sized more like the defiant. Always has me thinking scale up. But like I said, I'm not smart enough for that. My ultimate would be to come up with some 80% Starship plans with a couple of 500 ci. Caddy engines hanging of the back. Not that I'd need a plane that big but, you know. It's like when I was at my buddies house this weekend drooling over his 119 inch TV. Some sort of anatomical envy I guess. Trying to keep clean for ladies.:D

I admire your enthusiasm with the cadillac engines :)... Maybe we'd translate that to Rolls Royce Merlins... :) Anywho, I do think we need a bigger plane with more payload capacity. In general this will mean a larger engine = more fuel burn, but the Canard arrangement will be more efficient than a conventional airframe by nature for any given size. :)

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Posted
Arbiter said:

... but the Canard arrangement will be more efficient than a conventional airframe by nature for any given size. :)

A common misconception. While in some theories, the canard configuration is marginally more efficient than a conventional configuration ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, all else is never equal, and in fact, conventional aircraft seem to be just about as efficient as the canards, in real life. In other theories, the canard configuration isn't more efficient than conventional configurations, and in any theory, the tri-surface configuration is the most efficient.

This has been discussed here (and in other fora) many times - a search will find the discussions.

Posted

Good pics. My problem is not realyy losing wieght. I'm 6 ' with a 18 1/2' neck and a 54" chest. I could maybe get down to 225 Lbs. if I looked like Stallone in Rocky 3. I think the smaller girlfriend is easier:confused:Not to sound like a braggart, but losing size is not a option for me while still having enough limbs to operate the aircraft. I'm not smart enough to start modifying a aircraft either. Never stopped me with things on the ground, but up in the air? Two kids to support. I may do stupid things often but that's not going to be one of them.

Why not redesign the fron-seats to make it a big one-seater? You will then still have room for your two kids in the back-seat and room for luggage at both sides of the front seat.

Erlend Moen
Norway
Cozy MK IV #1556 - Chapter 16
http://cozy.ljosnes.no

Posted
Marc Zeitlin said:

While in some theories,

..... ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.... all else is never equal

In other theories,...., and in any theory.

Wow Marc, in theory that was on equal to the best sentence you ever typed.

Drew Chaplin (aka the Foam Whisperer)

---

www.Cozy1200.com - I'm a builder now! :cool:

---

Brace for impact...

Posted

Marc,

I should clarify my thoughts a little. From an efficiency standpoint I meant that a Cozy for example can carry more payload at a faster speed over a longer distance than a Cessna 172, a cursory study of their website proves that. I am not sure about a Cirrus and how it compares since it at least looks more slippery and more aerodynamically adept. It sure seems more efficient at the same horsepower than the traditional 172 to me. I guess I'll go on continuing to be mis-conceived :).

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Posted
Dmchaplin said:

Wow Marc, in theory that was on equal to the best sentence you ever typed.

In theory, theory and reality are identical. In reality, they are not.

Arbiter said:

From an efficiency standpoint I meant that a Cozy for example can carry more payload at a faster speed over a longer distance than a Cessna 172...

I'm fairly well acquainted with the notion of efficiency - thanks. Your example of comparing a COZY MKIV to a Cessna 172 indicates that you're not familiar with the notion of "all else being equal". It's plainly obvious that the fact that the small wing is in the back on the C-172 is not the only thing that's different about the two airplanes.

The C-172 has a far larger wing, struts, fixed nose gear, twice the frontal area, is much heavier, has a smaller engine (or at least used to, until the latest incarnation), is certificated to Part 23 standards, has upright seating, has larger tires, etc., etc., etc.

If you start to investigate two seaters, of which there are far more varieties than four seaters, and only do so in the experimental world, since "all else being equal" can never be the case when comparing experimentals to certificated aircraft, you'll find that there are numerous examples of conventional configuration aircraft being approximately as efficient (or moreso) than canard (LE in particular). The search and comparison is left as an exercise for the reader.

Arbiter said:

I guess I'll go on continuing to be mis-conceived :).

No doubt. If you don't do the research, talk to aerodynamicists, read the previous discussions and literature, then there's no other possibility :-).

Posted

Marc,

I'm not going to go head to head with you. I am an entry level engineer Vs. a seasoned clearly well educated individual who wants to be precise. I admire that. That said, I have been doing research and reading (Right now Rich Von Mises' Theory of Flight is sitting right next to me, highlighted like crazy), to imply otherwise is a little disappointing. All I was trying to say was a Cessna doesn't have the same range, payload, and speed as the Cozy for a similar fuel burn, and to me, that is an efficiency.

You are completely correct that in order to do Apples to Apples comparisons of true performance data you need to break the systems down and study airframes of similar design missions and cert requirements. Who has the time to do that though, especially if they're building?

Also, from my perspective (see above), what I am saying is not un-true. If one of us takes off in a Cessna 172, and the other in a Cozy, the MkIV will get to a destination faster, and on roughly the same amount of fuel, with more payload capacity. To me, that's an efficiency. Is it the engineering definition, or an aerodynamic L/D point of view; no. Is it a less fuel is burned point of view, certainly not. But it's an efficiency of time. Does that clarify my thoughts enough? I am sure you'll have an interesting and surely more thoughtful perspective on what I just said, so I'll just wait and see what happens... Take care! :)

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Posted
Arbiter said:

All I was trying to say was a Cessna doesn't have the same range, payload, and speed as the Cozy for a similar fuel burn, and to me, that is an efficiency.

And you're absolutely correct - a COZY is far more efficient than a C-172 - no doubt about it. However, it's NOT because the COZY is a canard - it's because it's smaller, has far less frontal area for less drag, has a retractable nose gear for less drag, has no struts for less drag, has smaller wings and a higher stall speed for less drag, etc., etc. You're certainly not the first person to think that canards are more efficient than conventional aircraft. But the efficiency of the VE/LE/COZY is NOT due to it's configuration - it's due to all the OTHER design characteristics.

My issue with your statement:

"... but the Canard arrangement will be more efficient than a conventional airframe by nature for any given size."

was the certainty with which you said the falsehood, along with the smiley, indicating that everyone knows this and that it should go without saying. As I said, a common misconception, especially among canard aficionados, but a misconception nonetheless.

Arbiter said:

Also, from my perspective (see above), what I am saying is not un-true. If one of us takes off in a Cessna 172, and the other in a Cozy, the MkIV will get to a destination faster, and on roughly the same amount of fuel, with more payload capacity. To me, that's an efficiency.

See above. Obviously, the COZY is far more efficient than a C-172. But not because it's a canard.

Arbiter said:

Is it the engineering definition, or an aerodynamic L/D point of view; no. Is it a less fuel is burned point of view, certainly not.

Well, actually, it is both of those things - that's what efficiency means. Less work for the same result. Just use Lb-Miles/Gallon - it's a simple measure of efficiency. How many pounds can you take how far on how much fuel. If you'd like to take time into account, read up on the Carson speed.

Posted

Excuse me if I'm getting too technical here ........ but comparing a cessna to a composite of any configuration is (and here comes the technical part) like comparing apples to oranges.

What is more efficient, a Lancair or the Wright Flier (a canard)? :D

T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Posted
Marc Zeitlin said:

My issue with your statement:

"... but the Canard arrangement will be more efficient than a conventional airframe by nature for any given size."

was the certainty with which you said the falsehood, along with the smiley, indicating that everyone knows this and that it should go without saying. As I said, a common misconception, especially among canard aficionados, but a misconception nonetheless.

Thank you Marc. When I was in school I was told a Canard configuration would out-perform the conventional architecture. From my basic understanding, this was due to to the fact that all of your horizontal surfaces produce lift, unlike the downward lift on the horizontal stab of conventional architecture. This would drive the area of the main wings down for a given wing loading compared to a similar conventional plane. The rest of the wing load would be carried by the canard, but for longitudinal stability (pitch), you no longer needed the area of the horizontal stabalizer which produces downward lift to counter-act the nose down tendancy of the plane in level flight. To me, this means less induced drag and less skin friction drag, thus higher efficiency. Is there something I am not looking at right here? I realize there are many other factors that go into the overall system, but I'm trying to keep my thoughts as simple as I can.

To summarize the point of view I was looking from, if two equally capable designers designed two airframes (One canard, one conventional) to the same specs, weights, etc... The Canard would be more efficient for the reasons I described above. Again, this is the impression I was left with in school. I am sure this will be debated until the end of time, but that's the paradigm I came into this conversation with. Thanks for the good discussion Marc!

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Posted
Arbiter said:

... When I was in school I was told a Canard configuration would out-perform the conventional architecture.

Like I said, a common misconception, and one that I held for a long time.

Arbiter said:

.. this was due to to the fact that all of your horizontal surfaces produce lift...

Yep, that's the simplistic viewpoint that leads folks to believe in the higher efficiency of canard aircraft. However, because the downwash from the canard creates substantial interference with the lift production of the main wing, and since what's important for the efficiency of the aircraft is the far-field elliptical lift distribution (not the local lift distribution for each lifting surface), the efficiency of the SYSTEM is lowered measurably due to the configuration. So, in large part, any theoretical gain due to needing smaller lifting surfaces is counteracted by the screwed up lift distribution.

Arbiter said:

To me, this means less induced drag and less skin friction drag, thus higher efficiency. Is there something I am not looking at right here?

See above. If the far-field lift distribution wasn't important, then your position (and the classical one) would be more accurate.

Arbiter said:

... if two equally capable designers designed two airframes (One canard, one conventional) to the same specs, weights, etc... The Canard would be more efficient for the reasons I described above.

IF all else were equal (frontal area, etc.), AND the supposition that the only thing that mattered was the wing surface area that caused drag, then you might be right. But:

a) your (the "common knowledge") supposition isn't supported by lift distribution theory

b) it's essentially impossible to design conventional and canard configuration aircraft that have "all else being equal"

Arbiter said:

Again, this is the impression I was left with in school.

As many have been. If folks don't keep up with the latest research and theory, they will teach out of date information. It happens in all fields.

Arbiter said:

I am sure this will be debated until the end of time, but that's the paradigm I came into this conversation with.

Although lots of people believe things that aren't true, given that this is not a religious discussion but a factual one, it's hard to imagine how the debate could go on until the end of time. Eventually, all the folks that still believe in outdated info will die out (or accept/learn the truth), and then the "canard" of canard aircraft being more efficient than conventional aircraft will go away.

Read up on Ilan Kroo & trefftz planes. Some of this is pretty subtle.

I would suggest looking at:

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/configuration/canardprocon.html

which has the major conclusions, as well as the top level:

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/preface/welcome.html

which is an excellent textbook.

Posted
Marc Zeitlin said:

Yep, that's the simplistic viewpoint that leads folks to believe in the higher efficiency of canard aircraft. However, because the downwash from the canard creates substantial interference with the lift production of the main wing, and since what's important for the efficiency of the aircraft is the far-field elliptical lift distribution (not the local lift distribution for each lifting surface), the efficiency of the SYSTEM is lowered measurably due to the configuration. So, in large part, any theoretical gain due to needing smaller lifting surfaces is counteracted by the screwed up lift distribution.

Would placing the canard lower than the main wing increase the efficiency of the system?

Rui Lopes

Cozy MkIV S/N: 1121

Posted

Would placing the canard lower than the main wing increase the efficiency of the system?

a tail is not needed for stability. By locating the c.g. far enough forward, it is possible to obtain any level of stability. The canard is used to provide the pitching moment needed to trim;)

Steve M. Parkins

Posted
Rui said:

Would placing the canard lower than the main wing increase the efficiency of the system?

Upwash(ahead of the airfoil) and Downwash are phenomena considered to affect the airstream within one wingspan around the system. That means that for the canard's upwash/downwash not to affect the main wing, it would have to be a canard's span higher or lower than the main wing. Since the span of the canard is about 12 feet, I don't think that's a viable option.

steve said:

a tail is not needed for stability. By locating the c.g. far enough forward, it is possible to obtain any level of stability. The canard is used to provide the pitching moment needed to trim

Rui wasn't asking about stability - the word he used was "efficiency".

  • 14 years later...
Posted
On 12/6/2008 at 4:37 PM, Marc Zeitlin said:

Almost. It sweeps forward to increase the moment arm to balance the increased moment coefficient of the main wing with the flaps out. The increased moment coefficient causes a nose down pitching moment, even as the lift stays constant (remember, in unaccelerated flight, lift ALWAYS equals weight). To react this nose down moment, you have to either increase the lift of the canard or move it forward.

The front seat weight of the COZY MKIV is determined by one of two things, depending upon which you think is more important:

1) Nat's arbitrary statement that it's 400 lb. based on some notion of how much margin should be maintained if the pilot forgets to remove the ballast when loading the front seat to high weights.

2) The front CG limit. This of course assumes that you pay attention to W&B and put ballast in when needed and remove it when it's not. In MY plane, using this criteria, the front seat weight limit is approximately 460 lb. Since I weigh 155 lb. dripping wet, the limit is higher than I can get to with the largest person that'll fit in the front seat with me.

That being said:

A) Moving the canard forward will move the Aerodynamic Center of the aircraft forward. This means that you'll have to move the CG RANGE forward as well, to ensure stability. If you don't move the front seats forward with the canard, then yes, you'll probably increase the front seat weight limit, at the expense of needing a lot more ballast when flying solo to keep ahead of the rear CG limit. If you do move the front seats forward with the canard (as Chris Esselstyn did in his stretched MKIV) then you'll have very little change to the front seat limit.

B) Enlarging the canard does two things - adds lifting surface area, decreasing the wing loading, and moves the Aerodynamic Center forward (as above). Since nothing's moving (see above), the front seat weight limit will increase, at the expense of needing more ballast when solo since the CG range will have shifted forward.

C) A variable geometry (chord, span, position) canard is clearly the most efficient plan aerodynamically - you can tailor the aerodynamics to the weight/CG of the aircraft as loaded. Good luck with this one from a structural standpoint - it's EXTREMELY complex and failure prone - the complications are not worth it. How many aircraft (out of all the ones out there) use variable sweep/span/chord wings?

<rant on>I really should start charging for this sh*t (huh - can't curse on the forum, eh, Jon?). 14 years of giving it away for free... I can really understand why so many knowledgeable folks choose to stay off of mailing lists and web fora - it turns into a full time job.

Not aimed at you, Patrick. I just can't count the number of times that the same thing has been explained over and over again, with the assumption that the explanation is OWED to folks that do no research on their own.<rant /off>

Thanks Marc 😁

  • Jon Matcho changed the title to Front seat weight limit for Cozy

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information