Author Topic: Thiel's Pixel Mutilations (Read 35222 times)

Thiel · « **on:** February 08, 2012, 05:49:53 AM »

We've got entirely too many aircraft around here and nowhere near as many ships as we need, so I thought I'd post a few of my creations.

All three ships belongs to an alternate Denmark I'm working on.

A destroyer based on the Peder Skram Class frigate. This is how she looked at the end of her life. I've got her earlier guises on the slip, but they're not quite finished yet.

A cruiser project from the early twenties.

An inshore minesweeper based on a SeaCoaster hull

apophenia · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2012, 06:00:19 AM »

We are an aviation-obsessed lot, aren't we

I'm not all that boat-y myself but I do like that SeaCoaster minesweeper. Looking forward to hearing more about your Alternative Denmark too!

JP Vieira · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2012, 06:06:21 PM »

I am, for sure, obssed with aviation, but I do enjoy ships (and tanks and other machinery...) and your's is great! Good Job.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2012, 06:47:43 PM »

Nice work.

Thiel · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2012, 06:55:59 PM »

Thank you.
Here's a couple more

A tender based on a real proposal from 1922

The preliminary design for what became the Springeren class

A real proposal for a frigate to replace the Hunts and Flower class ships in the RDN. Discarded in favour of the Peder Skram class

Two proposed aircraft for the RDN from the thirties.

Empty Handed · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2012, 05:18:59 AM »

Nice ships! I have to say that the destroyer and frigate both have a very British look to them. The destroyer looks like a cousin of the Type 42 and the frigate has a bit of a Leander look to it.

I like your aircraft but wasn't the HM.3 the Dantorp/Horsley biplane??

Thiel · « **Reply #6 on:** February 09, 2012, 05:39:15 AM »

Quote from: Empty Handed on February 09, 2012, 05:18:59 AM

Nice ships! I have to say that the destroyer and frigate both have a very British look to them. The destroyer looks like a cousin of the Type 42 and the frigate has a bit of a Leander look to it.

Thanks. The destroyer is probably closer to a Charles F. Adams tuned for the Baltic rather than a Type 42 though, and the frigate is essentially a Danish Type 41.

Quote from: Empty Handed on February 09, 2012, 05:18:59 AM

I like your aircraft but wasn't the HM.3 the Dantorp/Horsley biplane??

Nope, that's the H.B. III

apophenia · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2012, 11:14:16 AM »

EH: the RW Marinens Flyvevæsen designations of the time included the landing gear style, wing layout description, and type number. The former included F (flyvebåd or flying boat); H (hydroplan or floatplane); and L (landfly or wheeled gear). Wing layouts were, obviously, B (biplan) and M (monoplan). Type numbers were rendered as Roman numerals.

The MF seems to have contracted descriptions (eg: hydrobiplan) while the main aircraft maker, Orlogsvæft, broke these down with its initials as suffix (eg: OV-hydro biplan). This is also shown in OV-J-01 which was the manufacturer's designation, not the potential end user's.

BTW, the Orlogsvæft's March 1938 H.M.III concept was basically for a H.M.II (Heinkel HE 8 replacement). The requirement was dropped when it was concluded that naval reconnaissance no longer dictated a float gear.

As Thiel said, the Dantorp was designated H.B.III. I presume that the H.B.IV was to be the undelivered Heinkel He-114s (the contract wasn't signed until 02 March 1940).

The OV-J-01 (for Orlogsværftet Jager 01) project was proceeded with but the localled-made Fairey P.4/34 (L.M.I) had priority. With the OV-J-01 (aka Marinejager) lagging, the MF ordered 12 interim Macchi C.200s from Italy. Since neither type was delivered, we can't be sure which design would have received the L.M.III designation (L.M.II being the KZ-II Sport lightplane).

I have a soft spot for things Danish ... hope this nerdy diversion doesn't come off as too JMN-ish $:-\$

apophenia · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2012, 07:48:18 AM »

I dug out an old whif take on the Danish H.M.III requirement. As an HE 8 replacement, I decided to stick with Heinkel and went with a floaty variation on the He-170.

Thiel · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2012, 05:50:05 PM »

Nice, but it would probably have had the same silver paint-job as the other navy aircraft. Only the army used camouflage.

Thiel · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:04:56 AM »

Another one.

This drawing came about as part of a friendly competition we had over at Shipbucket a while back.

And here she is with mines.

apophenia · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2012, 11:07:26 AM »

Very interesting Thiel. Would this frigate/minelayer replace RW 'Cruiser Corvettes' like Valkyrien or introduce an entirely new frigate class?

Aircraft Camouflage: That RW silver scheme gave way to 2-tone camouflage just before the invasion. L.B. V Nimrods got their's in 1939. IIRC, the Heinkels were re-painted in early 1940 (the Greenland-based HE 8s were an exception, they kept their high-visibility red schemes). See this Orlogsmuseets H.M.II photo:

http://www.navalhistory.dk/images/Luftfartoejer/PopUp/HeinkelHE8(HMII).jpg

Thiel · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2012, 06:34:16 PM »

Quote from: apophenia on February 13, 2012, 11:07:26 AM

Very interesting Thiel. Would this frigate/minelayer replace RW 'Cruiser Corvettes' like Valkyrien or introduce an entirely new frigate class?

Neither. In my timeline the Valkyrien class was retired just after WWI like they should have been. They were replaced by the cruiser I posted above. The rapid increase in cruiser capabilities in the inter-war period meant that Denmark couldn't afford to build a replacement class, so instead they built the Sehested class.

Quote from: apophenia on February 13, 2012, 11:07:26 AM

Aircraft Camouflage: That RW silver scheme gave way to 2-tone camouflage just before the invasion. L.B. V Nimrods got their's in 1939. IIRC, the Heinkels were re-painted in early 1940 (the Greenland-based HE 8s were an exception, they kept their high-visibility red schemes). See this Orlogsmuseets H.M.II photo:

http://www.navalhistory.dk/images/Luftfartoejer/PopUp/HeinkelHE8(HMII).jpg

Oh, didn't know that. Well, you live and you learn.

Thiel · « **Reply #13 on:** February 14, 2012, 09:05:25 PM »

Not a Whif, though some serious WAGging was involved.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #14 on:** February 15, 2012, 02:27:26 AM »

Thiel · « **Reply #15 on:** February 15, 2012, 03:20:12 AM »

Blue Steel with a more appropriate paint scheme.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #16 on:** February 15, 2012, 03:59:15 AM »

Love it!

Thiel · « **Reply #17 on:** February 15, 2012, 07:27:23 AM »

And now for something entirely different.

apophenia · « **Reply #18 on:** February 15, 2012, 07:28:36 AM »

Always liked the look of that late-model Canso in Danish colours! (Oh, and thanks for the explanation on the frigate/minelayer.)

Thiel · « **Reply #19 on:** February 15, 2012, 07:37:17 AM »

Quote from: apophenia on February 15, 2012, 07:28:36 AM

Always liked the look of that late-model Canso in Danish colours! (Oh, and thanks for the explanation on the frigate/minelayer.)

Everyone loves Hi-Viz.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #20 on:** February 15, 2012, 04:59:36 PM »

Quote from: Thiel on February 15, 2012, 07:27:23 AM

And now for something entirely different.

Well that is certainly different. Keen to see more.

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #21 on:** February 16, 2012, 04:57:46 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on February 15, 2012, 04:59:36 PM

Quote from: Thiel on February 15, 2012, 07:27:23 AM
And now for something entirely different.

Well that is certainly different. Keen to see more.

I wonder if a model 1860 U.S. light cavalry saber is next?

Brian da Basher

Thiel · « **Reply #22 on:** February 16, 2012, 06:37:53 AM »

Actually the USS Newport LST-1179 is next.

If you've got a picture or drawing that shows it in profile I can do the sabre after that.
If anyone have one of the Pattern 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword I'll do that as well.

Thiel · « **Reply #23 on:** February 16, 2012, 07:53:25 AM »

I'm not entirely sure why, but people on another forum kept asking me to do a butter knife.

raafif · « **Reply #24 on:** February 17, 2012, 07:32:01 AM »

I thought that

was a BUTTER-KNIFE !!

Thiel · « **Reply #25 on:** February 21, 2012, 04:31:46 PM »

Okay so it's not the USS Newport. I got distracted and drew this instead. It happens alot.

JP Vieira · « **Reply #26 on:** February 21, 2012, 07:15:21 PM »

Very good!

elmayerle · « **Reply #27 on:** February 22, 2012, 01:04:15 PM »

Nice open space there for helicopters, Harriers, and V-22s to land on.

finsrin · « **Reply #28 on:** February 22, 2012, 01:48:59 PM »

Me thought same as elmayerle.

Thiel · « **Reply #29 on:** February 23, 2012, 05:58:43 AM »

I'll admit that the thought of landing a Harrier there, let alone a helicopter on the cargo deck hadn't crossed my mind.
In fact I don't think it would have crossed Ian "Soapy" Watson's mind either.

Thiel · « **Reply #30 on:** June 12, 2012, 07:38:54 PM »

Time for some proper wifs.

Reconnaissance drones based on the Meggit BTT-3 Banshee 500 target drone.

apophenia · « **Reply #31 on:** June 13, 2012, 07:01:07 AM »

Quote from: Thiel on June 12, 2012, 07:38:54 PM

Reconnaissance drones based on the Meggit BTT-3 Banshee 500 target drone.

Cool. And much better-looking than the RealWorld Crécerelle and Sperwer UAVs :)

Thiel · « **Reply #32 on:** June 15, 2012, 10:51:18 PM »

Quote from: apophenia on June 13, 2012, 07:01:07 AM

Cool. And much better-looking than the RealWorld Crécerelle and Sperwer UAVs :)

Thanks.

Well, since the original file seems to have gotten lost, here's and updated version.

FRD: Photo Reconnaissance Drone
TRD: Tactical Reconnaissance Drone
TD: Training Drone
MD: Target Drone:

Otto the Owl: Unofficial modification. One down-checked drone converted for use by the Armed Forces Press Corps
FRD1: First real recon drone. Fitted with three cameras. Optionally, one can be replaced by a low-light or IR camera
FRD2: Upgraded cameras. One combined optical/IR camera.
TRD1: Enlarged fuselage and wings, full day and night capability, tactical datalink allows direct access to the imagery by the troops on the ground.
TRD2: Enhanced engine and prop allows for greater time on station. Target illumination laser incorporated into the sensor head.
TD1: Training Drone. Converted FRD1. Used for initial training and display flights (Hence the paintjob)
MD1: Basic target drone.
MD2: Onboard laser receiver allows for virtual training. Can also be used as a target tug.

And its completely imaginary big brother the Super Banshee

TRD3: New design, faster, higher endurance, higher service ceiling (Great for poking around Afghan mountains) more capable sensors and targeting systems and a basic self defence suite.

Thiel · « **Reply #33 on:** June 24, 2012, 12:34:02 AM »

Heinkel He 219 in Danish post-war Hi-Wiz markings.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #34 on:** June 24, 2012, 04:17:04 AM »

I like your thinking!!! :)

Thiel · « **Reply #35 on:** June 24, 2012, 05:44:54 AM »

Thanks.

apophenia · « **Reply #36 on:** June 24, 2012, 05:56:42 AM »

Very cool idea. Any idea if RW Luftwaffe He 219s operated from any Danish airfields? Nice backstory if a few Uhu were abandoned on the field at Aarhus in May 1945.

Thiel · « **Reply #37 on:** June 24, 2012, 06:25:20 AM »

Quote from: apophenia on June 24, 2012, 05:56:42 AM

Very cool idea. Any idea if RW Luftwaffe He 219s operated from any Danish airfields? Nice backstory if a few Uhu were abandoned on the field at Aarhus in May 1945.

Well, the three He 219s that the USAAF brought home as part of Operation Lusty belonged to Nachtjagdgeschwader 1 which was stationed at Grove (Now Karup) airbase.
My idea is that while the USAAC Intelligence was busy there, a similar Danish team, albeit much smaller in size and scope, was busy hiding three other machines that had landed at other airfields around the country.
Then, once the Americans had left, they brought them out and used them to train night fighter pilots for a couple of years until they received new night fighters from Britain in 1952.

Empty Handed · « **Reply #38 on:** June 24, 2012, 07:40:27 PM »

The Danish He-219s are a great idea!!!

Thiel · « **Reply #39 on:** June 24, 2012, 09:01:31 PM »

Thanks.

in 1948 they were repainted in a proper night fighter scheme.

apophenia · « **Reply #40 on:** June 25, 2012, 06:17:37 AM »

A very plausible backstory then. And the 1948 scheme is gorgeous Thiel!

I've read that the destruction of abandoned ex-Luftwaffe aircraft (and other German weaponry) in Denmark was actually order by the British military (in accordance with the terms of the Yalta Conference).

Obviously in your AltHist, Denmark strikes a more independent pose. Will the Hærens Flyvertropper take on other ex-Luftwaffe types?

Thiel · « **Reply #41 on:** June 25, 2012, 02:38:12 PM »

Quote from: apophenia on June 25, 2012, 06:17:37 AM

A very plausible backstory then. And the 1948 scheme is gorgeous Thiel!

Thanks.

Quote from: apophenia on June 25, 2012, 06:17:37 AM

I've read that the destruction of abandoned ex-Luftwaffe aircraft (and other German weaponry) in Denmark was actually order by the British military (in accordance with the terms of the Yalta Conference).

That was indeed the case, but the key point here is that the equipment was either abandoned or surrendered to British troops. The Yalta conference didn't apply to war booty. In this AltHist the Danish government managed to escape and formed a government in exile. During the closing days of the war a large number of agents were inserted into Denmark along with the paperwork and uniforms required to "legalize" the resistance fighters. These scratch units would then assault key military installations just before the armistice came into effect. That made any equipment seized legal spoils of war and thus exempt from British jurisdiction.

Quote from: apophenia on June 25, 2012, 06:17:37 AM

Obviously in your AltHist, Denmark strikes a more independent pose. Will the Hærens Flyvertropper take on other ex-Luftwaffe types?

That's the plan, though they'll mostly be replaced by Allied equipment within a few years. The equipment will primarily be used to tide the armed forces over until a successor to the lend lease agreements can be arranged.
Also, the Uhus were operated by the Navy, not the Army. They were transferred to the newly established Air Force in 1951.

And speaking of equipment, here's the Rutan Long-EZ in Post-War Hi-Wiz scheme.

Three units was acquired in 1981 for evaluation as a familiarization trainer for the Saab Viggen after a number of very close calls during training. It was fitted with an uprated engine, a light weight bang seat and beefed up landing gear. In order to accommodate all that the rear seat was removed and replaced with an auxiliary fuel tank. Unfortunately, while it produced an excellent aircraft, it was a failure at its intended role.

The aircraft was put in storage for a couple of years until 1987 when the air force started looking for a new FAC plane. On paper it seemed like an excellent idea since the AC had long endurance, the bobble canopy provided excellent all-round visibility and it had plenty of weight reserves to carry the required equipment. Unfortunately it proved to be too much of a handful to fly to be effective and the plan was scrapped.

The aircarft then spent another year in storage until it was decided to revive the air force's demonstration team. With its outlandish looks, high manoeuvrability and ability to carry a smoke generator under each wing it proved excellent at the job and since it had a bang seat and a much higher power-to-weight ratio than the other trainers the pilots were allowed to pull far more dramatic stunts.

apophenia · « **Reply #42 on:** June 26, 2012, 11:01:19 AM »

Very interesting ... thanks for the details. Thanks too for the Uhu operator corrections. I was wondering about those swallow-tailed flag

The FAC Long-EZ could also act as surrogates for Israeli Aeronautics A-701 Dominator UAV. Then no need for a Danish Sperwer

http://stargazer2006.online.fr/derivatives/dominator.htm

Thiel · « **Reply #43 on:** June 27, 2012, 06:57:30 PM »

Quote from: apophenia on June 26, 2012, 11:01:19 AM

Very interesting ... thanks for the details. Thanks too for the Uhu operator corrections. I was wondering about those swallow-tailed flag

All three branches uses the split tailed Dannebrog as fin-flash, but the navy uses a slightly darker colour.

Quote from: apophenia on June 26, 2012, 11:01:19 AM

The FAC Long-EZ could also act as surrogates for Israeli Aeronautics A-701 Dominator UAV. Then no need for a Danish Sperwer

http://stargazer2006.online.fr/derivatives/dominator.htm

Well, not quite. The FRD1 entered service in 1991, some 14 years before the A-701.
The TRD3 is the more attractive solution since it shares a lot parts with the TRD2 and it's partially constructed in Denmark.

Thiel · « **Reply #44 on:** July 07, 2012, 09:59:36 AM »

A reskin of the Hawker Hunter.
Unlike the previous drawings I didn't draw the aircraft itself, I just redid the camo scheme.
Anyway, they were operated by both the Army and the Navy. This one is in Army colours.

Thiel · « **Reply #45 on:** July 28, 2012, 08:23:52 PM »

Moving on, here's the BAe P.1233-1 Saba

I'll get around to giving her a proper paintjob at some point.

JP Vieira · « **Reply #46 on:** July 28, 2012, 10:33:50 PM »

Very interesting: keep it up

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #47 on:** July 29, 2012, 12:30:45 AM »

I wouldn't call any of your work pixel mutilations, but pixel gems of the highest order!

Brian da Basher

apophenia · « **Reply #48 on:** July 30, 2012, 08:47:14 AM »

Quote from: Thiel on July 28, 2012, 08:23:52 PM

Moving on, here's the BAe P.1233-1 Saba

SABA was a great project/should-have-been. Looking forward to seeing paintwork!

Thiel · « **Reply #49 on:** August 05, 2012, 10:44:50 PM »

Quote from: Brian da Basher on July 29, 2012, 12:30:45 AM

I wouldn't call any of your work pixel mutilations, but pixel gems of the highest order!

Brian da Basher

Thanks. That means a lot.

Quote from: apophenia on July 30, 2012, 08:47:14 AM

SABA was a great project/should-have-been. Looking forward to seeing paintwork!

I'll get on it soonest.

Thiel · « **Reply #50 on:** August 07, 2012, 01:08:49 AM »

Now with a tentative paint scheme. Still have to do the markings.

Thiel · « **Reply #51 on:** August 07, 2012, 09:21:08 PM »

What do you think?

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #52 on:** August 08, 2012, 02:05:00 AM »

Thiel · « **Reply #53 on:** August 09, 2012, 05:53:11 AM »

Technically speaking it's the BAe P.1238 and believe it or not, this design is the direct predecessor of the P.1233-1.

Thiel · « **Reply #54 on:** October 07, 2012, 04:49:37 PM »

A WIP while we're waiting

finsrin · « **Reply #55 on:** October 15, 2012, 06:28:52 AM »

Your pusher profiles sure stir up my kitbash ideas. Currently no time to start one. Enjoying your mental concept creating profiles. :)

Thiel · « **Reply #56 on:** October 24, 2012, 02:15:25 AM »

Based on the Northrop Grumman Firebird OPV.
The nose contains a radar and a satellite dish.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #57 on:** October 24, 2012, 02:30:42 AM »

I like.

Thiel · « **Reply #58 on:** October 24, 2012, 02:39:07 AM »

Quote from: finsrin on October 15, 2012, 06:28:52 AM

Your pusher profiles sure stir up my kitbash ideas. Currently no time to start one. Enjoying your mental concept creating profiles. :)

Thank you. I've always bee fascinated by pushers.

Quote from: GTX_Admin on October 24, 2012, 02:30:42 AM

I like.

Thanks.

Thiel · « **Reply #59 on:** October 24, 2012, 08:41:22 PM »

Another contender for the 1987 FAC requirement.

Thiel · « **Reply #60 on:** October 24, 2012, 10:52:22 PM »

I suspect that flying ths thing would be a complicated affair. XD

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #61 on:** October 25, 2012, 02:13:21 AM »

What is happening there? 'Turretised' front ball?

Thiel · « **Reply #62 on:** October 25, 2012, 03:00:15 AM »

Yup. The entire front is made up of a modified rear turret from a Lancaster.
If only the Optica was available as main stream kit...

Thiel · « **Reply #63 on:** October 25, 2012, 03:53:14 AM »

apophenia · « **Reply #64 on:** October 25, 2012, 05:15:16 AM »

I like it! But when do the Politi get the turreted version?

Thiel · « **Reply #65 on:** October 25, 2012, 05:41:10 AM »

I suppose they could try to sell it to the politicians as a sort of super Riot Gun

Thiel · « **Reply #66 on:** October 29, 2012, 03:32:40 AM »

Republic XF-12 Rainbow

Thiel · « **Reply #67 on:** October 29, 2012, 04:14:35 AM »

And at M.A.D.s request here's a bomber conversion

Thiel · « **Reply #68 on:** October 29, 2012, 04:35:02 PM »

Nene powered SO.8000 Narval

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #69 on:** October 29, 2012, 04:35:47 PM »

Love it!

Thiel · « **Reply #70 on:** October 31, 2012, 03:29:12 PM »

Hughes FX-11

Thiel · « **Reply #71 on:** November 05, 2012, 08:12:55 AM »

Thiel · « **Reply #72 on:** November 05, 2012, 04:22:33 PM »

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #73 on:** November 05, 2012, 06:08:13 PM »

Thiel · « **Reply #74 on:** June 03, 2013, 02:01:45 AM »

Wow, it's been a while since I posted here.

Camouflage based on a C-1 Trader

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #75 on:** June 03, 2013, 02:23:52 AM »

Nice return though! :)

Thiel · « **Reply #76 on:** June 03, 2013, 02:26:52 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on June 03, 2013, 02:23:52 AM

Nice return though! :)

Thanks, glad you like it.

Empty Handed · « **Reply #77 on:** June 03, 2013, 07:52:34 AM »

Agreed. That's a great comeback!

apophenia · « **Reply #78 on:** June 05, 2013, 09:49:48 AM »

It was indeed. It would be nice to see the XC-142 in more operational schemes ... hint, hint

Thiel · « **Reply #79 on:** June 05, 2013, 09:50:01 PM »

Quote from: apophenia on June 05, 2013, 09:49:48 AM

It was indeed. It would be nice to see the XC-142 in more operational schemes ... hint, hint

I have yet to draw any other operation schemes, but I do have two testing schemes.

raafif · « **Reply #80 on:** June 06, 2013, 05:49:06 AM »

shouldn't the words on the fuselage of the bottom one read "United Parcels of America" ??

makes a good civvie cargo-hauler :)

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #81 on:** June 06, 2013, 06:21:01 AM »

Maybe FEDEX or DHL?

elmayerle · « **Reply #82 on:** June 06, 2013, 11:35:20 AM »

C-142 in a scheme similar to those used by USMC or USAF V-22's?

apophenia · « **Reply #83 on:** June 07, 2013, 10:05:07 AM »

Love the test schemes :) Maybe a Vietnam-era scheme similar to that of the CV-2/C-7 Caribou?

Thiel · « **Reply #84 on:** June 07, 2013, 03:49:30 PM »

Like this?

Talos · « **Reply #85 on:** June 07, 2013, 03:51:45 PM »

Quote from: Thiel on June 07, 2013, 03:49:30 PM

Like this?

Very nice. Really fits the airframe.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #86 on:** June 07, 2013, 04:26:05 PM »

Thiel · « **Reply #87 on:** June 09, 2013, 05:54:10 AM »

This was a real proposal, though I had to do a great deal of guessing with the boat.
Livery based on USCG HC-130.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #88 on:** June 09, 2013, 06:08:01 AM »


Swords to Plowshares GB Now Open!!

News:

Author Topic: Thiel's Pixel Mutilations (Read 35222 times)

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel

Thiel