NK-93 - PD-14 - PD-35
Author's articles
Will the PD-14 engine be better than the NK-93?

“PD-14 - engine held. In Perm, the Russian motor for the MC-21 is being prepared for the series and they are starting to create a PD-35 high-thrust engine. According to A.Inozemtsev, the PD-14 project is the most serious for the entire domestic aircraft engine industry. ”

Self-esteem is high, the beginning of the promising - let's hope that it will not befall the fate of the outstanding NK-93, about which the gene. The PD-14 designer unflatteringly replied:

“Apparently, I do not belong to the number of“ competent engine operators, ”because I do not consider the NK-93 project to be innovative, since The methodology and design tools, production technologies of NK-93 production belong to the middle of the 80-s of the last century. Respectfully, General Designer, Member of the editorial board of the journal “Engine” A. A. Inozemtsev

And it seems to be so, but for some reason, the most up-to-date PD-14, however strange it may seem, has not surpassed the “outdated” NK-93 in specific fuel consumption and cannot even put it on equal terms. And to the customer, no matter what time was used in the design of this product, he is interested in the final result: price and fuel consumption!

At the same time, I think that PD-14 really succeeded and the design characteristics were confirmed, but only in comparison with its older brother PS-90, which has the highest fuel consumption in its class: “As a result, the specific fuel consumption in cruising flight of PD-14 will fall , according to preliminary estimates, by 15% compared to existing engines: up to 0,53–0,54 kg / (kgf · h) versus 0,595 kg / (kgf · h) for PS-90 (WEAPONS OF RUSSIA).

“During the tests, we evaluated the characteristics and performance of the engine in flight conditions MC-21 - confirmed the reliability of the engine and its systems, the characteristics of the launch in flight in accordance with the requirements of the specification. The engine is currently undergoing overhaul to continue testing at ground stands. ”  

The conclusions on PD-14 are patterned, another thing on the NK-93 engine, completely different reviews:

* Vladimir Bychkov, Leading Engineer for Flight Testing, LII named after MM. Gromov:

“When the engine worked in the sky, it was time to be surprised - accidentally the“ human factor ”worked, in one of the modes NK-93 gave traction under 20 tons. And they believed that for a specific sample the 18 limit ... And the pilots wondered - the thrust is one and a half times higher than that of the standard engine (PS-90А) Il-76, and the fuel consumption is one and a half times less. Potential enviable " (Arguments of the Week, 22.06.2011).

*“The screw-fan engine, which has no analogues in its design, showed high performance during the flight tests in 2007. The degree of bypass at the NK-93 is 16,7. The specific fuel consumption according to measurements is at the level of 0,49 kg / kgf / h. ”

Theoretically, the PD-14 in price should be inferior to the Samara one, as an engine of a lower class, but that was not the case:

"The cost of NK-93 is about US $ 4.5 million, similar engines from foreign manufacturers have prices of US $ 5 million and more." (Wikimedia Foundation).

“A very subtle issue is pricing. The cost of one PD-14 is about six million dollars, and the PW1400G is 5,4 million. Would lessors agree to overpay 1,2 million dollars for a plane with a domestic engine that has the worst performance? It’s not long to wait for an answer to the question: the PD-14 series should have been launched this year. ” ("Military Industrial Courier"). Yes, there is nowhere more expensive!

“According to Alexander Inozemtsev, the PD-14 engine will be sold for a starting customer with a discount of 15-22% compared to competitors”.

Discount (eng. Discount): "Discount on the list price of goods or services provided by the seller to the consumer" (Wikipedia) It is easier to say corruption will first be paid by the State, and then the customer - where will he go!

Another curious detail!

If the Perm engine is built according to the most up-to-date technologies and assembled from the most modern materials, then it is on 1kg. Its own weight and thrust will produce more than the “outdated” NK-93 engine, respectively.  

And so:

* PD-14. - 14 000 kgf (thrust): 2870 kg (weight of the engine) = 4,878 kgf, or 1 kg. its own weight, the PD-14 engine produces a thrust of 4,878 kgf.

* NK-93. - 18kgs: 000kg, which equals 3650kg.

And on tests, he gave out a thrust equal to 20 tf, which means:

20kgf: 000kg, which equals 2650kgf. respectively NK-5.479 for 93kg. weight gave out thrust - 1kgf.

Here you have a more "perfect" PD-14, and yet the modified NK-93 will be even easier: “At present, the fans of five experimental engines are equipped with magnesium blades. However, it is supposed to install fans with blades made of epoxy graphitoplastic, with fins of the input edge made of titanium on serial and experimental engines that are planned to be produced in the future. ” (Wikimedia Foundation).

So you believe Professor A.A. Inozemtsev that their PD-14 is built with the latest technology and "is the most serious for the entire domestic aircraft engine building"? In our village, in a similar version, they said: “The ruble swings, but a kick!”

And on the horizon already looms the project PD-35

“In early January, ODK-Aviadvigatel (Perm) received from the parent United Engine Corporation an order for the production of engine-demonstrator technology (DDT) PD-35, intended for long-haul wide-body aircraft, reports bmpd with reference to the portal Aviation of Russia.

I should be glad, but the trouble is that the liberal officials (as well as the liberal designers) who rule Russia today, from small to large, are more interested in the financial beginning and zero responsibility for the final result. Presumably, the PD-35 will have the same "outstanding" finale as the PD-14: loud-sounding, but with performance characteristics that are inferior to foreign analogues, although for Russian engines this will really be progress. And in the price too! In addition, the State does not need this engine today, which was and is in the NK-93 engine. Why? Yes, because the same Il-96 with 4 engines is much safer in the air than it will be with 2 PD-35s, and most importantly, the NK-93 is almost ready, and even today it remains the best engine in the world, and the PD- 35 is a distant and unknown future. Its outside diameter is about 4m. (March 18, 2018 Aviation EXplorer). Will it touch the concrete when taxiing and taking off! For NK-93, the outer diameter of the engine is 3150mm, i.e. it will be almost half a meter higher from the ground than PD-35.

Judging by the amount allocated for the implementation of the PD-35 project, the government has plenty of money and let this project advance, good path for him, but only for the joint project of the Russian-Chinese ShFDMS, and for the IL-96 first of all, Samara is necessary engine!

And more importantly: “NK-93 is patent-free, does not require licensing for sales both in the domestic and foreign markets. The creation of a competitive engine NK-93 will allow developing the domestic aircraft industry and selling them for export without reference to a specific Russian aircraft. "

And in parallel, without delay, increase the thrust of the NK-93 to 23,5 tf. for Ruslan airplanes, which today require these engines and there is no sense for him to bother with future PD-35 engines when they are still on paper, and the designers of NK-93 promise to increase the thrust of NK-93 to 23,5 tf without problems. What the output will be PD-35 - this is another question, because earlier and for PD-14 no one doubted that it would be more modern and more economical than NK-93, but in fact - strictly the opposite!

And if we need to build more powerful engines for our planes, then, in my opinion, Samara NK-65, already forgotten, will be preferable to PD-35. Why? PD-35 is scaled PD-14, the basis of the NK-65 engine is taken from the NK-93 propeller-fan group and the gas generator from the unsurpassed NK-32 engine, which stands on the outstanding Tu-160 strategic bomber. Therefore, it will be not only smaller in diameter, but also much lighter than the PD-35 engine with the same thrust.

PD-35 weight = 8 t. (VPK.name vpk.name ›library / f / pd-35). And if we add up the weight of two engines NK-32 and NK-93: 3650 kg + 3650 kg = 7300 kg, i.e. Together they already weigh less than 8 tons, but when they "fold" separately the gas generator from the NK-32 and the propeller-fan group from the NK-93, then such an engine is unlikely to pull more than 5 tons. and the outer diameter will remain from the NK-93, which is also very important, especially for the Il-96 aircraft.

About noise NK-93

I watched on Samara television report from the test shop NK-93. A test engineer directly at a running engine tells the journalist, without raising his voice, that “While another engine was running, you would not have heard me, but this engine doesn’t roar, but hiss!”... I testify: it is “hissing” and I doubt very much that AA Inozemtsev can repeat the acoustics of the NK-14 in the PD-93 engine?

In conclusion, it should be noted that due to the efforts of “B. Khristenko, Deputy Manturov, Head of Russian Technologies S. Chemezov, General Director of OPK Oboronprom OJSC A. Reus and UAC President M. Pogosyan "(Arguments of the Week, 22.06.2011)" Currently, such aircraft engine schemes are being actively developed abroad . This promises unattainable for modern engines, fuel economy and noiselessness. An example is the promising engine "Rolls-Royce" Leap, already released for flight tests. According to the design scheme, he copies the NC-93. At the beginning of 2000, the NK-93 overtook its time and, therefore, including, obviously, was not supported by the leadership of the domestic aviation industry ”(MIC News).

So the works of these destroyers of our aircraft industry were not in vain, and after their retirement, the West will accept with open gates and will not arrest their unjustly acquired financial fortunes!

Vitaly Belyaev, especially for Avia.pro

It seems to me pointless to compare engines of different classes, different eras and different operational qualities.
Nevertheless, the NK-93 was the last century's bow (with all due respect it was made using old technologies) and did not go into production. And the figures for cost and expenses are taken from nowhere. :-)
It would be better, probably, to take some useful developments from it for new developments, the rest is a waste of time ...
Just an opinion, no more.
I’m not proving anything to anyone.

Lord! I read your comments and didn’t understand anything. If
ps-90a engine worse than nk-93 why not replace it but upgrade it! I’m not a constructor, but I worked in government agencies and I know how to lobby interests).

Yes, our love to lobby projects with which they receive kickbacks, and it turns out that the invention is better for someone who comes out more expensive because there will be more kickback! And after the rollback, another rollback and more, and then he will get his West passport and say: “Lord, I am a citizen of England!”
So it turns out that our inventors do not need the state, but in fact they don’t need a bunch of brainless, greedy reptiles, whom if you check how you checked the OBHSS before then they have cattle - everyone will have a firing squad !!!

Yes, calm down already, Samara mute sweepers, you still TU = 344 return to the masses. Let us improve the past practices, not revive them. After the NK-93 there is no development - upgrade, offer, and do not pair the development of the 80s. PD to be and is already there, and your mythically good NK irrevocably went down in history. Just cry

The article does not mention one parameter that puts an end to NK-93 - noise. It is very loud, like any fan-fan, albeit a hood. In civil aviation, this is a sentence. Only in the military if, but then what's the point of spending money on it, if you can make one move for both the military and ordinary mortals. Yes, and it can not be called ready. In addition, the replacement of PD-14 it can not be any side because of the size and power. But the PD-14 gas generator can easily be used in different versions from 7 to 35 tf. If in doubt, remember D-36 and D-18. Unification is convenient for both operators and manufacturer.

Loud? What kind of nonsense? Why so brazenly lie? Objective data just the same point to the opposite. This is one of the quietest engines. In fact, it is simply fascinating who, and most importantly why, organized this purposeful disinformation campaign NK-93.

The quietest propeller in the class.

I flew the Ka-27 coaxial and the Mi-8T, and so the Ka-27, compared to the Mi-8 and all other single-rotor helicopters, where the rear propeller is a buzzing machine, is just a "silent" helicopter, and if you supply it with screws from the Black Shark, then more than 500 meters you can barely hear it))

Already tired of this NK-93. At first he was better than PS-90A. Now he is better than PD-14. 25 years he is the best!

In the memoirs of the shipbuilder Academician Krylov it is clearly stated that the larger the diameter of the propeller, the more efficient the engine. This is due to the fact that the kinetic energy of the gas stream behind the engine is an irretrievable loss. Since energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, it is necessary to have a smaller gas velocity and a lot of gas mass. Therefore. NK-93 engine should be more efficient.

Right! But why then limit the size of NC-93? He's just something 3,15 meter. Make the engine 5 meters in diameter. A better 6. It will be even more effective.

There was such a development as high-frequency transmission, it was tested, everything worked, drove, sailed, flew, energy consumption was more cost / benefit than if you work with hydroelectric power stations, thermal power plants, and the same people as you said: - Why do we need this? In the west there and we do not need!
And so here are the developments and die.

On ekranoplanes it is necessary to put it, there it is the place.

Well? When will they shoot for sabotage? Not targeted use of public money?

How long, I ask? In the Union, both engines would be made and the funds would be found without problems. It seems that the name of this professor corresponds to his essence. Isn't it time to suppress his anti-state activities until he inflicted irreparable harm on the domestic engine building to please the Americans? Where are Putin and the FSB looking? With such a "specialist" Russia will not make a technological breakthrough. Under Stalin, I would have been in prison - this is at best.

Under Stalin, Korolev and Tupolev all worked out in well-known places. And Sikorsky managed to dump So let's not talk about Stalin

In fact, under Stalin, Gurevich and Mikoyan, Ilyushin and Lavochkin, Polikarpov and Bartini worked out everything, and never sat anywhere. There were 35 design bureaus in the country, each of which carried out 5 aircraft projects a year. Only a few were sitting in court.

Well, yes, they were located in the building of today's GIPRO NII Aviation industry. In Kazan, exactly opposite the entrance of today's Kazan Motor Plant. They lived there too. By the way, all the beds were single-tier. And Tupolev had a personal room with a bathroom.

And the fact that you are Vladimir is not working as a cleaner for John, somewhere in a run-down concentration camp, do not forget to say thanks to Comrade Stalin

Who cares where they worked if the result was achieved. And remember - slaves can not build, so do not la la about famous places.

Opponents consider all the criticism directed against the design and manufacture of "new" aircraft engines imposed by the Russian management to be antipatriotic and not constructive!?! All over the world, it is customary to develop their old aircraft engines by improving and modernizing, and our home-grown managers who have completed internships in the United States believe that we must forget all our Russian and build a new one that is efficient using Western technologies ... And where is the result? Huge budget money has been sawn and the new PD-14 aircraft engine loses out in fuel consumption to the old Russian NK-93 aircraft engine, which can be simply converted into numbers and modernized with the use of new materials and it has no equal in the world market in terms of economic efficiency, and it has no foreign components , maybe that's the whole point ?? ...

This is to the point: "he has no foreign components." How, then, do the "patriotic ... opponents" grab $ for themselves?

How long has Leap become the Rolls engine? Not to mention the outstanding lies about 20 tons allegedly shown in some kind of flight. What kind of horseradish pilots could measure in flight to state certain figures? And if it is forgotten that in the only real flight, the NK-93, due to the lack of a standard SAU, was equipped with a single-mode SAU from the gas-pumping unit and worked strictly on one, fixed mode and not for long. We took off on three full-time D-30, launched this miracle in the air, gave it a dozen minutes on one fixed mode of the low gas, turned it off and sat down again on three. Congratulations, citizen, lied!

And where do you get such data about the number of real flights, single-mode ACS (gas pumping), about launching in air and low gas?
Vladimir Bychkov is me.
I tell:
-The flights were 4, including the 1 flight for entering LL;
- in part 20 tons in flight, and even pilots - of course fiction. But the 20 tons engine showed not in flight, but in a land race. Traction is determined by depending on the fan speed;
- single-mode ACS - what is it? There was a normal ACS that they say FADEC. It is not native, but adapted from NK-31. Native did not happen. But there is no difference whatsoever;
They took off on 4-x engines! Because of fears to drive the engine on an uncleaned taxiing before the start, NK-93 was launched during the taxiing process. He took off on 0.4 mode. He recalled - far from MG, 20 minutes buzzed, then on MG and stopped through feathering. These are quite normal modes for test flight, where they go from simple to complex. And starting the engine in the air for such an engine, and even on the first flights, is a big risk.
So, that inaccuracies are present at you too.

The author of the article modestly kept silent about the resource of the engine PD-14, which several times exceeds the resource of NK-93. But in general, it is clear that a custom article, I would even say provocative, aimed at forming discontent among the population and forming a protest movement in Russia.

What resources can we talk about? The resources are assigned after life tests of single copies, controlled operation on a batch of operating facilities, based on the results of normal operation of serial samples. All this takes time. And where is the exploitation of existing samples? The engines have worked "two hours without a week" - "more resource!" ??? You can say anything you want, and then "either the donkey dies, or the padishah dies!"

On the resource of the engine, of course. Hours before overhaul.
Kuznetsovtsy have a good school of creating engines for military aircraft. Well, they squeezed the superbag, well, their engine worked for some minutes at elevated temperatures in the hot part, and the total resource of all Russian military engines is always an order of magnitude less.

Of course, the resource of the PD 14 copied and devoid of "childhood" diseases at the production stage is slightly more than that of the NK-93, but if the latter, even without the usual fine-tuning to factory production, produces fuel consumption indicators less than that of the PD-14, and the power gives out more than declared , then here, comments, as they say, are superfluous ...

Tell me please. The diameter of the fan NK-93 - 2,9 meter. The diameter of the fan PD-14 - 1,9 meter. That is, along with the gondolas, the difference will be about the same 1 meter. Now the question. How can NK-93 be placed on MS-21 or Tu-214 so that it does not cling to the ground? Top wing? How do you imagine that?

NK-93 has nothing to do with MC-21. Under the NK-93 planned projects Tu-330 and IL-106. In the future, there were plans to install the IL-96.

Judging by the latest publications in the private media in Russia, the same thing is happening in the Russian aviation industry as in the "best" capitalist economies of the world ... Namely, money from the budget is successfully spent on the development and implementation of "absolutely" new aircraft engines, when everything new is absolutely forgotten old ... Why spend a lot of money on the development of new aircraft engines from scratch when it is possible to convert the old best ones into figures, thereby increasing their economic efficiency .. Here is an example of a completely "new" aircraft engine PD-14 designed according to Western models and the old NK -93 with the best characteristics .. As far as I understand, the Perm plant has protection in the government, therefore, we made PD-14, having withdrawn a lot of money from the budget for the design and production of this aircraft engine, and the Samara plant does not have a roof in the government, but it has good proven economical engines, for example, NK-93, which do not want to develop a lobby in the Perm plant in the government ... What is the government waiting forRussia is not clear on this issue ... It is necessary to use the capabilities of the Samara Aviation Plant and allocate funds for converting at least the finished proven NK-93 into figures and everywhere where it is possible to recommend it for use in new, at least military transport aircraft ...

Correctly they say the government has a lot of money, so it is not very capable of thinking. A billion to the left, then again to the left - if we come up with a new tax or simply increase the fees. I suggest that those who do not know how to spend correctly should avoid squandering public money, and the president is responsible for this. And to be honest, if there are two options, the government or the UAC should finance two projects, and then the customers themselves will choose which is more profitable. And it has always been and will be: "Which son is nicer than that and the porridge is more satisfying."

Relax and stop arguing. The NK-93 engine will never be created. The Samara Design Bureau and associated engine-building plants have long been unable to reproduce it. KB collapsed, factories in Samara and Kazan on their last legs. Manufacturing and design technologies have been lost and cannot be restored. Of the 3000 specialists of the Samara design bureau in the 80s, no more than 300 remain now. What can they do? Plants hardly repair engines developed in the 60-80s and are not able to manufacture a new engine without problems and defects (NK-36ST and NK-38ST are well-known examples of the catastrophic quality of these plants). Therefore, NK-93 now exists only as a great idea. And it is already impossible to reproduce it for any money. And the Perm engines (the entire line of D30 - D30 2ser, D30-KP for IL-76, D30-KU for TU-154M and especially PS-90) have always been "famous" in operation for their weak design and mediocre reliability. This is a disease of the Perm school of aircraft engine building. I think the situation will not change with the PD-14. And the mediocre performance of this engine will be smeared with corruption and propaganda.

Though someone knows the truth: (

Attempt to pull an owl on the globe.
The NK-93 bandura can be inserted only on the same IL-76 or IL-96, it will not fit on the same MC-21.
Who needs it?
We were pleased with the inserts about the comments of some pilots about the superiority of NK over PS-90A.
Given the fact that the IL-76 LL on which he was tested are DK30 KP.
Gas generator from NK-32 to civilian engine ??? Well, well)) Cost effective)
About the fact that it is safe to fly on 4 engines instead of two, tell Boeing and Airbus.
This snot about the "outstanding" engine, which "Putin was not specially shown" to drag on for many years.

In fact, the project is interesting, subject to the investment of a lot of money, perhaps even promising.

What to tell Boeing and Airbus?
They have all the major long-haul with 4-i engines.

There used to be. In the 90-x, they quickly began to crowd out the 2-x motor liners. 767, 777, 787, 330, 350. Four-motor on the fingers, and those of this size, under which there is no engine of the desired power, to put 2. Now new widebody with 4 engines are bought only in extreme cases.

MC-21 has already flown to Iran.) NK-93 is a relative of NK-12, the designer is there, not managers. RF needs engines on the same AN-124, wide-body long-haul aircraft!

there will be an nk-93 engine, it is possible to upgrade the ms-21 to the top plane. (ms-21)

The old song, each designer, to the detriment of the country, is trying to promote his child, or maybe someone is financially interested. Requires a commission and a thorough investigation.

In the Soviet Union, I think, both projects would be implemented, which would contribute to the breakthrough development of domestic aviation. And this current rat race is akin to elementary sabotage of irresponsible officials for the benefit of foreign competitors. And no one will bear any responsibility for the harm caused to the prestige of the national avivtsii. Yes, today's Russia is, unfortunately, not the USSR: the scales are not the same, and the contingent is not the same.

Incorrect comparisons at every step. The diameter of the NK-93 over 3 is compared with the more powerful almost 2 times PD-35 - type 4, and PD-14 has just 2 with more than a meter ... and so on in every phrase. Some custom article ...

And again, false statements about the cost of PW1400 and the cost of PD-14, having roots, by the way, back in the 2012 year are thoughtlessly copied. The total cost of PD-14 was never called, and the cost of PW1400G, as well as its competitor LEAP-1, is at least 12-15 $ million, and not 5.

I agree! somehow cf6-80 on 767 pinched us at all is not new and there were 6 million dollars on the invoice

Dear Gregory!
Firstly, PD-14 is not in the series; it is only at the “finish line” to the series and I am afraid that the series will be even worse. Also praised the plane SSZH-100 overflow issue, but today it is not needed by anyone; they also praised the Mi-28H, and it turned out to be the most emergency helicopter, not considering its unimportant maneuverability in comparison with the KA-50.
And secondly, here my conversations about the IL-96 relate to the engines NK-93 and PD-35 and the grandmothers galosh here really nothing to do with!
Finally, take a closer look at the diagram, and there in the rightmost column you can see about PD-14 with 18 ™. for IL-96, but beats. fuel consumption will be less than the 10-15%, and only on the 3-5%. - this is again in comparison with PS-90А.

Guest: "To talk about NK-93 as a competitor to PD-14 is stupidity and stupidity."

And besides you, no one puts these engines into competitors. We are talking about the economic return of PD-14, as a super-modern engine. Previously, it was compared with PS-90, and I compared it with NK-93. And the flight speed you stuck out of place here, for it will be the same for them. Or do you think that PD-14 will carry planes in supersonic?
In diameter: 4-meter PD-35 is planned for IL-96, though two instead of four, apparently because NK-93 has a large diameter in 3.

The first time I forgot to enter the name, alas.
"Will it get any better?" - the question is about competition, is there any point in wagging?
To compare the project and the engine, ready to production, on economic return - perfectly well.
Cruising (optimal) speed, even in the same type of engine can be very different if you did not know. And in this case, the engines of different types. To think out for the interlocutor is not necessary, it is completely superfluous.
PD-14 was developed for MC-21, what have the IL-96 to explain?

Yes ... Talk about the cost of mass production of an engine that exists in one (!) Instance - truly epic.

Again, they scratched the subject ... The NK-93 engine did not pass a single (!) Test phase. Almost all given parameters are calculated. The diameter of the motor is 3 meter ... PD-14 - 2,1 meter. There is simply no place to stick it on the low plane - there will be a scrape on the ground. In terms of fuel consumption and load, the question of which modes are these parameters achieved. About this - not a word. Fuel consumption is given per hour ... And how much distance will be covered in this hour? Roughly - an engine with high fuel consumption but more speed may be more economical than an engine that spends less fuel, but also develops a much lower speed.
And besides the above, PD-14 has been tested and is ready for mass production. Characteristics confirmed repeatedly.
NK-93 - not a single operational specimen, not a single test stage has been passed, the characteristics have not been confirmed, no one is ready to produce it, and it cannot be delivered to many aircraft at all due to its large dimensions. At the moment, the engine is "paper". That is, it is on paper, but in reality it is not. The very idea of ​​such an engine is not unpromising, but in fact there is no such engine now, it must actually be developed anew. And this is at least 5-8 years of work. And nothing faster. Talking about NK-93 as a competitor to PD-14 is stupidity and stupidity.

The comparisons are completely wrong with the Guest. Both here and there, the refinement of the engines to the operating state is great, all this raw material. It is not necessary to compare with respect to anything, but to give the opportunity to bring both NK-93 and PD-14 to standard. Unfortunately, the junta Manturovsko-Pogasyanovskaya only harms the cause. Tov. Stalin would quickly stop this wrecking.

Pages

upstairs