Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 39 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 1144

Thread: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,331
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    EMAILS will have..... not getting EMAILS
    Isn't auto-correct a bitch
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,426
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    EMAILS will have a smoother acceleration profile... as they are not getting EMAILS
    Yeah, but if the primary DNS server is having a bad day the dam things wont even get off the Carrier, if they actually get airborne they might very well sink the B***y Outlook...

    I´ll get me coat...

    (Hats off to Spud for noticing it)

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,329
    Every time I respond using my phone, I have to go back and shake my head at the grammar and autocorrect errors. yes, EMALS, though with that shake on launch their not reading emails either.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,195
    Aviation Week is reporting that the USAF submitted its supplemental spending bill 'wish list' that included 10 Additional F-35A's for the FY17 budget. The original submitted along with the PB17 was for 5, that restored the aircraft that were shaved from the submitted budget request. They've now revised it up to 10.

    http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/...usaf-wish-list
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipG View Post
    Thanks I had seen that the work was to start soon and be a two stage "fix". My point was if this had been known about since 2014 why was the work not put in the schedule then?
    Simply not a high priority. It's only an issue when the F-35C is lightly loaded, and that pretty much only happens during carrier quals and maybe some short-range hops. Once you put enough fuel and weapons in it to carry out an operational mission the problem disappears.

    It does demonstrate the hyperbole in media reporting about the F-35 though -- the plane being too bouncy on take-off when lightly loaded (i.e. not a problem in most missions) is reported as "debilitating" and yet Russian planes are crashing every several weeks in the Mediterranean and apparently that's fine.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    Simply not a high priority. It's only an issue when the F-35C is lightly loaded, and that pretty much only happens during carrier quals and maybe some short-range hops. Once you put enough fuel and weapons in it to carry out an operational mission the problem disappears.

    It does demonstrate the hyperbole in media reporting about the F-35 though -- the plane being too bouncy on take-off when lightly loaded (i.e. not a problem in most missions) is reported as "debilitating" and yet Russian planes are crashing every several weeks in the Mediterranean and apparently that's fine.
    Not a high priority but quoted as "to fix" by navy. Saying it's unimportant just show... Well nvm. The day you are a pilot and have to take off lightly loaded (eg QRA), will you sit in ?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,331
    I was not a "high priority" within the context of the entire JSF program mainly due to the F-35C not declaring IOC till Block 3F while the F-35B & F-35A declared IOC at 2B/3i.

    It's a "to fix" item in context of Block 3F, ie the completion of the SDD program (Spring/Summer of 2018).
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,448
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Not a high priority but quoted as "to fix" by navy. Saying it's unimportant just show... Well nvm. The day you are a pilot and have to take off lightly loaded (eg QRA), will you sit in ?
    QRA are lightly loaded? I was in the impression that they are fully fueled and armed to the teeth for A2A with now networked resources adding missiles such the full load of anti-aircraft missile any ship can carry .
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 31st January 2017 at 23:35.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Not a high priority but quoted as "to fix" by navy. Saying it's unimportant just show... Well nvm. The day you are a pilot and have to take off lightly loaded (eg QRA), will you sit in ?
    The question was why was it not put in for a fix in 2014 when it was discovered. It's not that it doesn't need to be fixed, it's that they had much bigger issues on their plate at the time. If you recall, that's when they were testing the new version of the arresting hook, for example. It's not as if they've been working day and night to fix the vertical oscillation problem since 2014 -- just that it's only recently that the issue is coming to the forefront because other bigger issues have already been resolved.

    The Navy, doing a QRA? Don't they have CAP?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,073
    i dont buy that the issue only occur when taking off on fuel fumes, no one ever does it,
    and they arent doing it on the video either.
    and all go to great length to have more than fumes when landing even, and navy doubly so.

    keeping CAP at all time coulda explain why navy didnt have cash to buy next generation destroyers

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    i dont buy that the issue only occur when taking off on fuel fumes, no one ever does it,
    and they arent doing it on the video either.
    And you know they aren't taking off with a low fuel state how? Given the jets were doing carrier quals and the whole point of the exercise is to test how the jet takes of and lands from the carrier they weren't flying around the airspace for three hours burning fuel. Even less likely that they took off with a heavy fuel state and dumped the fuel before landing. They certainly weren't flying with a weapons payload either.

    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    and all go to great length to have more than fumes when landing even, and navy doubly so.

    keeping CAP at all time coulda explain why navy didnt have cash to buy next generation destroyers
    Landing with a low fuel state is not only good but desired, especially when you are in an F-35C that hits the third wire every time...

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    i dont buy that the issue only occur when taking off on fuel fumes, no one ever does it,
    Sure, it's only what Bogdan directly said:

    F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told reporters during a Dec. 19 roundtable at his office in Arlington, VA, "there's no doubt" his team has to find a solution to the nose gear.

    However, he stressed, "the only time that is a problem with the C model is at very light gross weights. At medium weights and at heavy weights you don't see this problem at all."
    Of course, it's one of those little details that the DOT&E "forgot" to mention in its annual report about ongoing issues with the F-35 program.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    And you know they aren't taking off with a low fuel state how? Given the jets were doing carrier quals and the whole point of the exercise is to test how the jet takes of and lands from the carrier they weren't flying around the airspace for three hours burning fuel. Even less likely that they took off with a heavy fuel state and dumped the fuel before landing. They certainly weren't flying with a weapons payload either.


    Landing with a low fuel state is not only good but desired, especially when you are in an F-35C that hits the third wire every time...
    did you come to the conclusion f-35 takes off on fumes based on this (non) logic ?

    USN has refuelers buzzing the carrier just in case someone breaches fuel reserve safety,
    that goes to show just how critical (in their opinion) it is to have a healthy filled up gas tank,
    when landing on a carrier, since if it doesnt catch a wire its going to have to flip on AB.
    Last edited by obligatory; 1st February 2017 at 04:03.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    did you come to the conclusion f-35 takes off on fumes based on this (non) logic ?

    USN has refuelers buzzing the carrier just in case someone breaches fuel reserve safety,
    that goes to show just how critical (in their opinion) it is to have a healthy filled up gas tank,
    when landing on a carrier, since if it doesnt catch a wire its going to have to flip on AB.
    Low fuel state is not fumes, there is a big difference and I never said it launched with fumes, in fact no one has, you drew that flawed conclusion yourself.

    Carrier aircraft have a maximum bring back weight they can return with which includes fuel and ordnance. Above that weight and the aircraft cannot land, it will have a minimum fuel state it needs to land with but that is never fumes...

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,073
    the bring back refer to the ordnance, i think only two things matters, ground clearance and wing downforce when it hits,
    its pushed in a direction that was never suppose to go over 3 G, so heavy weapons on outer wing pylons is stretching it.
    central positioned weight if it has ground clearance, as in internal bombs and fuel, will not be an issue
    Last edited by obligatory; 1st February 2017 at 04:59.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    the bring back refer to the ordnance
    Fuel and ordnance are not mutually exclusive and are the only two options for realistically reducing bring back weight. For example an aircraft with a high fuel state and no ordnance could easily be over the max landing weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    i think only two things matters, ground clearance and wing downforce when it hits,
    its pushed in a direction that was never suppose to go over 3 G, so heavy weapons on outer wing pylons is stretching it.
    central positioned weight if it has ground clearance, as in internal bombs and fuel, will not be an issue
    What are you talking about? SH or F-35 or something completely unrelated to catapult launch at very light gross weights for F-35C. There are currently zero issues with the F-35C landing on the carrier...

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    Its all good folks, its all good. TRUMP HAS FIXED IT! Smooth sailing from now on.



    Trump says shaves $600 million from cost of 90 Lockheed F-35 aircraft




    Sworn into office on 20th Jan. Fixed the program by 30th Jan.

    Whadda man! Truly a master of the "art of the deal".
    Thing that worry me most is that he seems to consider military procurement exclusively on its economic aspect.
    Certainly cost overruns are a problem in the US procurement but they are more a by-side effect of a wrong i.e. transformational approach to most of the main programs than to corporate greeds, so bargaining for a discount is just a relief measure not a long term solution.
    Buying more planes at a early phase of program could mean to have an outdated force between just some years and having to spend way more later in a early MLU.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,195
    The aircraft he supposedly negotiated on will be LRIP-10, and will be delivered in Block 3F (SDD program) configuration. The L in LRIP generally refers to a fraction of the total projected buy for any program. For the US F-35, estimated buy it will likely (US procurement) be around 10% of the total projected deliveries i.e. close to 90% of the aircraft the US services are currently expected t buy, would be in the post SDD phase procurement. The program has 200 deliveries excluding test articles, and the current order book is 370 (iirc). A quick look at the order rates from the SAR shows about 12% of the USAF orders will be prior to SDD completion (including FY17 orders). Not all of these 12% will be delivered in block 2b/3i configuration. Some will be ordered prior to SDD completion but delivered after it which means they will come with block 3F configuration with all the changes incorporated at the factory.

    There were plans to have a lot many more aircraft produced in LRIP but those were moved to the right when the program was delayed. Some of the current proposals floating around (notable among them being that of John McCain) actually brings some of these volumes back starting as early as 2018. McCain's plan adds between 80-100 aircraft to the five year period starting FY-2018, raising the production rates to buy more aircraft early. But even that will see the increase in deliveries after the development program has formally concluded.

    As you may know there is not likely to be a traditional MLU on the JSF. It will be upgraded through a series of Hardware and Software refresh cycles as has been happening even during development. The Follow on Modernization program is expected to get JROC approval in the next few months (Current JPO estimate suggests by April-2017) after which they will start with block 4 development (contract award expected in 2018). The plan they have submitted for approval breaks down block 4 into 4 sub blocks (4.1 -4.4), block 4.1 and 4.3 being purely software upgrades, with block 4.2 and 4.4 focusing on hardware upgrades. Current plans aim for 4.1 delivery in 2021. Any radical change to hardware or software configuration going into the future, is likely to be introduced incrementally through the continuous modernization program rather than a traditional MLU where they aim to to do it all at once.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 1st February 2017 at 12:33.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,195
    Marine Corps' top aviator calls F-35C nose gear issue a 'small problem'


    The top aviator for the Marine Corps said the issues with the F-35C nose gear are a "small problem" and there is time to fix it before the first aircraft carrier deployment in 2020.

    Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, told reporters during a Feb. 1 Defense Writers' Group breakfast in Washington mitigation and redesign efforts are ongoing for the F-35C nose gear.

    From a land-based perspective, there are no problems with the F-35C, he said. The service has 10 F-35Cs (the Navy's aircraft carrier variant) in its training squadron.

    Inside Defense reported last month that during a catapult launch on an aircraft carrier the nose landing gear strut is compressed as the catapult pulls on the landing gear, with the hold-back bar restraining the aircraft from forward movement during an engine thrust. Once the hold-back bar is released, the nose gear strut unloads and vertically swings back and forth as the aircraft accelerates towards takeoff.

    Further, Davis said his office would be involved with the F-35C review directed by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

    The study will consider options for reducing costs while still meeting requirements. The review will compare the operational capabilities of the F-35C and the F/A-18 Super Hornet to determine if the legacy jet could be outfitted as an alternative to the Joint Strike Fighter.

    "I think it will be a good study, and I think it will probably end up validating the imperative to have a fifth-generation [fighter] out there," Davis said

    Davis said the study would be an "apples-to-apples" comparison of the F-35C with the Super Hornet.

    "Does a Block 3 Super Hornet match up or compare to an F-35C? Not As, not Bs -- it's only for the Navy carrier air wing of the future," he said.

    There are certain scenarios where the F-35C could operate and the Super Hornet could not, according to Davis.

    "That's very clear," he said. "I'm highly confident we're on the right track and we'll let the facts rest where they are."
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Levsha View Post
    Is that your suggestion? It wasn't mine.
    what is your suggestion?

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,184
    Genuine question. Can controlability at low speeds/High AoA be roughly deduced from landing speed?

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    what is your suggestion?
    I was making an observation, not a comparison.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,195
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 3rd February 2017 at 09:58.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,272
    A very cool video and the more I see of the B, the more it looks the "real deal". But those wingtip streamers are still there eh?

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,331
    Speaking of refueling....

    Marines Want to Cut Back on USAF Refuelings During Long Hauls

    —BRIAN EVERSTINE2/2/2017
    The Marine Corps is looking to change tanker plans for long-distance F-35B sorties after a recent flight to Japan required too ​many refuelings, the head of Marine aviation said. In early January, the Marine Corps permanently deployed a squadron of F-35Bs to MCAS Iwakuni, marking a major milestone for the program (the first F-35s to be based overseas.) Four Air Force KC-10 Extenders helped the strike fighters make the long trip across the Pacific. The F-35s followed Air Force plans, which included flying through Alaska and not using drop fuel pods for the long distance flight. This, along with extended flight with the F-35Bs’ refueling probe exposed, meant the jets needed multiple refuelings, said Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, the deputy commandant for aviation for the Marine Corps. Davis said the total number of refuelings was about double what he thought was needed. Going forward, the Marine Corps wants to work with USAF to update their plans and procedures for refueling to try to decrease the number of refuelings necessary, Davis said. A similar issue arose last summer when the Marine Corps sent an F-35B to Europe for the Royal International Air Tattoo in England.

    The deployment to Iwakuni has been a success so far, with aircraft currently at a mission capable rate of 70 to 80 percent, Davis said. Six more F-35Bs are expected to arrive at Iwakuni this summer.

    http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive...ong-Hauls.aspx
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,331
    Red Flag 2017 30 minute debrief (sorry about the Audio.. )




    Details of Red Flag 17-1

    Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet

    By: Valerie Insinna, February 3, 2017

    NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. — What happens when the F-35A goes to its very first Red Flag, the Air Force’s premier air-to-air training exercise?

    The answer, according to U.S. military and international participants, is that the event itself becomes more challenging than ever, with a greater number of more capable aggressors outfitted with advanced weaponry.

    Although the Marine Corps operated its short takeoff, vertical landing variant in the event last year, Red Flag 17-1 marks the debut of the conventional F-35A operated by the Air Force. After almost two weeks, 13 joint strike fighters from Hill Air Force Base in Utah have flown 110 sorties, said Lt. Col. George Watkins, 34th Fighter Squadron commander.

    “It’s a much more difficult adversary that we are fighting against here as a team than we would have fought against a year and a half ago, when I was here last,” Watkins said, referencing his previous Red Flag event, which he flew in as an F-16 pilot.

    “They have stepped up the number of red air that we’re fighting — the number of aggressor aircraft that are fighting against us — the amount of jamming and stuff that they’re providing against us, the skill level of the adversary that they are trying to replicate, as well as the surface-to-air missile threat.”

    Fifth-generation aggressors will not be introduced during this Red Flag, but the sheer number of fourth-generation adversaries have posed a problem for participants. Up to about 24 adversaries can be in flight at the same time and can regenerate three or four times after being shot down, Watkins said.

    The F-35A’s kill ratio stands at 15 aggressors to 1 F-35 killed in action, but because Red Flag is a training exercise, the fighter shouldn’t have a perfect record, he contended.

    “If we didn’t suffer a few loses, it wouldn’t be challenging enough, so we’d have to go back and redo it. So there are some threats out there that make it through because of their sheer numbers and the advanced threats that they’re shooting at us. So we have had one or two losses so far in our training,” he said. “That’s good for the pilots.”

    Once the F-35 reaches full combat capability, it will be more lethal, Watkins pointed out. The fighter is currently limited to an internal missile loadout, but will be able to carry a full complement of weapons — including external stores — as early as 2018 in Block 3F.

    For many pilots of other aircraft, the exercise was their first opportunity to fight alongside the joint strike fighter. Lt. Col. Charles Schuck, an F-22 pilot and commander of the 27th fighter squadron, agreed that this year’s Red Flag featured a larger number of skilled adversaries with advanced capabilities. But his squadron’s experience partnering with the Marine Corps’ F-35Bs last year helped them understand how the F-22 and F-35 could augment each other, he said.

    “Getting to work with them gave us a little bit of an advance leg up this time to know what kind of questions to ask our Air Force F-35s so that our knowledge was there,” he said. “And it put us a little out in front in getting ready for the Red Flag, so we didn’t have to start from square one on the very first day.”

    Lt. Col. Dave DeAngeles, an F-35A pilot who commands the reserve detachment at Hill AFB, said the mission-planning sessions were critical for understanding how to best utilize the unique capabilities of each asset to cooperatively defeat a threat.

    “I'm able to sit with my [E/A-18 Growler] partners and just say: ‘How are you able to go and fight different threats, and how are you able to jam them?’ And I'm able to share: ‘This is how I would fight with my F-35,’ ” he said.

    “Then, using the Link 16 network, we're able to kind of pass each other targets as well, so in certain scenarios where they say we need to take out a high-threat [surface-to-air missile] we'll work closely with the Growlers,” he said. While the E/A-18s suppress the threat by jamming and other electronic attacks, “we're able to go ahead and take it out."

    The F-35 has particularly excelled in missions where the enemy can launch advanced surface-to-air missiles. Previously, in scenarios with those weapons, blue forces, or friendlies, would put all their energy into taking them out with standoff weapons such as Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    "We'd have to start from that, and then we'd peel back from there,” Watkins said.

    This year, Red Flag participants have encountered three or four different advanced surface-to-air-missiles in one scenario. In those situations, cyber, space and signals intelligence assets like the Rivet Joint partner with the F-35 to fuse together targeting information. Then, the F-22 uses its standoff weapons to bring down aggressors while the F-35’s stealth capabilities allow it to slip undetected within range of the missile system, where it drops munitions.

    It would be too dangerous for a fourth-generation aircraft like an F-16 to get that close, Watkins said.
    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...ghest-test-yet
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 3rd February 2017 at 15:29.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,195
    Lockheed to announce $8.5 billion F-35 order on Friday: sources

    The U.S. Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) are set to announce a deal worth about $8.5 billion for 90 F-35 jets on Friday, people familiar with the talks said.

    The deal for the tenth batch of the stealthy fighter aircraft brings the price per jet below $95 million for the first time, compared to $102 million in the previous batch, saving Pentagon more than $700 million, the people said.

    This is more than the $600 million that U.S. President Donald Trump claimed on Monday he had been able to shave off from the F-35, the Pentagon's costliest arms program.

    Trump has lashed the program as "out of control" in December and vowed to bring the prices down.

    A Lockheed representative declined to comment. A representative for the Defense Department's F-35 program did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,195
    New URF's released by the program for the 10th LOT -

    The Lot 10 contract represents a $728 million reduction in total price when compared to Lot 9. The approximate per variant unit prices, including jet, engine and fee are as follows:

    F-35A: $94.6 million (7.3% reduction from Lot 9)

    F-35B: $122.8 million (6.7% reduction from Lot 9)

    F-35C $121.8 million (7.9% reduction from Lot 9)

    The LRIP 10 contract includes 55 jets for the U.S. Services and 35 jets for international partners and foreign military sales customers:

    44 F-35A for the U.S. Air Force

    9 F-35B for the U.S. Marine Corps

    2 F-35C for the U.S. Navy

    3 F-35B for UK

    6 F-35A for Norway

    8 F-35A for Australia

    2 F-35A for Turkey

    4 F-35A for Japan

    6 F-35A for Israel

    6 F-35A for South Korea
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,331
    The Lot 10 contract represents a $728 million reduction in total price when compared to Lot 9. The approximate per variant unit prices, including jet, engine and fee are as follows:

    F-35A: $94.6 million (7.3% reduction from Lot 9)

    F-35B: $122.8 million (6.7% reduction from Lot 9)

    F-35C $121.8 million (7.9% reduction from Lot 9)

    ...

    In addition to procuring the air vehicles, this contract funds manufacturing support equipment and ancillary mission equipment.
    Https://www.f35.com/news/detail/agre...rogram-history
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 3rd February 2017 at 18:38.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    It does demonstrate the hyperbole in media reporting about the F-35 though -- the plane being too bouncy on take-off when lightly loaded (i.e. not a problem in most missions) is reported as "debilitating" and yet Russian planes are crashing every several weeks in the Mediterranean and apparently that's fine.
    What media have you been reading? There was a media frenzy about "smoky Kuznetsov" and "crashing planes" during the entire deployment lol. Poor example to put it mildly if you want to rehabilitate the coverage of the F-35s constant "not problems".
    Last edited by TR1; 3rd February 2017 at 20:11.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (5 members and 3 guests)

  1. 702702,
  2. bring_it_on,
  3. edi_right_round,
  4. FBW,
  5. MSphere

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES