A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Group Activity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 24th 11, 07:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jeff R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Group Activity

Thanks for your reply, Paul.
Some comments below in context...


"Paul Saccani" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:27:57 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote:



I'm inclined to trust Chris Heintz, as the engineer/innovator, but at the same time he has (had - he's retired) a significant financial attachment to L.E. slats. Not just on the 701, but right up to th 850.


Depends on your mission. The STOL performance of the 701 is such that
most don't even need to use the flaps. The slats do dramatically
steepen approach and departure, and if that's what you need....


Not so much need as "want".
Catch is, I also "want" a decent glide slope and fuel economy.
(yes, I know)



I would note that unlike what CH states, the slatted wing does not act
as though the chord is from the TE to the front of the slat, but
rather, from the TE to the front of the wing. Which, if you look at
the allowable %MAC for weight and balance, which uses the CH
interpretation, those percentages are a little unusual compared with
"regular" aeroplanes. Remeasure, using the front of the wing instead
of the slat, and the %MAC values fall straight into the usual range.


Thanks for that.
I'd suspected as such, based partly on how well the de-slatted 701s seemed to perform.


On balance, I'm inclined to favour VGs (Piper Cub didn't need slats), but I'm put off Savannah just simply because of their unethical poaching of CH's designs.


They didn't poach a CH design. They made a slavish copy of a
legitimate 701 cousin design by Max Tudesco, who has had a long
involvement with CH's companies, and was involved in the design of the
701. He didn't like some aspects of the design and went his own way,
whilst also making licensed quick build kits of the 701. The scummy
Italian company was buying quick build kits from his company, and
simply measured one for CNC copies to be made.

They are actually more unethical than your first thoughts.


Hehe
International intrigue'n'all.


I plan to cut the first stringers in about a year from now.


As I recall, the stringers are all in the forward cabin, and all need
solid rivets. You may find it worthwhile to buy those and the main
spars from Zenith, with the solid riveting done.

If you intend to build as per the edition 5, 7th revision, you will
find that some items, such as the spar caps, are non-standard custom
extrusions for Zenith. They will sell you a spar complete, but not
the components to make the main spar.


Still not decided on full kit or build from plans.
I rather fancy myself at metalwork, but the cost of the raw materials makes the CNC cut kit awfully attractive.

Now, if the US dollar would just oblige my falling down again...




Personally, I'm happier using the slightly thicker alternative...

Maybe I could build retractable slats?

(joke)


Well, it has been done, but the company was bought out, I'm not sure
if they are in production again. PegaSTOL was the old company.


Yup. Saw that, and like the idea (lots) but the weight?



Most people don't know this, but at one time (late eighties), CH was
recommending that some CH701 use VGs attached to the slat!


!
Seems a bit greedy.
I take it that didn't work... (?)



What you lose if you use VG instead of slats, besides the steepness of
approach and departure, is the "stall" controllability. With the
slatted 701, you can go way on the wrong side of the lift/drag curve,
so you no longer have enough lift to stay up, but aileron remains
effective and there is no wing drop. It just gets "mushy". Sans
slats, with VG, you get a conventional stall, and wing drop. Nothing
nasty, but a little faster, with a little less control.


Yes, and this is the main reason I'd like to retain the slats.



Now, the slats are great, but there is an awful lot of drag, and you
end up with an engine out glide ratio about the same as a helicopter,
4:1. It'll cost you fuel to haul their weight around, and fuel to
counter their drag. IIRC, they weigh around 12 kg.


12kg.
Hnh.
I have main courses at dinner bigger than that.
(anecdote edited for the sake of propriety)
Still, the drag is a real bummer.
I still don't know how much long distance stuff I'll be doing - I hope a lot - but then I suspect that good STOL will also be a significant factor in my dream "trip-around-Australia".

Endurance - economy - STOL?
Helluva balancing act.


Having said that, I'm leaving mine on for the moment.

With an EA81 and a 68" 3 blade warp drive at 16.5°, mine does 70 kts @
13 litres an hour, @4,000 RPM for the engine, 1,820 RPM for the prop.


Hmmm.
None too shabby.
75hp? That enough for good STOL two-up?
How's the rate of climb?


In due course, I plan to fair my struts, but you could order the strut
material for the 750, which is in an aerofoil shape, and save yourself
a lot of bother.


Fair them rather than remove them?
Do you need the extra square feet, considering what you said above about the slat's contribution to total chord?



VG for the elevator is a very good idea - you can get those from
Zenair.

I'm thinking of removing the slats and the entire mixer system and
control for the flaps. If you look at the skyfox versus the kitfox,
they removed the mixer system entirely - at CASAs request - and
performance was still satisfactory.

If you look at the 750 mixer, you will see that it is a much more
elegant design. As I say, I am contemplating deleting the 701 mixer,
but if I decide that flap is still necessary, I will install a 750
style mixer, which is far more elegant and lighter too.

Also, having the elevator bell crank bracket on the aileron torque
tube sucks. I have a part 35 engineered solution, where the bracket
is mounted on a fitting that is fixed to the airframe, and allows the
torque tube to rotate inside it. This gets rid of the elevator cable
tension issue, where the aileron and elevator interfere with each
other.


Thanks again for all that Paul.
It's good to toss this stuff around.
(just had a quick look at your page at Zenith...)

--
Jeff R.




--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

  #22  
Old September 24th 11, 05:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Wayne Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 905
Default Group Activity

Back when I was MUCH younger I flew A3-B Skywarriors.
(http://www.soaridaho.com/Naval_Pictu..._12-Aug-64.jpg)
It had aerodynamically actuated slats. They slid in and out using rollers
on a track. When sitting on the deck gravity would cause them to extend.
At normal cruising flight speeds the air resistance would push them in.
They popped out at high angles of attack. The system worked pretty well;
however, heaven forbid that one of them got stuck in while the other
extended!

Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


"Paul Saccani" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:32:53 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote:

Thanks for your reply, Paul.
Some comments below in context...


"Paul Saccani" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:27:57 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote:



I'm inclined to trust Chris Heintz, as the engineer/innovator, but at the
same time he has (had - he's retired) a significant financial attachment
to L.E. slats. Not just on the 701, but right up to th 850.


Depends on your mission. The STOL performance of the 701 is such that
most don't even need to use the flaps. The slats do dramatically
steepen approach and departure, and if that's what you need....


Not so much need as "want".
Catch is, I also "want" a decent glide slope and fuel economy.
(yes, I know)


Indeed. VG are a good compromise.

I plan to cut the first stringers in about a year from now.


As I recall, the stringers are all in the forward cabin, and all need
solid rivets. You may find it worthwhile to buy those and the main
spars from Zenith, with the solid riveting done.

If you intend to build as per the edition 5, 7th revision, you will
find that some items, such as the spar caps, are non-standard custom
extrusions for Zenith. They will sell you a spar complete, but not
the components to make the main spar.


Still not decided on full kit or build from plans.
I rather fancy myself at metalwork, but the cost of the raw materials makes
the CNC cut kit awfully attractive.


IIRC, it was about four grand for all the aluminium sheet in my one.
But I suspect that ordinary prices would be a good deal higher.

Now, if the US dollar would just oblige my falling down again...


Better take a good look at shipping costs and duties.

Well, it has been done, but the company was bought out, I'm not sure
if they are in production again. PegaSTOL was the old company.


Yup. Saw that, and like the idea (lots) but the weight?


No idea. I don't know how their mechanism works. I've thought it
might be worth trying Tiger Moth slot style spring loading and cable
locking. They get pushed back at speed, but pop out as you slow down.
Locking is done to prevent accidental asymmetric extension - it
aggravates any tendency to a spin.

Most people don't know this, but at one time (late eighties), CH was
recommending that some CH701 use VGs attached to the slat!


!
Seems a bit greedy.
I take it that didn't work... (?)


It did, but it was only for some, which had a high drag at cruise
speeds. The VG was a quick fix, but the location of the slat was
changed as a general fix.

It's just an interesting piece of trivia.

What you lose if you use VG instead of slats, besides the steepness of
approach and departure, is the "stall" controllability. With the
slatted 701, you can go way on the wrong side of the lift/drag curve,
so you no longer have enough lift to stay up, but aileron remains
effective and there is no wing drop. It just gets "mushy". Sans
slats, with VG, you get a conventional stall, and wing drop. Nothing
nasty, but a little faster, with a little less control.


Yes, and this is the main reason I'd like to retain the slats.


Well, it is experimental, after all.... I'd stick with the slats
first off, though you might want to consider redesigning the slat
brackets so that they can be removed and re-instated, rather than
using the wing without slats but still with the brackets, as per CH
advice. I don't know if the brackets create a great mischief or not,
but going with his recommendation seems a safe bet. Myself, I plan on
keeping them and tuft testing to see how much of a mischief they
make. I might use them for fences, that way, if the mission needs it,
I can put the slats back on.


12kg.
Hnh.
I have main courses at dinner bigger than that.
(anecdote edited for the sake of propriety)


Baggage compartment is limited to 18 kg, it's a fairly significant
weight for a little aeroplane.

Still, the drag is a real bummer.
I still don't know how much long distance stuff I'll be doing - I hope a
lot - but then I suspect that good STOL will also be a significant factor
in my dream "trip-around-Australia".


It's a big country - plenty of space to land.

Endurance - economy - STOL?
Helluva balancing act.

Having said that, I'm leaving mine on for the moment.

With an EA81 and a 68" 3 blade warp drive at 16.5°, mine does 70 kts @
13 litres an hour, @4,000 RPM for the engine, 1,820 RPM for the prop.


Hmmm.
None too shabby.
75hp?


100 HP.

That enough for good STOL two-up?
How's the rate of climb?


I can't answer either of those yet. 600 fpm is the figure that comes
to mind.

In due course, I plan to fair my struts, but you could order the strut
material for the 750, which is in an aerofoil shape, and save yourself
a lot of bother.


Fair them rather than remove them?


Well, I do need them to keep the wings on....

Do you need the extra square feet, considering what you said above about
the slat's contribution to total chord?


Struts... The standard ones are round 4130 tube. The parasite drag
of each sides struts is almost as much as the whole wing. The 750
uses aerofoil section aluminium extrusions. For the tube, you put
thin fairings on them to reduce the drag.

For the other idea, I reckon foam inserts could be shoved in the slots
to reduce drag, either with or without VGs. Then you could remove
them after long distance cruising to investigate off the beaten track.
Less aggravation than taking the slats on and off, plus you could take
the slats with you on a long trip. That would probably weigh less
than a retractable slat and be less likely to create mischief.

Also, having the elevator bell crank bracket on the aileron torque
tube sucks. I have a part 35 engineered solution, where the bracket
is mounted on a fitting that is fixed to the airframe, and allows the
torque tube to rotate inside it. This gets rid of the elevator cable
tension issue, where the aileron and elevator interfere with each
other.


Thanks again for all that Paul.
It's good to toss this stuff around.
(just had a quick look at your page at Zenith...)


That saves me suggesting that you join Zenith Aero, though I don't
recognise your name on the new members list.

Those photos are pretty rough, I've taken some better ones, but
haven't put them up yet.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

  #23  
Old September 24th 11, 05:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Wayne Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 905
Default Group Activity

I think the A3 link is fixed and it should work .

Wayne wrote:
Back when I was MUCH younger I flew A3-B Skywarriors.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Naval_Pictu..._12-Aug-64.jpg
It had aerodynamically actuated slats. They slid in and out using rollers
on a track. When sitting on the deck gravity would cause them to extend.
At normal cruising flight speeds the air resistance would push them in.
They popped out at high angles of attack. The system worked pretty well;
however, heaven forbid that one of them got stuck in while the other
extended!
Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F
"Paul Saccani" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:32:53 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Paul.
Some comments below in context...


"Paul Saccani" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:27:57 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote:



I'm inclined to trust Chris Heintz, as the engineer/innovator, but at the
same time he has (had - he's retired) a significant financial attachment
to L.E. slats. Not just on the 701, but right up to th 850.

Depends on your mission. The STOL performance of the 701 is such that
most don't even need to use the flaps. The slats do dramatically
steepen approach and departure, and if that's what you need....


Not so much need as "want".
Catch is, I also "want" a decent glide slope and fuel economy.
(yes, I know)

Indeed. VG are a good compromise.
I plan to cut the first stringers in about a year from now.

As I recall, the stringers are all in the forward cabin, and all need
solid rivets. You may find it worthwhile to buy those and the main
spars from Zenith, with the solid riveting done.

If you intend to build as per the edition 5, 7th revision, you will
find that some items, such as the spar caps, are non-standard custom
extrusions for Zenith. They will sell you a spar complete, but not
the components to make the main spar.


Still not decided on full kit or build from plans.
I rather fancy myself at metalwork, but the cost of the raw materials makes
the CNC cut kit awfully attractive.

IIRC, it was about four grand for all the aluminium sheet in my one.
But I suspect that ordinary prices would be a good deal higher.
Now, if the US dollar would just oblige my falling down again...

Better take a good look at shipping costs and duties.
Well, it has been done, but the company was bought out, I'm not sure
if they are in production again. PegaSTOL was the old company.


Yup. Saw that, and like the idea (lots) but the weight?

No idea. I don't know how their mechanism works. I've thought it
might be worth trying Tiger Moth slot style spring loading and cable
locking. They get pushed back at speed, but pop out as you slow down.
Locking is done to prevent accidental asymmetric extension - it
aggravates any tendency to a spin.
Most people don't know this, but at one time (late eighties), CH was
recommending that some CH701 use VGs attached to the slat!


!
Seems a bit greedy.
I take it that didn't work... (?)

It did, but it was only for some, which had a high drag at cruise
speeds. The VG was a quick fix, but the location of the slat was
changed as a general fix.
It's just an interesting piece of trivia.
What you lose if you use VG instead of slats, besides the steepness of
approach and departure, is the "stall" controllability. With the
slatted 701, you can go way on the wrong side of the lift/drag curve,
so you no longer have enough lift to stay up, but aileron remains
effective and there is no wing drop. It just gets "mushy". Sans
slats, with VG, you get a conventional stall, and wing drop. Nothing
nasty, but a little faster, with a little less control.


Yes, and this is the main reason I'd like to retain the slats.

Well, it is experimental, after all.... I'd stick with the slats
first off, though you might want to consider redesigning the slat
brackets so that they can be removed and re-instated, rather than
using the wing without slats but still with the brackets, as per CH
advice. I don't know if the brackets create a great mischief or not,
but going with his recommendation seems a safe bet. Myself, I plan on
keeping them and tuft testing to see how much of a mischief they
make. I might use them for fences, that way, if the mission needs it,
I can put the slats back on.

12kg.
Hnh.
I have main courses at dinner bigger than that.
(anecdote edited for the sake of propriety)

Baggage compartment is limited to 18 kg, it's a fairly significant
weight for a little aeroplane.
Still, the drag is a real bummer.
I still don't know how much long distance stuff I'll be doing - I hope a
lot - but then I suspect that good STOL will also be a significant factor
in my dream "trip-around-Australia".

It's a big country - plenty of space to land.
Endurance - economy - STOL?
Helluva balancing act.

Having said that, I'm leaving mine on for the moment.

With an EA81 and a 68" 3 blade warp drive at 16.5°, mine does 70 kts @
13 litres an hour, @4,000 RPM for the engine, 1,820 RPM for the prop.


Hmmm.
None too shabby.
75hp?

100 HP.
That enough for good STOL two-up?
How's the rate of climb?

I can't answer either of those yet. 600 fpm is the figure that comes
to mind.
In due course, I plan to fair my struts, but you could order the strut
material for the 750, which is in an aerofoil shape, and save yourself
a lot of bother.


Fair them rather than remove them?

Well, I do need them to keep the wings on....
Do you need the extra square feet, considering what you said above about
the slat's contribution to total chord?

Struts... The standard ones are round 4130 tube. The parasite drag
of each sides struts is almost as much as the whole wing. The 750
uses aerofoil section aluminium extrusions. For the tube, you put
thin fairings on them to reduce the drag.
For the other idea, I reckon foam inserts could be shoved in the slots
to reduce drag, either with or without VGs. Then you could remove
them after long distance cruising to investigate off the beaten track.
Less aggravation than taking the slats on and off, plus you could take
the slats with you on a long trip. That would probably weigh less
than a retractable slat and be less likely to create mischief.
Also, having the elevator bell crank bracket on the aileron torque
tube sucks. I have a part 35 engineered solution, where the bracket
is mounted on a fitting that is fixed to the airframe, and allows the
torque tube to rotate inside it. This gets rid of the elevator cable
tension issue, where the aileron and elevator interfere with each
other.


Thanks again for all that Paul.
It's good to toss this stuff around.
(just had a quick look at your page at Zenith...)

That saves me suggesting that you join Zenith Aero, though I don't
recognise your name on the new members list.
Those photos are pretty rough, I've taken some better ones, but
haven't put them up yet.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.



--
Android Usenet Reader
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk
  #24  
Old September 24th 11, 07:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Richard Isakson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default Group Activity

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...

Back when I was MUCH younger I flew A3-B Skywarriors.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Naval_Pictu..._12-Aug-64.jpg)

snip
Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


Wayne,

You may be interested, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station recently obtained an
A-3 and they're going to put it on a stick outside the main base with the
two A-6s.

Also the Seaplane Base has acquired a PBY and has it on display next to a
PBY museum. It's worth seeing just to see the technology that was the state
of the art in the 30's.

Rich Isakson



  #25  
Old September 24th 11, 07:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default Group Activity

"Jeff R." wrote:
but I'm put off Savannah just simply because of their unethical
poaching of CH's designs.


Just FYI: Eric Giles, the fellow who created Skykits Corporation (the U.S.
agent or distribution company for the ICP Savannah) appears to be
redirecting sales to another U.S. company he created called World Aircraft
that will sell a Max Tedesco design. If you go to the Skykits website:

http://www.skykits.com/

You can see where it redirects.

A rather lengthy tale that claims to explain the origin of both the 701 and
Savannah is posted here, and presumably why Giles shifted from ICP to
Tedesco:

http://www.stolspeed.com/origins-701-savannah
  #26  
Old September 24th 11, 11:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Wayne Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 905
Default Group Activity

Rich,

Thank you for the update.

Several years ago during a VAH-10 reunion we tried to get the ball rolling
for placing an A-3 on a stick. After that I got a bit out of touch with the
progress. However, I sure hope that it is either a the bomber, or tanker
version and NOT one of the *******ized EW contraptions covered with all
kinds of antenna bubbles. (The EW things were based at Alameda, not
Whidbey.)

The PBY at the Seaplane Base will also be cool. In my early tours at
Whidbey there were P5Ms at the seaplane base. If they had one of those on
display, people would be surprised as to their size. (I was an navigation
observer during a couple P5M squadron ORIs. It seemed like it took for ever
for them to get airborne!)

The designer of the glider that I fly was quite famous in the PBY community.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Sc...Biography.html

Wayne
Schreder HP-14 N990
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F



"Richard Isakson" wrote in message ...

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...

Back when I was MUCH younger I flew A3-B Skywarriors.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Naval_Pictu..._12-Aug-64.jpg)

snip
Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


Wayne,

You may be interested, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station recently obtained an
A-3 and they're going to put it on a stick outside the main base with the
two A-6s.

Also the Seaplane Base has acquired a PBY and has it on display next to a
PBY museum. It's worth seeing just to see the technology that was the state
of the art in the 30's.

Rich Isakson


  #27  
Old September 25th 11, 05:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Morgans[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,924
Default Group Activity

Yes, and this is the main reason I'd like to retain the slats.

How about using outboard wing only ailerons (might need to make them bigger)
and keep the slats on the aileron portion, only?

-- Jim in NC




  #28  
Old September 25th 11, 11:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Tom De Moor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Group Activity

In article ,
says...

Back when I was MUCH younger I flew A3-B Skywarriors.
(
http://www.soaridaho.com/Naval_Pictu..._12-Aug-64.jpg)
It had aerodynamically actuated slats. They slid in and out using rollers
on a track. When sitting on the deck gravity would cause them to extend.
At normal cruising flight speeds the air resistance would push them in.
They popped out at high angles of attack. The system worked pretty well;
however, heaven forbid that one of them got stuck in while the other
extended!

Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F



The Socata Rallye is a French SEP aircraft which also features moveable
and automatic retracting slats. The design started in the 60's and
soldiered on to quite recentely. There are still Rallyes (now renamed
Kolibri's) made in Poland.

However most Rallye's get old and notably the movable slats cause lots
of maintenance problems. In Europe one can find Rallye -officially
airworthy- in quantity for no money. They will however suck money
afterwards...

http://www.flyrallye.com/Rallye_FAQs/rallye_faqs.html

I think that STOL is overrated, most pilots don't need it. Bush piloting
is good when there is bush. Very few bush to be found in Europ, landing
a bush plane on a 2000 ft grass field is a bit overkill.

When STOL-airborn you suddenly are confronted with a slow aircraft
guzzeling gas. Here we pay AvGas 2.3-2.7 EUr per liter (10 to 15US$ per
USG. For that price we want to move quite a bit faster than we drive a
car :-)

Greetings,


Tom De Moor




  #29  
Old September 25th 11, 02:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Scott[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 256
Default Group Activity

On 9-25-2011 04:40, Morgans wrote:
Yes, and this is the main reason I'd like to retain the slats.

How about using outboard wing only ailerons (might need to make them
bigger) and keep the slats on the aileron portion, only?

-- Jim in NC




Oh, like on the Globe Swift from the 1940s? Wonderful airplanes!

Hard to find a good view of them, but this one shows it if you look
closely...

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=globe...429,r:3,s :73

And a bit better view...

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=globe...tx=142&ty=9 1

And finally, from the top side...

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=globe...82&tx=96&ty=37


Scott

  #30  
Old September 26th 11, 03:44 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Morgans[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,924
Default Group Activity

How about using outboard wing only ailerons (might need to make them
bigger) and keep the slats on the aileron portion, only?

-- Jim in NC

Oh, like on the Globe Swift from the 1940s? Wonderful airplanes!

A:
Yep that was 'zacary what I had in mind!

-- Jim in NC

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.