dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:04 am

There has been a lot of talk about the 787 being stretched to a -10 and even a -11, but is this possible?

Does anyone know what size the 767 was designed for? (as in the -200 or the -300)
When looking at the 767, if the plane was designed to be the size of the 767-200 the plane was then stretched to the -300 and finally the -400. So if the wings and everything were designed for the 762, then stretching it twice worked.

For the 787 it seems as if everything was developed for the 787-8 version. It was stretched once for the -9 (nothing much for the -3 just winglets).

So when stretching the 787 to a -10 would the wings need to be changed or would the current wings be sufficient? It seems that if they stretched it for a -10 and were forced to redesign the wings then they might as well look at developing a -11 model to become the new 777s, (only if they have to change the wings for a -10 model)

So can it be done?
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 4536
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:21 am

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
Does anyone know what size the 767 was designed for? (as in the -200 or the -300)
When looking at the 767, if the plane was designed to be the size of the 767-200 the plane was then stretched to the -300 and finally the -400. So if the wings and everything were designed for the 762, then stretching it twice worked.

I'm pretty sure the 764 has more of a 777 wing and gear but i might be wrong?
New airliners.net web site sucks.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1767
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:37 am

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
So can it be done?

Yes. Otherwise Boeing wouldn't talk about the 787-10 as a matter of "when", not "if".

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
So when stretching the 787 to a -10 would the wings need to be changed or would the current wings be sufficient?

That all depends on the desired payload and range demanded by airline customers, which drive the required maximum takeoff weight. The existing wings and landing gear are limited to carrying roughly 550,000 lb. Above that, field performance, initial cruise altitude, and landing gear pavement loading become unacceptable. There is a fork in the road: keep the takeoff weight under 550,000 lb and suffer the limited performance, or design a new wing and landing gear to break decisively into 777 territory.

Boeing's choice is an important move in the game of chess being played against the Airbus product strategy.
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:45 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 2):

that makes sense, it seems to me that if Boeing wants to quickly compete with the A350 they have to do a quick 777 refresh or rush a redesign on the new 787 wing to make an A350 competitor, but how expensive is it to make a new wing
 
ha763
Posts: 3168
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:48 am

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 1):
I'm pretty sure the 764 has more of a 777 wing and gear but i might be wrong?

The 767-400 has the same wing as the -200/-300. The increased span comes from the raked wingtips, which are 7 ft 8 in (2.34 m) long and increased wing span by 14 ft 3 in (4.35 m). For the landing gear, only the wheels, tires, and brakes on the main gear are the same as the 777.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1549
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:19 am

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
There has been a lot of talk about the 787 being stretched to a -10 and even a -11, but is this possible?

Not if Boeing doesn't find a big stash of fasteners!
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:39 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 2):
The existing wings and landing gear are limited to carrying roughly 550,000 lb. Above that, field performance, initial cruise altitude, and landing gear pavement loading become unacceptable. There is a fork in the road: keep the takeoff weight under 550,000 lb and suffer the limited performance, or design a new wing and landing gear to break decisively into 777 territory.

A suitable engine wouldn't go amiss, either........  Smile

Regards
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:06 am

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
There has been a lot of talk about the 787 being stretched to a -10 and even a -11, but is this possible?

Absolutely. Factoring in the 787's wider fuselage diameter and CFRP construction techniques, a 69m 787-10. 75m 787-11 and even 80m 787-12 are all quite doable without the structural inefficiencies that affected the A340-600.

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
So when stretching the 787 to a -10 would the wings need to be changed or would the current wings be sufficient?

The current wings can support almost 100,000lbs more weight then the undercarriage (640,000lbs vs. 560,000lbs). However, their efficiency at that MTOW would be compromised a bit compared to how they are now at a 540,000lb MTOW, which is why many of us advocate a new wing for a 787HGW.

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
It seems that if they stretched it for a -10 and were forced to redesign the wings then they might as well look at developing a -11 model to become the new 777s, (only if they have to change the wings for a -10 model)

I envision an entire family of 787HGWs, including ER and LR models as well as an eventual freighter.

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
So can it be done?

Most certainly.
 
Carls
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:22 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:35 am

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
Not if Boeing doesn't find a big stash of fasteners!

 thumbsup 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Absolutely. Factoring in the 787's wider fuselage diameter and CFRP construction techniques, a 69m 787-10. 75m 787-11 and even 80m 787-12 are all quite doable without the structural inefficiencies that affected the A340-600.

For those who don't know the 787 program that well can you explain us based in what information (any link, or numbers or something that you can share with us) can you state that the 787 because the CFRP construction techniques can be stretched three more times.

I would like to know what structural inefficiencies affected the A340-600, I wasn't aware of it. Other than the first up to the number 6 were with fuel inefficiencies. But I never heard about any structural inefficiencies.

Thank you in advance.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:12 pm

Quoting Carls (Reply 8):
I would like to know what structural inefficiencies affected the A340-600, I wasn't aware of it. Other than the first up to the number 6 were with fuel inefficiencies. But I never heard about any structural inefficiencies.

Because of her length, the A340-600 required not-insignificant structural reinforcement to the fuselage, which resulted in a not-insignificant rise in her MEW which impacts her overall performance and efficiency.

The only reason I bring it up is because the first question folks ask about a 787 stretch is "will it suffer from the same phenomena that affects the A340-600?", so I was just heading off that question. Again, it wasn't a slap at the A340-600 for the sake of taking a slap at the A340-600.

Quoting Carls (Reply 8):
For those who don't know the 787 program that well can you explain us based in what information (any link, or numbers or something that you can share with us) can you state that the 787 because the CFRP construction techniques can be stretched three more times.

The greater fuselage diameter of the 787 will naturally support a longer stretch. Also, the greater strength of the CFRP being used to build the 787's fuselage (vis-a-vis aircraft Al) requires less material to provide the necessary structural reinforcement to support such a stretch and the material itself is lighter, both contributing to a lower "MEW creep" versus aircraft Al.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:50 pm

Whether or not Boeing goes with a HGW version of the 787 will depend on whether or not they decide to go for Y3 for a 777-747 replacement. I believe that is their long-term plan, and so I do not expect them to raise the MTOW of the 787. They have announced that they will build the 787-10, but my expectation that it will have the same wing and landing gear as the rest, and will thus have shorter range. Y3 will then start at a slightly larger size, but with very long range, and go up to 400-450 seats. My  twocents 
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Carls
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:22 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:35 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Because of her length, the A340-600 required not-insignificant structural reinforcement to the fuselage, which resulted in a not-insignificant rise in her MEW which impacts her overall performance and efficiency.

The only reason I bring it up is because the first question folks ask about a 787 stretch is "will it suffer from the same phenomena that affects the A340-600?", so I was just heading off that question. Again, it wasn't a slap at the A340-600 for the sake of taking a slap at the A340-600.

Thank you, I asked you because I heard about it before but I did not know what really happened.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
The greater fuselage diameter of the 787 will naturally support a longer stretch. Also, the greater strength of the CFRP being used to build the 787's fuselage (vis-a-vis aircraft Al) requires less material to provide the necessary structural reinforcement to support such a stretch and the material itself is lighter, both contributing to a lower "MEW creep" versus aircraft Al.

Do you have any link were I can look for more information. Thank you.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:39 pm

Quoting Carls (Reply 11):
Do you have any link were I can look for more information. Thank you.

Alas, I do not. My knowledge (such as it is) about it is an amalgamation of scores of articles and discussions here and elsewhere with aerospace engineers (including A340 and 787 engineers). It has been discussed in greater depth both in this forum (CivAv) and the TechOps forum, so a search might return some hits that explain the specifics about it in greater depth.
 
pizzaandplanes
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 10:17 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:00 pm

Some planes just don't stretch well...
A real man lands where he wants to
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 4536
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:02 pm

Quoting Ha763 (Reply 4):
The 767-400 has the same wing as the -200/-300. The increased span comes from the raked wingtips, which are 7 ft 8 in (2.34 m) long and increased wing span by 14 ft 3 in (4.35 m). For the landing gear, only the wheels, tires, and brakes on the main gear are the same as the 777.

i was close thanks for the info!
New airliners.net web site sucks.
 
FRNT787
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:04 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:50 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
envision an entire family of 787HGWs, including ER and LR models as well as an eventual freighter.

 checkmark 

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10):
Whether or not Boeing goes with a HGW version of the 787 will depend on whether or not they decide to go for Y3 for a 777-747 replacement.

IMO, Boeing will forego the orignal plan for a Y3 for many years, as the 787 will grow and cover a much larger market than originally planned, due to the A350's new size (i.e. one that competes with the 787/777 combo on most fronts, except 787-8,3). It is possible that Boeing will mainly market the 747-8 in the market between the 777 and A-380. So Y3 will actually depend, again in my opinion, on what becomes of the 787 family in the coming years.
"We have a right to fail, because failure makes us grow" --Glenn Beck
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1767
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:02 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 6):
A suitable engine wouldn't go amiss, either

 checkmark  thank you sir. The GEnx can't grow much, as has been amply discussed in connection with the A350 XWB.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The current wings can support almost 100,000lbs more weight then the undercarriage (640,000lbs vs. 560,000lbs).

I don't know where this number came from, but it does stretch the limits of what has been done before. At 640 klbs the wing would be ~10% more loaded than the heaviest 777s. That can't be very good for field performance.

Quoting Carls (Reply 8):
I would like to know what structural inefficiencies affected the A340-600, I wasn't aware of it.

At spec empty weight, the A346 weighs 562 kg/m2 of cabin. The 77W weighs 505 kg/m2 of cabin. That's 11% worse than its direct competitor.

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 15):
So Y3 will actually depend, again in my opinion, on what becomes of the 787 family in the coming years.

One could equally claim the opposite: what becomes of the 787 family in the coming years depends on the Y3 strategy. That's what makes this decision so much more interesting than a routine stretch.
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:05 am

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 15):
Y3 will actually depend, again in my opinion, on what becomes of the 787 family in the coming years.

- yep, and of 787/787HGW addressing 767-777 seat range and Y3 addressing that of 777-747, the former looks much more probable as 777 market should be addressed today. A350 doesn't allow Boeing to wait until it's ready for all-new design. Plus, 400+ seaters sales are just poor. It may change in not so distant future, but ~350 seat range must be addressed now.
 
airbusted
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:05 pm

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:19 am

is the wing loading a constant in the effectiveness of the stretch as opposed the field performance? Would a wing of the same area but achieving greater lift allow a bigger stretch without increasing the size and thus weight and drag of the wing?
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:47 am

what would the economics be of using composite panels on the 777 as a quick solution?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:19 pm

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 19):
what would the economics be of using composite panels on the 777 as a quick solution?

Lower MEW, which would improve fuel burn at current payloads or allow airlines to carry larger payloads for equivalent fuel burns as to today.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:26 pm

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 19):
what would the economics be of using composite panels on the 777 as a quick solution?

It's not that simple. Just substituting CFRP for the same parts made of aluminum would not yield anywhere near the weight savings as redesigning it with CFRP construction. You'd also have all the problems of mating aluminum and CFRP, unless you made the frame CFRP as well. By the time you're done you might as well start over with a full CFRP fuselage, at which point you might as well make a new plane.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:52 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 21):
Just substituting CFRP for the same parts made of aluminum would not yield anywhere near the weight savings as redesigning it with CFRP construction.

But it evidently does help, based on what Airbus is expecting for the A350.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:18 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
But it evidently does help, based on what Airbus is expecting for the A350.

Well, the A350 is a whole new plane. They tried to "spruce up" the A330 and got laughed off the block. I suspect Boeing would encounter the same reaction if they tried to do the same with the 777. After all, the A330 and 777 are similar technology planes of almost the same age; the A330 excels at short to medium routes and the 777 is the best long range airliner currently in service, so I don't see how Boeing will be any more successful at trying to upgrade without starting over than Airbus was.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:42 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 23):
I don't see how Boeing will be any more successful at trying to upgrade without starting over than Airbus was

- hardly "any more" successful, indeed, just to keep the line running, staying attractive for existing 777 customers for incremental fleet renewals and to improve 787/777 combo competitiveness. May be quite a winner in quite a few situations. But I'm yet to get an answer on a question asked couple of times in other threads: which upgrade of 777 would worth the resources to be invested there rather than to 787HGW?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:20 pm

Quoting RIX (Reply 24):
But I'm yet to get an answer on a question asked couple of times in other threads: which upgrade of 777 would worth the resources to be invested there rather than to 787HGW?

Likely none by Boeing. However, with the Japanese heavies building the 787 doing the same on the 777, one wonders if they might find financing any updates...
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3938
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:48 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 16):
I don't know where this number came from, but it does stretch the limits of what has been done before. At 640 klbs the wing would be ~10% more loaded than the heaviest 777s. That can't be very good for field performance.

Higher wing loading has a, (I believe), greater negative effect on low speed performance than high speed performance. Higher wing loading will result in a higher stall speed, which results in higher takoff/landing speeds and more runway required. These effects can usually be countered, (up to a point), with higher lift flaps/slats.

Higher wing loading, (resulting from a smaller wing), can actually have a lift/drag benefit. Less surface/frontal area, (all else being equal), usually means less drag. That's why planes like the Mig 25, (just one example), clipped their wings when trying to increase the top speed. The F-104 came with clipped wings right out of the box. Even with blown flaps, the stall speed was still north of 200mph.

There are plenty of other examples where clipped wings are used to lower drag and increase top speed. (Here's where you can google 'cause I can't be arsed to).

Higher wing loading can have an added benefit of a smoother ride in rough air.

If the 787 wing can structually take a high enough gross weight to create the -10/11/whatever, finding space for extra fuel/wheels, will be a bigger problem than adapting the current wing to the bigger planes.
What the...?
 
airbusted
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:05 pm

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:42 pm

There is another couple of aspects to stretching the aircraft and increasing range i would imagine. firstly engines not only in efficiency in terms of thrust and fuel burn but also weight. The second being the fuel itself both in terms of its expansion rate ( the size of its explosive nature per volume) and the weight of the fuel itself. I dont know the specific weight of jet fuel but if it were 900 grams per litre water is the standard i belive at 1 litre weighing 1 kilogram) then an aircraft carrying 150,000 litres of fuel is then carrying 135 metric tonnes of non revenue weight. it the fuel could either be manufactured to be 2% lighter that would save 2.7 metric tons in weight allowing more seats/ fuel capcity/ IFE/ or a modest stretch offset. in the same way if the power of the fuel is increased (like buying high octane fuel for your car) then that 135 metric tons of fuel gets you 2% better fuel economy then the savings add up. I am sure fuel companies, engine and airframe manufacturers and the military are striving to improve these and other areas continually. 1% here 0.5% there it all adds up a better aircraft flying father, carrying more and or using less resources.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:54 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 26):
Higher wing loading has a, (I believe), greater negative effect on low speed performance than high speed performance. Higher wing loading will result in a higher stall speed, which results in higher takoff/landing speeds and more runway required

Correct.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 26):
Higher wing loading, (resulting from a smaller wing), can actually have a lift/drag benefit

It will have a drag benefit in respect of wetted area, certainly.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 26):
If the 787 wing can structually take a high enough gross weight to create the -10/11/whatever, finding space for extra fuel/wheels, will be a bigger problem than adapting the current wing to the bigger planes.

The difficulties that arise if the wing doesn't grow are (IMO)

Firstly it drives a substantially larger engine thrust requirement, which may demand a bigger/heavier engine.
Secondly, although the wetted area drag won't change, lift drag will rise proportionally to the MTOW increase.
The best way to overcome this is to increase the wing-span, which is why, a) the 789 has a 2m greater span than the 788, and b) why the A380 has a huge 80m wing-span (the A380, I believe generates LESS lift drag than the 748i as a result, but obviously has much higher area drag).

All other things being equal, the sizing of the A350 wingspan would indicate that a heavier 787 would have its optimum wingspan at around 64m.
As you say, if Boeing can keep the weights of HGW 787's below those of their A350 counterparts, then they may well elect to match the A350's 64m span, but with a lower area wing (i.e. higher aspect ratio), which would endow them with an overall drag advantage.

Regards
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3938
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:36 pm

If the wing is structurally capable of lifting the necessary higher gross weights, then I'm sure it's strong enough, (or can be fairly simple made to be), to handle a few extra meters of span at the tips.

In any case, if the -9 wing can take the higher gross weights, the wing will not be the deal breaker for a weight increase.
What the...?
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Can The 787 Be Stretched?

Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:58 pm

Quoting Carls (Reply 8):
For those who don't know the 787 program that well can you explain us based in what information (any link, or numbers or something that you can share with us) can you state that the 787 because the CFRP construction techniques can be stretched three more times.

The limiting factor for stress in an Al fuselage is damage tolerance (fatigue). Fatigue performance is fanstastically sensitive to stress...increase the stress by 10% and you decrease the fatigue life by roughly 33%. CFRP is almost immune to fatigue, so your major design concern switches to static loading and impact resistance, which does not go up as fast with a stretch.

Quoting Carls (Reply 8):
I would like to know what structural inefficiencies affected the A340-600, I wasn't aware of it. Other than the first up to the number 6 were with fuel inefficiencies. But I never heard about any structural inefficiencies.

The A340-600, for what it does, is heavy.

Quoting Airbusted (Reply 18):
Would a wing of the same area but achieving greater lift allow a bigger stretch without increasing the size and thus weight and drag of the wing?

You can't increase lift on a fixed size wing and not increase drag. Form drag stays the same but induced drag goes up as the square of the lift (all other things being equal).

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 19):
what would the economics be of using composite panels on the 777 as a quick solution?

Horrible. Incorporation in production would be so difficult and expensive that it would run over the potential gains in performance.

Quoting Airbusted (Reply 27):
it the fuel could either be manufactured to be 2% lighter that would save 2.7 metric tons in weight allowing more seats/ fuel capcity/ IFE/ or a modest stretch offset.

The only way to make fuel lighter but keep the same energy is to increase the energy density of the fuel. This isn't a trivial technical problem and it's certainly not trivial when you take cost of the fuel into account.

Quoting Airbusted (Reply 27):
in the same way if the power of the fuel is increased (like buying high octane fuel for your car)

Have to go off on a tangent here. Higher octane fuel has no additional power over lower octane. It allows your engine to produce more power (higher efficiency) by hiking the compression ratio but that's a particular feature of the Otto cycle...it doesn't apply to Brayton cycle engines (like jets).

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
If the wing is structurally capable of lifting the necessary higher gross weights, then I'm sure it's strong enough, (or can be fairly simple made to be), to handle a few extra meters of span at the tips.

That doesn't necessarily follow since the load distribution change isn't the same in both cases.

Tom.

Who is online