What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Individual Circuit Breakers vs Electronic Circuit Breaker System

Status
Not open for further replies.
...and it also brings out the, "...I don't see why you didn't do it my way..." discussions, as well...

Again, I don't see any of that. I see opinions being presented.

Opinions mean "This is what I think".

Perhaps you interpret "this is what I think" as declarations that you have to do it their way but I don't see it that way.
 
…and

Again, I don't see any of that. I see opinions being presented.

Opinions mean "This is what I think".

Perhaps you interpret "this is what I think" as declarations that you have to do it their way but I don't see it that way.

…and that’s your opinion…:D
 
Scroll, tell us about those episodes. What happened, and how was the use of a VPX better than another form of circuit protection?

For example, that short circuit. What was that circuit driving? How did the VPX help you ID and troubleshoot? Same for the flap motor. Why was it running away, and how did a VPX help fix it? Be specific please.

Hi Dan.
The first event was a short in my wingtip light wiring. I had used blade connectors, both with plastic insulated blades, but I shrink-wrapped them together instead of individually. I used too-short a length of shrink wrap. Water got in under the shrink tube and shorted the circuit. VPX opened the connection, and threw me a “Short Circuit” annunciation. Tracing the wiring and connections out to the wingtip I found the moisture in that area. I redid the connections: No trouble since.

The second one was when my flap motor ran away in the up position. I was using the Ray Allen position sensor, but one of the wires came loose from the connector, allowing the motor to keep running rather than turn off automatically at the up-voltage position value I had set in VPX. VPX opened the circuit after it kept running for several seconds, annunciating a “Current Fault” in the flaps circuit (meaning a runaway circuit). I closed the “breaker” and ran the flaps up and down in VPX’s manual mode until I could trouble-shoot and fix the connection on the ground.

There’s actually a 3rd episode where VPX “saved the day.” Several years ago, my pitch trim coolie hat switch stopped working in the up direction: I couldn’t trim nose up for slower speed and flaps. By opening the VPX page on my Skyview, I ran the trim through my EFIS menu buttons, allowing for a normally-trimmed landing.

Hey, to be clear to everyone on this thread, I agree this has been a solid discussion and should continue. Nobody should select VPX just because I like it: Make your risk assessment and run with it. I’ve been VERY satisfied with VPX in KELLI GIRL. VPX has protected me in ways I’m not so sure simple fuses or CBs could do, and informed me exactly of the problem so I could troubleshoot and fix it. For me, it has been money well spent.
 
Hi Dan.
The first event was a short in my wingtip light wiring. I had used blade connectors, both with plastic insulated blades, but I shrink-wrapped them together instead of individually. I used too-short a length of shrink wrap. Water got in under the shrink tube and shorted the circuit. VPX opened the connection, and threw me a “Short Circuit” annunciation. Tracing the wiring and connections out to the wingtip I found the moisture in that area. I redid the connections: No trouble since.

The second one was when my flap motor ran away in the up position. I was using the Ray Allen position sensor, but one of the wires came loose from the connector, allowing the motor to keep running rather than turn off automatically at the up-voltage position value I had set in VPX. VPX opened the circuit after it kept running for several seconds, annunciating a “Current Fault” in the flaps circuit (meaning a runaway circuit). I closed the “breaker” and ran the flaps up and down in VPX’s manual mode until I could trouble-shoot and fix the connection on the ground.

There’s actually a 3rd episode where VPX “saved the day.” Several years ago, my pitch trim coolie hat switch stopped working in the up direction: I couldn’t trim nose up for slower speed and flaps. By opening the VPX page on my Skyview, I ran the trim through my EFIS menu buttons, allowing for a normally-trimmed landing.

Hey, to be clear to everyone on this thread, I agree this has been a solid discussion and should continue. Nobody should select VPX just because I like it: Make your risk assessment and run with it. I’ve been VERY satisfied with VPX in KELLI GIRL. VPX has protected me in ways I’m not so sure simple fuses or CBs could do, and informed me exactly of the problem so I could troubleshoot and fix it. For me, it has been money well spent.

Scroll,

These are impressive examples. Thanks for taking the time to post all that with specificity.

One thing it does suggest is that something like your Skyview interface is necessary in order to get the full value from the VPX.

Without it I get the impression that you would not have been able to troubleshoot in flight.
 
Scroll,

These are impressive examples. Thanks for taking the time to post all that with specificity.

One thing it does suggest is that something like your Skyview interface is necessary in order to get the full value from the VPX.

Without it I get the impression that you would not have been able to troubleshoot in flight.

True. It helps that I have two screens. Losing one, I still have full function on the other. If I lose both, we’ll, I have other problems.
 
I wouldn't close any thread unless it has degraded to less-than-civil or downright disrespectful interactions. I don't see that happening here.

Plus, good information is still coming out - like Scroll's experiences with his VPX.

Dave
 
Some big planes use electronic circuit breakers and electronic control of electric buses. Probably not the same brands we use in RVs though.

Personally, I'd be careful of what functions I put through a electronic circuit breaker system. For IFR primary EFIS and backup instruments would be on seperate circuit protection devices. Easy with individual circuit breakers, bit different with a single electronic circuit breaker unit.

Based on the functionality and information given by the VPX type of system, it sounds great for most devices. Excellent for troubleshooting and managing of smaller malfunctions. Not so good at those once-in-a-lifetime "oh $#!+" malfunctions, the malfunctions the manufacturers say "can't happen".

Personally, I'd keep the engine and backup instrument electrical devices off the electronic circuit breaker. Handling a major electrical problem, engine failure and total instrument failure at the same time doesn't sound like fun. One at a time, thanks.
 
One thing it does suggest is that something like your Skyview interface is necessary in order to get the full value from the VPX.
When Marc Ausman originally started Vertical Power back in the '00s, his first product had its own control box/UI. Unfortunately, Ballard Astronics chose not to continue that product when they bought the company.

At the time I was designing my electrical system, Astronics had just killed the original system and was struggling with the PPS they inherited from Marc. I was concerned about whether they were really committed to the E-AB market and whether I'd be stuck with an orphaned piece of gear if I went with the VPX. So far, time has proved me wrong!

Dave
 
Last edited:
...2 episodes of electrical components acting up...and the VPX caught the problems (one short circuit, one runaway flap motor). The VPX closed the circuits, ID'd the problems, allowed me to troubleshoot and fix the problems and reactivate the systems, both times in IFR.

In the first case, a fuse or CB would have also opened the circuit, and it couldn't be fixed in flight regardless of circuit protection.

In the second case, the root problem was dependence on a device to shut off the flap motor, a scheme we KIS fans probably wouldn't install. The current fault alert was useful, but the fault was not diagnosed or fixed in flight, just bypassed.

The ability to bypass a trim switch would certainly make continuing the flight more comfortable. I would have to reach back to the rear seat trim switch in the left armrest, by my elbow. You don't have one on the right stick?

For me, it has been money well spent.

Ain't going there!
 
Noted. VPX ain't for you. Got it.

You don't have one on the right stick?

I do. I had two options available: The other stick's trim switch and the VPX menu. I just used the VPX's capabilities.
 
Last edited:
Assume…

“I assume this wouldn’t happen if you unplug USB from your VPX.”

Lot’s of assumptions made in this thread, along with opinions being stated as fact. Let’s start with the above: the VP-X doesn’t have a USB port. Which means someone needed to install a USB port, along with the installation of the VP-X. The assumption is that the VP-X is at fault, even though there are a lot of other factors to be considered.

Other items are Mean Time Before Failure. There are several forms of that discussed here, but mostly anecdotal in nature. There is tangible data available from several studies through IEEE that indicates solid state circuit breakers are orders of magnitude more reliable than mechanical ones, yet folks clearly are stating the opposite in this thread.

I’m just hoping that anyone reading this thread will be able to parse through the hype and seek out further fact-based information.
 
Last edited:
There is tangible data available from several studies through IEEE that indicates solid state circuit breakers are orders of magnitude more reliable than mechanical ones, yet folks clearly are stating the opposite in this thread.

I’m just hoping that anyone reading this thread will be able to parse through the hype and try seek out further fact-based information.

That's the intention of the thread - to extract facts.

When you say "...studies through IEEE that indicates solid state circuit breakers are orders of magnitude more reliable than mechanical ones..." just exactly what did they test? Did they test just the electronic circuit breaker at the lowest level? If so that's nice to know but that doesn't tell the whole story.

You then have to test how that low level circuitry is incorporated in a device and what the failure rate of that might be.
 
Noted. VPX ain't for you. Got it.

Not about me. This is about separating the wheat from the chaff, or as Ron writes...

I’m just hoping that anyone reading this thread will be able to parse through the hype and try seek out further fact-based information.

That's why we're here.

I think most of us accept solid state breakers as more reliable than mechanical breakers. The issue here is the incorporation of those breakers into one unit, in concert with other hardware and software. As Gregg asks, what does that do to the unit failure rate, or given the unit serves as the core of the electrical system, the AOG rate?
 
Last edited:
That's the intention of the thread - to extract facts.

When you say "...studies through IEEE that indicates solid state circuit breakers are orders of magnitude more reliable than mechanical ones..." just exactly what did they test? Did they test just the electronic circuit breaker at the lowest level? If so that's nice to know but that doesn't tell the whole story.

You then have to test how that low level circuitry is incorporated in a device and what the failure rate of that might be.

The short answer to your question is that all of the studies I've read were conducted under load; there's little to be gained from evaluating an idle component. They generally involve cycles, load-to-failure, circuit interruption, restoration, etc... aspects of circuit analysis.

We've been using solid state relays and circuit interruption in the power industry for decades. As a matter of fact, the power to your home is almost certainly managed by solid state devices, especially after the 2003 blackout that affected a large portion of the NE US and Canadian grid. One of the follow up items from that event led to nearly all mechanical relays being replaced with solid state controls within North America.

There have been several studies performed over many years, so I encourage you to search IEEE. Most of the information is available only to IEEE members, but much of it is publicly available as well.

The whole concept of needing to stick with mechanical devices, based on presumed reliability, is humorous for me.

I'd pose, my opinion, that the great majority of experimental aircraft faults, not just electrical, are based on the installation and configuration, which makes comparing the same component in two different aircraft installations difficult. While it's nice to hear feedback that "it worked for me", or the opposite - "it didn't work for me", it's also not what I'd base a component purchase on.
 
Last edited:
The short answer to your question is that all of the studies I've read were conducted under load; there's little to be gained from evaluating an idle component. They generally involve cycles, load-to-failure, circuit interruption, restoration, etc... aspects of circuit analysis.

We've been using solid state relays and circuit interruption in the power industry for decades. As a matter of fact, the power to your home is almost certainly managed by solid state devices, especially after the 2003 blackout that affected a large portion of the NE US and Canadian grid. One of the follow up items from that event led to nearly all mechanical relays being replaced with solid state controls within North America.

There have been several studies performed over many years, so I encourage you to search IEEE. Most of the information is available only to IEEE members, but much of it is publicly available as well.

The whole concept of needing to stick with mechanical devices, based on presumed reliability, is humorous for me.

I'd pose, my opinion, that the great majority of experimental aircraft faults, not just electrical, are based on the installation and configuration, which makes comparing two different installations difficult. While it's nice to hear feedback that "it worked for me", or the opposite - "it didn't work for me", it's also not what I'd base a component purchase on.

I think you misunderstand me:

You are still talking about failure rates of "a" solid state circuit breaker.

While it's good to know that they are more reliable than mechanical that's not the entire story. So while it may seem humorous to you that some people choose to stick to mechanical due to "presumed reliability" I suspect they are talking about the entire system - the whole box complete with software. Not the solid state circuit breaker inside that box.
 
Is it possible to buy an individual electronic circuit breaker (for 14V or 28V aircraft systems) instead of an individual mechanical circuit breaker?
The problems I have with VPX type systems are:
1. You're limited to/tied to that manufacturer. If they disappear or are subject to M&A the ongoing support could be a problem.
2. Everything is in one box. Is it user repairable?
3. There's software involved. Is this mandatory for every type of electronic circuit breaker?

I've already made my choice with my "acres of breakers" on my panel (with a couple of fuses), but I'd like to learn more about "orders of magnitude" more reliable components/systems.
 
I assume you’ve done all this, but you haven’t really shared VP’s response.

Oh yes I did. After troubleshooting via RS-232 interface on the phone with VPX and my laptop and then solving it by removing the lighting charge cable from the USB panel port the feedback was: That's interesting. Glad that is works great again after disconnecting the faulty charge cord. Let us know if you have any other issues in the future.

The fact that it was a USB charge cable or even a panel-mounted USB charge port (Mid Continent TA-102 with power and ground) should have nothing to do with the end result. Basically it was one power circuit connected to one solid state breaker pin on the VPX. When that circuit was shorted with the charge cable it took down the whole system. My hangar mate who owns the bird chooses to keep on truckin'.
 
Just figured I add my first hand experience.

I did wire one airplane with circuit breakers and one with VP-X and personally I found the VP-X easier to do mainly do to access to switches, fuses etc... .

Now in terms of risks with the VP-X.

I fly VFR. If all my power went it would be slightly annoying but not more. So I am not too worried about it. Yes I could end up in IMC inadvertently but that's a double fault (my fault of getting in IMC AND the VP-X fault AT THE SAME TIME). If we designed our airplanes for double fault (having done that for some communication systems) they would be so heavy they wouldn't fly ... .

Would I use a single VP-X for an IFR airplane. Probably not. I would use two.

I stopped counting $$ I spend on my hobby a long time ago so I frankly don't care which one is a couple of $ cheaper. I like all the information I get through the VP-X and the bundling of all the function as well as the programability. Was trivial to add components over the years and reprogram the switch assignments without having to crawl under the instrument panel.

I have used it now for a bit over 500 hours. I had one issues where my alternator was failing which triggered the transponder circuit breaker due to very small power spikes.

Now I can see something positive and something negative in that experience:

1. The positive is that it caught my alternator failing way before it stopped working altogether and a fuse would have triggered preventing an in flight power loss.
2. Debugging it wasn't trivial. Mainly because people are very familiar with debugging fuses so you get lots of advice and with VP-X actual advice is far and in between with most people either voicing a pre conceived perception or taking a guess... .

I am worried about what I would replace it with if it failed and it wasn't manufactured any more. I worry about other components in my airplane for the same reason. Would be a real pain to replace it.

Overall I will put VP-X in any other airplane with a complex electrical system. Still split on the DR-1 I am building right now... .Really doesn't have that many wires and not sure if VP-X were available in WW-I :).

Oliver
 
I think you misunderstand me:

You are still talking about failure rates of "a" solid state circuit breaker.

While it's good to know that they are more reliable than mechanical that's not the entire story. So while it may seem humorous to you that some people choose to stick to mechanical due to "presumed reliability" I suspect they are talking about the entire system - the whole box complete with software. Not the solid state circuit breaker inside that box.

Circuit analysis takes into account the entire circuit, so not just a single component. There are numerous studies of both systematic approaches and singular component failures available (google can be your friend on this).

Solid state devices are key components in massive systems, such as I provided earlier. However, an IEEE study may not provide much value to the average RV builder - I provided it as a reference to the fact that one should not shun solid state devices simply because it’s not what they’re comfortable with, or may have been provided some predisposed theory of reliability, positive or negative. I stick by my position that the vast majority of experimental aircraft system failures, much like aircraft accidents, are human performance errors (pilot/builder). You may make a decision to go with fuses and/or circuit breakers, based on everything from economics to comfort level, but you still have the HPE issue, which is the low-hanging-fruit issue, not the component.

Regarding VP-X redundancy, the dual-bus design of the VP-X Pro does have independent power busses. While an unlikely failure of one bus can interrupt specific, non-redundant functions that are assigned to that bus, such as RS-232 communication to the EFIS, the other bus will continue to perform.

Having pulled the cover off and looked, the two busses feed from the same copper bar that is attached to the power post, but they are two independent systems in a common case.
 
I chose to go with a VP-X for future flexibility and the indications of issues it provides. So far in 8 years of flying twice it has alerted me to a burnt out light before I noticed them. (So much for the dependability of LED lights). Last one was a landing light (that also wing-wags). Did test on ground and were working. 5 min into flight got notice that it was not drawing current.

Flexibility has helped me from re-wiring switches. Added an e-mag last annual, and was able to re-purpose a switch I already had installed but found I never used without any switch re-wiring. Yes could have moved a few wires, but was nice that all I had to do was run a power wire for the e-mag, and change the function of a switch in software.

I do have 2 of 3 G3X screens with redundant power not using VP-X
 
Circuit analysis takes into account the entire circuit, so not just a single component. There are numerous studies of both systematic approaches and singular component failures available (google can be your friend on this).

Solid state devices are key components in massive systems, such as I provided earlier. However, an IEEE study may not provide much value to the average RV builder - I provided it as a reference to the fact that one should not shun solid state devices simply because it’s not what they’re comfortable with, or may have been provided some predisposed theory of reliability, positive or negative.......................

Those studies have very little to do with the specific ECBS units on the market such as the VP-X. Those studies do not know how the ECBS systems are designed, nor how the software was written nor what QC was followed.

It's nice to learn that solid state CB's re more reliable than mechanical - didn't know that. So I learned something. Done. Fini. No need to repeat that.

But as I say it's not enough.

That solid state CB's are "...key components in massive systems..." is nice to know, but that has practically no (not zero) value in trying to decide to use an ECBS in one's airplane. What that does tell me is that designed and operated correctly, devices using solid state CB's can be reliable.

It doesn't tell me a thing about the ECBS built for EAB aircraft, other than internally, the solid state Cb's used are reliable. PROVIDED the CB's used in the ECBS boxes are as good as the ones used in the tests you reference.

I don't know that they are.

Do you?

"...one should not shun solid state devices simply because it’s not what they’re comfortable with, or may have been provided some predisposed theory of reliability, positive or negative.."

Hence this thread.
 
Wow, I take a little break from VAF and come back to find this thread. :eek:

I'm honored that this is still being hotly debated 15 years after we first introduced ECB systems to the experimental market in 2007. Can we all agree this has taken the lead from the primer debate?

Time to grab another bucket of popcorn!
 
Wow, I take a little break from VAF and come back to find this thread. :eek:

I'm honored that this is still being hotly debated 15 years after we first introduced ECB systems to the experimental market in 2007. Can we all agree this has taken the lead from the primer debate?

Time to grab another bucket of popcorn!

Marc, I enjoy the memory so many moons ago when we sat under the stars in deep South West Texas whilst you had a plan to stir this pot :). The beans were good and the stars were bright. Good times! I guess we all recount a simpler time in some form.
 
… the feedback was: That's interesting. Glad that is works great again after disconnecting the faulty charge cord. Let us know if you have any other issues in the future.

I like the philosophy behind ECBS, but this is a definite strike against VP.

Thanks for sharing.
 
Changing tack slightly... Has anyone tried MGL's ECB offering, or compared how it functions compared to VPX?
 
Changing tack slightly... Has anyone tried MGL's ECB offering, or compared how it functions compared to VPX?

Changing tack again...
https://www.astronics.com/advanced-electronic-systems/1448-ecbu

This is for commercial aircraft 28v and 115vac. However this brings up the point planes like B787 use electronic circuit breakers. The real point of them is remote monitoring and control with reduced wiring and increased data on status of electrical system. With a commercial airliner it is far easier to run one feed line to an area then have local busses controlled by a ECB controller. Airliners did this with traditional CB's in cargo hold, tail, things that did not need to be reset in flight. They are using ECB control centers to control and protect critical devices locally. So small gauge data wires and one large feed replaces discreet wires running from the cockpit to individual CB's.

B787 is a very electric plane. Instead of hydraulic lines running out to control ailerons, spoilers and flaps, they have local electrically powered hydraulic units. So only wires need to be run. Using a ECB control center in that area there are less individual long wire runs. The large feed wire has it's own current protection. Also the data from the controller can tell the computer about the condition of the motor. Very clever.

If you followed all that, advantage ECB's, not as great on small planes as large planes. It is not new or unproven technology. Related is the CANBUS on cars, motorcycles for many years, it has pros and cons. CANBUS can be a nightmare. If you want to connect trailer lights direct to your tail lights, forget it. Need another CANBUS controller. The electrical system is controlled through software basically. If it detects extra load it shuts down. It may be great, may not be great. The great part is I can connect a special diagnostic cable from the cars data port to my laptop, running very specific software for my car (VW), I can read all kind of data, down to actual voltage at a specific device. It knows if there is an open or short or higher resistance. Pretty cool but complicated. Bottom line is you can't screw around with the electrical system freely. Even changing a light bulb to a different kind may cause it to get confused.
 
Last edited:
Changing tack again...
https://www.astronics.com/advanced-electronic-systems/1448-ecbu

This is for commercial aircraft 28v and 115vac. However this brings up the point planes like B787 use electronic circuit breakers. The real point of them is remote monitoring and control with reduced wiring and increased data on status of electrical system. With a commercial airliner it is far easier to run one feed line to an area then have local busses controlled by a ECB controller. Airliners did this with traditional CB's in cargo hold, tail, things that did not need to be reset in flight. They are using ECB control centers to control and protect critical devices locally. So small gauge data wires and one large feed replaces discreet wires running from the cockpit to individual CB's.

B787 is a very electric plane. Instead of hydraulic lines running out to control ailerons, spoilers and flaps, they have local electrically powered hydraulic units. So only wires need to be run. Using a ECB control center in that area there are less individual long wire runs. The large feed wire has it's own current protection. Also the data from the controller can tell the computer about the condition of the motor. Very clever.

If you followed all that, advantage ECB's, not as great on small planes as large planes. It is not new or unproven technology. Related is the CANBUS on cars, motorcycles for many years, it has pros and cons. CANBUS can be a nightmare. If you want to connect trailer lights direct to your tail lights, forget it. Need another CANBUS controller. The electrical system is controlled through software basically. If it detects extra load it shuts down. It may be great, may not be great. The great part is I can connect a special diagnostic cable from the cars data port to my laptop, running very specific software for my car (VW), I can read all kind of data, down to actual voltage at a specific device. It knows if there is an open or short or higher resistance. Pretty cool but complicated. Bottom line is you can't screw around with the electrical system freely. Even changing a light bulb to a different kind may cause it to get confused.

I think you are a little confused about the 787 hydraulic and electrical systems. There are 3 separate hydraulic systems - 2 are engine driven and the third is electrically powered ( can be powered by either engine) The last time I looked they were all 5000 psi systems. The flight control surfaces each have a minimum of 2 actuators per surface that are powered from different electrical systems, different, flight control computers, and a different combination of hydraulic systems. Each actuator has local electronics that control the actuator via two data busses. The actuators use analog loop closure. The control data bus has a single level of redundancy - so each actuator has two data busses going to it for integrity and fault isolation. The electrical,hydraulic and flight control systems are designed to ensure that any single failure is easily identified, isolated and it still would require a number of additional failures before a loss of function occurrs. This is all typical engineering for a large transport part 121 airplane. Interesting, but completely beyond the scope of simple single engine RV aircraft even if we do have glass displays that remind us of the heavy metal.
There is absolutely no comparison between the VPX and the Ashtronics products you provided the link to. They may have come from the same parent company but one is designed to DO254,DO178 and tested to DO160 comensurate with being certified and installed on transport level aircraft. The other product is of unknown pedigree because the manufacturer doesn’t specify any standards that are met. It’s possible but a big stretch to connect the two and the likelyhood that the two products are linked after the first modification to either software or hardware and subsequent verification testing is zero.
KT
 
missing the forrest for the trees

I like the philosophy behind ECBS, but this is a definite strike against VP.

Thanks for sharing.

Is it a strike against the ECB solution or is a strike against the Garmin solution? Both? Neither? Is it not odd that this thread hasn't gotten around to questioning how it is that someone spends $10k, $20k or $40k on a top of the line system of flight instruments and that system, along with the entire electrical system, gets totally bricked by plugging in a $2.4k box of transistors? How about one that gets bricked by a $3 7Eleven brand USB cord? As a guy currently trying to decide on an electrical system design, I look at the singular red box incident cited in this thread and conclude that the fault logic of that electrical system, as installed, wouldn't meet my needs *regardless* of the hardware used.
 
Last edited:
Is it a strike against the ECB solution or is a strike against the Garmin solution? Both? Neither? Is it not odd that this thread hasn't gotten around to questioning how it is that someone spends $10k, $20k or $40k on a top of the line system of flight instruments and that system, along with the entire electrical system, gets totally bricked by plugging in a $2.4k box of transistors? How about one that gets bricked by a $3 7Eleven brand USB cord? As a guy currently trying to decide on an electrical system design, I look at the singular red box incident cited in this thread and conclude that the fault logic of that electrical system, as installed, wouldn't meet my needs *regardless* of the hardware used.

We get it, you don't like the VPX solution.

So don't use it.

That doesn't mean that others shouldn't use it.

Build what you want, want what you build.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top