Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Re-engining The A320/737 Decision Next Year?  
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7498 times:

According to Flight International, Airbus will decide next year if they will move on with a new engine for the A320.

From the article:
“Re-engining the A320 family is part of a shifting strategy to meet emerging competitors and a determination that a replacement airplane with required technological advancements needed to meet growing airline demands won't be ready until the early part of the 2020 decade.”

“Boeing is also considering a re-engined 737, something that is more challenging given the "737 squat" much closer to the ground than the A320. This dramatically reduces the options for a new engine because of the diameter constraints.”

“Airbus is known to believe that re-engining the A320 family with a the PW GTF, the CFM LEAP-X or the Rolls-Royce three-stage engine will maintain competitiveness with emerging airplanes and meet airline demands for a step-improvement now rather than being forced to wait until the 2020 decade for game-changers. Entry-into-service (EIS) for a re-engined A320, if a go-ahead is achieved by year-end 2010, would be around 2015. Airbus believes a re-engined aircraft must be saleable for 7-8 years to amortise the development costs.”

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...20-re-engine-decision-in-2010.html

If Airbus decides on what to do next year, I believe that Boeing will follow closely. For us airplane nuts, it is nice to see a more major overhaul of the narrow body airplanes from Airbus and Boeing. But I have some questions as well. Do you think it will be possible to offer engine upgrade for the current fleet of A320 and 737NG?

They are built to last and the ones built today might be in service for 30-50 years from now. With the GTF Boeing need a larger MLG on the 737. That will make it more expensive to upgrade from the CFM56 engines. If however Boeing turns to the Leap-X engine, they can fit this engine without major modifications to the MLG, so that might be easier to update current airframes. If it will be possible to refit on the current planes, it will be a potential for more than 10 000 engines sold for replacements.


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7352 times:

Another question: Has Boeing done the internal "widening" of the fuselage to any degree yet?


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7312 times:



Quoting FrmrCAPCADET (Reply 1):
Has Boeing done the internal "widening" of the fuselage to any degree yet?

What internal widening? They just introduced the new 737NG interior a few months ago (not sure when it first delivers). Unless that interior included a reduced wall thickness, I didn't even know a widening was on the horizon.

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
With the GTF Boeing need a larger MLG on the 737.

I keep seeing this written, but it's not immediately obvious to me why it's true...they always have the option to raise the engine relative to the wing. There are obviously aerodynamic tradeoffs to doing that, but there's major tradeoffs to lenghening MLG as well.

Tom.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30987 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7273 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Pratt's VP of the GTF program thinks they might be able to mount a GTF under a current 737NG, thanks to being able to mount it farther forward of the wing, which would lift it up closer to the wing's leading edge, which itself evidently brings aerodynamic advantages and requires less wing structure to support the engine. They believe they can provide between 24,000-30,000 pounds of thrust with an 80" fan and a 96" nacelle. I don't know what the current nacelle diameter is for the CFM56-7B, though Boeing will be introducing a new nacelle with the CFM56-7B Evolution engine (offering 1% better fuel burn and 4% lower maintenance costs) entering service with the 737NG in 2011.

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
"Airbus believes a re-engined aircraft must be saleable for 7-8 years to amortise the development costs.”

They're not the only ones. Pratt has stated they are not interested in developing a GTF for the 737NG or A320 unless those models continue in regular production for some time to ensure they can sell enough on new-build frames to make their RoI targets. They do not want to depend mainly (much less solely) on re-engining existing frames.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7274 times:

The game will go like this:

Airbus will offer a re-engined A320. They are floating it right now, as they floated a re-engined A330 before the 7E7 was finalized.

Boeing will see if they can match it with a re-engined 737NG. If, as Airbus says, there is no room, it will force Boeing to go with a true 737RS/797.

That move will force Airbus to examine the benefits of an A320NG or A360.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7152 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):

What internal widening? They just introduced the new 737NG interior a few months ago (not sure when it first delivers). Unless that interior included a reduced wall thickness, I didn't even know a widening was on the horizon.

That is my question. At least on this site the slightly narrower 737 is regularly listed as a major handicap. Not sure I can tell the difference on the inside. Except on BAs 320 which have really nice pitch (but do they ever make up for it in their 747s - yuk)



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30987 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7079 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting FrmrCAPCADET (Reply 5):
At least on this site the slightly narrower 737 is regularly listed as a major handicap.

Well that's just partisanship. If the 737 really was as poor as the Airbus Aficionados claim it is, it would not have recorded over 5000 sales in 16 years.

I notice the difference when I am inside an A320 vs. a 737 Classic. I don't notice the difference when I am in a 737NG. The refreshed interior and newer generation of seating on the NG vs. the Classic does wonders for the plane and I find it the general equal of the A320 for the most part. The A320 is a bit quieter at cruise, but it's not something I consciously notice.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7072 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):
I keep seeing this written, but it's not immediately obvious to me why it's true...they always have the option to raise the engine relative to the wing. There are obviously aerodynamic tradeoffs to doing that, but there's major tradeoffs to lenghening MLG as well.

Tom.

It has been stated that since the engine has a larger diameter it might be a tight fit in both Flightglobal as well as Aviation week. It might be as you and Stitch suggest, that it might be possible without lengthening the MLG. I hope so.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9640 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6932 times:

The height of the 737 is far less of a problem than everyone on this board thinks it is. Modifications can be made to make a larger engine fit. It is not impossible. Nose gear, main gear and strut could all be modified without going to an RS.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1472 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6902 times:



Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 8):
Nose gear, main gear and strut could all be modified without going to an RS.

Im not sure how much higher you can go with the 737 without the added complication of designing an overwing slide for those exits like on the A320 family (similar in size).



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6736 times:

The 737 can't go any higher w/o escape problems.

If you are going to do much work - why not use the plane with the same fuselage that already sits on tall gear - the 757.

The 757 weighs too much and was not a sales winner at the end of its life - so you will need a 757 RS (AKA 737 RS) to make it competitive.

Sounds like a new plane - should make large parts of it from carbon fiber.

Can't design a new carbon fiber plane until the 787 is flying and real data can be fed back to engineers (and comptuers).

787 will be flying "In a few weeks" - just wait a few months and then you can start the 737 with the big engines design.

--

I think the 737 would have to go with Leap-X and similar size fan - or get some experts (does Boeing have any left   ) to get the larger engined shoe horned in w/o too much drag. Until Airbus moves, Boeing can probably wait and decide how to react.

[Edited 2009-10-11 16:58:52]

User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6220 times:



Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 8):
The height of the 737 is far less of a problem than everyone on this board thinks it is. Modifications can be made to make a larger engine fit. It is not impossible. Nose gear, main gear and strut could all be modified without going to an RS.

Interesting RoseFlyer. Do you believe that Boeing will offer new engines retrofitted for the current built 737NG?

Quoting ADent (Reply 10):
I think the 737 would have to go with Leap-X and similar size fan - or get some experts (does Boeing have any left ) to get the larger engined shoe horned in w/o too much drag. Until Airbus moves, Boeing can probably wait and decide how to react.

So you believe Airbus will move first?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5706 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Boeing will see if they can match it with a re-engined 737NG. If, as Airbus says, there is no room, it will force Boeing to go with a true 737RS/797.

You can bet a large pile of cash that any engine maker will make sure it fits on a 737 if it is sized for a A320. Somehow I don't see engine makers being so stupid as to write off 50% of the potential narrowbody market for a tiny benifit in effiency on the other 1/2. The only way they would is if they were flat told *no* for putting thier engine under one of the two planes.

That is the big question though. What happens to the engine monopolies that currently exist? First one wins the prize? Best one? One with the largest bribe to the frame maker?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5533 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Boeing will see if they can match it with a re-engined 737NG. If, as Airbus says, there is no room, it will force Boeing to go with a true 737RS/797.

That move will force Airbus to examine the benefits of an A320NG or A360.

That's always how I believed this exercise will end up. Combine this with recent ideas floating around the current narrowbodies could be replaced by bigger and smaller aircraft. Boeing has limitted resources / other priorities and I (still) think we could end up seeing Boeing buying into the CSeries or a similar Embraer program and focussing on a advanced program for 170-250 seaters later in the decade.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...r_Y1_narrow_bod-1.jpg?t=1235478676 http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/3513052


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5372 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Well that's just partisanship. If the 737 really was as poor as the Airbus Aficionados claim it is, it would not have recorded over 5000 sales in 16 years.

I've never at any time seen the 737 described as being any type of "poor" aircraft, but I've certainly noticed a recent tendancy here to deliberately misquote/assume for nothing but effect.


User currently offlineCV990Coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5256 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ikramerica Reply 4,

The game will go like this:

Airbus will offer a re-engined A320. They are floating it right now, as they floated a re-engined A330 before the 7E7 was finalized.

Boeing will see if they can match it with a re-engined 737NG. If, as Airbus says, there is no room, it will force Boeing to go with a true 737RS/797.

That move will force Airbus to examine the benefits of an A320NG or A360.


I think you have it in a nutshell. And then we have a very interesting situation



SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5209 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):
I keep seeing this written, but it's not immediately obvious to me why it's true...they always have the option to raise the engine relative to the wing. There are obviously aerodynamic tradeoffs to doing that, but there's major tradeoffs to lenghening MLG as well.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Pratt's VP of the GTF program thinks they might be able to mount a GTF under a current 737NG, thanks to being able to mount it farther forward of the wing, which would lift it up closer to the wing's leading edge, which itself evidently brings aerodynamic advantages and requires less wing structure to support the engine

If you move the engine further forward, you extend the pylon, and introduce a lot more bending movement onto the wing, to my mind this requires more structure, not less. As to lifting the engine up, there must be a point when the hot exhaust gets a bit too close to the wing..


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5047 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 12):
That is the big question though. What happens to the engine monopolies that currently exist? First one wins the prize? Best one? One with the largest bribe to the frame maker?

For that reason, I would see Boeing's only easy choice to be a new-gen CFM56, whereas Airbus at least already has competition for the A320 engines.

When you consider that many of the A320s and 737s on order will already have had engines selected and contracts signed, the situation becomes even more complex.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this one pans out.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineABpositive From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5020 times:



Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 16):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):
I keep seeing this written, but it's not immediately obvious to me why it's true...they always have the option to raise the engine relative to the wing. There are obviously aerodynamic tradeoffs to doing that, but there's major tradeoffs to lenghening MLG as well.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Pratt's VP of the GTF program thinks they might be able to mount a GTF under a current 737NG, thanks to being able to mount it farther forward of the wing, which would lift it up closer to the wing's leading edge, which itself evidently brings aerodynamic advantages and requires less wing structure to support the engine

If you move the engine further forward, you extend the pylon, and introduce a lot more bending movement onto the wing, to my mind this requires more structure, not less. As to lifting the engine up, there must be a point when the hot exhaust gets a bit too close to the wing..

What don't they construct 737 with longer undercarriage?


User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4847 times:



Quoting ADent (Reply 10):
I think the 737 would have to go with Leap-X and similar size fan - or get some experts (does Boeing have any left ) to get the larger engined shoe horned in w/o too much drag. Until Airbus moves, Boeing can probably wait and decide how to react.

A large proportion of the benefits of the any new engine for the B737 or A320 will come from having a higher BPR with slower fan speed. i.e. take in a larger volume of air and accelerate it less.

The slower fan speed is achieved by PW by the GTF but RR can do something to the same effect by adding a 3rd shaft and designing the LPT to suit the bigger fan!


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4823 times:



Quoting ABpositive (Reply 18):
What don't they construct 737 with longer undercarriage?

The big question is, if you lengthen the undercarriage, where do you put it when it retracts. I would assume that if this was relatively simple, Boeing would have done this when the 733 was launched. Enlarging the undercarriage bay may well infringe on lots of other parts of the structure.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3000 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4819 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 12):
What happens to the engine monopolies that currently exist?

 Confused
Huh - who has a monopoly? (Monopoly: a single individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to alone determine the terms on which other individuals/enterprises have access to it. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition.)



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4807 times:

Maybe just lenghten the 737 nose gear?  Wink

http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/AirSea/MiscAir/SaraF4Launch.jpeg


User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4750 times:



Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 20):
The big question is, if you lengthen the undercarriage, where do you put it when it retracts. I would assume that if this was relatively simple, Boeing would have done this when the 733 was launched. Enlarging the undercarriage bay may well infringe on lots of other parts of the structure.

Aircraft landing gear shortening apparatus
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2967682.pdf
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5029775/description.html


User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3068 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4644 times:



Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 20):
Quoting ABpositive (Reply 18):
What don't they construct 737 with longer undercarriage?

The big question is, if you lengthen the undercarriage, where do you put it when it retracts. I would assume that if this was relatively simple, Boeing would have done this when the 733 was launched. Enlarging the undercarriage bay may well infringe on lots of other parts of the structure.

As tightly packed into the fuselage as current 737 main landing gear are in the stowed position (so tightly, in fact, that when the gear is retracted the wheels fit flush with the bottom of the plane and have no separate doors!), I suspect the only "simple" way to lengthen them would be to move their pivot points outward along the wings. However, since I'm not intimately familiar with the hidden structure(s) inside 737 wings, I don't know how many other problems that might cause. Plus there's the additional problem of lengthening the nose landing gear, which as far as I know is packed equally tightly into a much more component- and systems-dense (read "expensive to modify") part of the aircraft.

Basically, the 737 is a very efficiently designed aircraft with almost no "extra" or "wasted" space on board for modifications to major sub-systems like landing gear, and Boeing should be commended for getting the 737 design so close to "right" when it was first laid out 40-some-odd years ago. The flip side of that is that it's hard to make a case for a complete redesign of the 737 when such a project would result in minimal gains in any parameter over the current aircraft.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
25 Antoniemey : I belive the 737NG models are slightly higher off the ground than the Classics, as the Classics were slightly higher than the 100 and 200. But, it is
26 SP90 : Assuming the re-engine works out, great! But if it doesn't what are the other options? What are the chances that Boeing will go with a rear engine T-t
27 Scbriml : Well, CFM does have a monopoly on 737 engines. They're also one of only two options on the A320. Without checking the numbers, they must have around
28 Ikramerica : But they don't have pricing control. If they price the CFM too high, nobody will buy the 737NG or A320CFM over the competing engined A320.
29 Bongodog1964 : In usual terms 75% would be considered way over the threshold for a monopoly, of course in Aviation things generally appear different.
30 Ikramerica : ??? It isn't about percentages, but about pricing pressure. Monopolists don't have pricing pressure from competitors, only from potential competitors
31 CF6PPE : Just a question... Why does the engine core have to be below the 737's wing....??? Maybe it could be above the wing like the Lockheed L188 Electra.. O
32 Alangirvan : Will the decision be made by the airframe manufacturers or the customer airlines? Lufthansa has already gone for C-Series with GTFs, so GTFs would hav
33 R2rho : If this does happen nest year, I'd expect it to 4th quarter 2010, no earlier. A&B are in no hurry to develop a new narrowbody with the A320 & 737 (and
34 Bongodog1964 : I imagine you are looking at this from a USA perspective, from a UK/EU perspective it would be viewed rather differently. Here price pressure doesn't
35 Stitch : Did the UK register any protests when the EU gave their formal approval to the merger?
36 AirbusA6 : Well the UK allowed (and indeed instigated) the merger of BAC/HS and Scottish Aviation to form BAe, then allowed the BAe/GEC Marconi merger to create
37 Ikramerica : No, you just don't understand what a MONOPOLY is. We aren't talking about the EU's stance on competition, but on the definition of a monopoly. Anti-t
38 Bongodog1964 : Why can you not see that European regulators have a different definition ?
39 Bongodog1964 : The Labour Government of 1977 or thereabouts nationalised BAC/HS and Scottish Aviation. The individual company owners were against this. Monopoly rul
40 FrmrCAPCADET : One dynamic that controls the price of near monopoly aircraft engines (737, 777-300, 350) is that there are other engines which are somewhat similar a
41 Tdscanuck : The short answer is that doesn't. But putting it above would alter the aerodynamics, high-lift, and wing so much that I doubt they'd be able to call
42 DocLightning : The thing is that if there is a simple re-engine, it will be tempting to tweak this or that or the other thing. Has anyone straight-up re-engined an
43 TSS : Boeing, when they went from the 737-100/200 ("Jurassic") with low-bypass JT8Ds to the 737-300/400/500 ("Classic") with relatively high-bypass CFM-56s
44 Tdscanuck : Yup. Cue the 717 (the MD one, not the original Boeing one). I'm not sure about flat out zero other changes, but the DC-8's with the CFM upgrades have
45 PM : Where is IAE in all of this? The FLIGHT article suggests that PW and RR are proposing competing designs for the A320. I thought their agreement throug
46 OyKIE : How about 737-10, 11, and 12 for branding purpose? I found that interesting as well. Is this because of disagreement about what core will be the futu
47 PM : The Dornier 328 comes to mind. It went from a turboprop to a jet (which I assume is no minor matter) but I've no idea how much re-engineering it requ
48 Burkhard : We speak about aircraft delivered between 2015 and 2023, so I read the announcement as a message to airlines to not fix the engines now for dliveries
49 Bongodog1964 : The IAE consortium dates back to 1983, I would imagine somewhere buried deep in the small print there's a break clause which allows the partners to g
50 F14D4ever : Just to embellish Tom's spot-on reply, putting the engine above the wing means that, as thrust is applied, bending moment about the wing is aggravate
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FI:Boeing Hints At GTF 737 Re-engining Study posted Thu Sep 18 2008 16:27:40 by Planemaker
BA's Next Fleet Decision By Year End posted Mon Feb 4 2008 02:30:13 by Scbriml
Where Are Fares Going In The Next Year? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 19:05:09 by ATLAaron
Air Madrid To Add 5 A320's Next Year! posted Mon Jul 4 2005 20:31:01 by B742
What Will Replace The A320 Next Decade? posted Sat Mar 9 2002 15:48:58 by American 767
A320 Family Or 737 (incl. Next Gen')? posted Thu Nov 9 2000 23:04:06 by Red Panda
4U Flies CGN-CPH And CGN-MAD From Next Year posted Thu Sep 17 2009 09:28:43 by TheSonntag
The Oldest 737-800's posted Fri Jul 24 2009 09:27:02 by AA388
Where Are The ASA ATR ...Going Next? posted Tue May 12 2009 15:45:13 by Xdlx
Dassault Mercure - The European 737! posted Fri Apr 17 2009 06:17:02 by LMML 14/32