Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could This Become The 797?  
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 35256 times:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7900865.pdf

Could this become the 797?


A new Boeing patent shows a new proposal. Could that become the 797?

65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinegabo787 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 35010 times:

That would be sweet and a nice change from what we are use to see at airports, but I believe this is just another Boeing patent for the "future", I think that the 797 will have a slick look but in a conventional way like the 787.

Just my 2 cents.

[Edited 2011-03-21 05:17:33]

User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 34998 times:

There is no economic reason why an airliner will ever have canards or forward swept wings. Too much weight, too many unknowns, and a limited cg envelope.

Looks like a design concept and nothing more. Clearly Boeing's patenting something just in case they might use it 50 years from now.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 34898 times:

It's a neat looking patent, thanks for linking to it. According to the summary it's all about reducing ground noise.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/Fleetwing1627/797.jpg

A 787 windscreen attached to a somewhat flattened fuselage, this configuration with canards below the cabin and with unducted turbofans.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12185 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 34565 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 2):
Clearly Boeing's patenting something just in case they might use it 50 years from now.

I thought US Patents were only good for about 28 years.

I do see a problem with the canards, they could easily be hit by the jetways.


User currently offlineburkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 34499 times:

No. Put a 787 and a 737 into a hangar for a night and watch what will come out.

User currently offlineGarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2721 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 34481 times:

Quoting burkhard (Reply 5):
No. Put a 787 and a 737 into a hangar for a night and watch what will come out.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7723 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 34421 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
I do see a problem with the canards, they could easily be hit by the jetways.

I had the same thoughts.

I think all of this is simply part of the game Boeing plays with Airbus. It was pointed out in another thread that Boeing frequently has leaked outlandish designs prior to a new model being announced. The question is what do they gain by these intentional leaks? I'm not sure. Maybe it is simply a smokescreen to hide more subtle changes and keep Airbus asking the wrong questions. Who knows...


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2989 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 34325 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Where will the UNITED sticker go . Must admit that I want to fly something like that before I die!

Many pax would have no window, would they? Could a plane be built w a skylight of sorts?



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 34230 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 7):
It was pointed out in another thread that Boeing frequently has leaked outlandish designs prior to a new model being announced.

Kind of like the Sonic Cruiser, used as a cover to develop 787 technologies?


This new patent does look like a smaller turbo prop sonic cruiser.



Boeing needs to get a BWB airliner in development.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 34060 times:

At the risk (certainty!) of sounding childish this design is give or take exactly what I pencilled out myself for what I considered would be the optimum solution for an "OR" powered plane. As such I am really pleased to see it! However Boeing (again today) has once again ruled out OR due to the faintest possibility of "a blade out failure".

One of the elegant aspects of this route is that the blades themselves would be rotating "behind" the pressurised part of the tube.Furthermore you have 2 and a half "tails" so that any damage to one would not be disasterous. The sound muffling (OR) route is of course obvious in this design.

Also FSW is perfect for the sightly slower speeds an OR would work at.

But... They are going down (they say - often) a conventional route.All of the advantages of this complex design are lost when using a conventional fan. You just don't need to do it. As for a patent. If a fool like me can see that this is the OR solution,then so of course can Airbus.So I really don't believe that this can receive a patent.

If I am wrong and it could,then it might simply be insurance to stop Airbus following their conventional route (now) with something identical to this. *BTW the canards allow you to stretch an aircraft like this more easily.I am not even sure that the shortest version would need them.

But it is the route that I would love to see - circa 2025. (Hence the Airbus comment).


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 33902 times:

One inherent problem with FSW is they are inherently very un-stable. That and the canard makes it doubly so.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinejoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3188 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 33899 times:

Quoting burkhard (Reply 5):
No. Put a 787 and a 737 into a hangar for a night and watch what will come out.

Now if only the whole development process would also take just 9 months  


User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7723 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 33873 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 10):
*BTW the canards allow you to stretch an aircraft like this more easily.I am not even sure that the shortest version would need them.

Is there any reason they couldn't be retractable to allow for jetway connection?

Did anybody notice that the cunards appear to be above the windows in one diagram (OP) and below the windows in another diagram (post #3)? Isn't that a bit shoddy for a patent drawing?


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 33812 times:

One inherent problem with FSW is they are inherently very un-stable. That and the canard makes it doubly so.

bikerthai

Is that right. Not questioning this for a moment BTW just did not know that it was naturally so. They do allow a greater part of the wing to be laminar (I believe) and reduce wing tip vortex's. They have been around (again I believe) since the 2nd WW (Germany). Certainly I have flown many a sailplane that has (slightly) FSW. They were not unstable in fact "trimmed" it was "hands off" (no not in thermals!). But 100 mph ain't the same as 500mph I grant!


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 33440 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 14):
reduce wing tip vortex's.

From what I understand, they eliminate wing tip vortex. The would be vortices roll under the fuselage and comes out as lift.

This is what I understand by the instability of the forward wing concept.

For a typical aft swept wing, as the angle of attack increases the lift imposed on the tip wants to twist the wing back to level. For a forward swept wing, as the angle of attack increases, the tip of the wing wants to twist the wing to increase the angle of attack (lift) even more.

In the case of the sail plane, the horizontal stabilizer and moment of lift in the airfoil would off-set any the instability in the forward swept. The forward swept probably moved the aerodynamic CG to make for a very maneuverable sail plane. Otherwise you would probably get a very dull ride  


bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 32996 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
I thought US Patents were only good for about 28 years.

I think it is more like 20 years. 28 years was the old copyright length, with a 28 year renewal. The U.S. patent and copyright rules were revised in the 1970s to match international standards. Current copyright rules are 75 years or 50 years after the death of the author, whichever is later, so that may be why the poster was thinking that the design could be for 50 years in the future.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3880 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 32154 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting enilria (Reply 13):
Is there any reason they couldn't be retractable to allow for jetway connection?

because of the retraction/extension mechanism weight, retractable canards are out


User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 580 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 31753 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting... I'm wondering if the only real element of this design that we will see, will be the fuselage.

What with the cross section being 2x3x2 or 2x2x2 and the need to keep it efficient a fuselage as per above would be more efficient rather than a circular tube, allowing more lift.

As for the add on parts, not sure but like others, I would love to see such a design fly. In fact, I'd love to see the sonic cruiser fly...



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently onlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11583 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 31210 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 2):
Clearly Boeing's patenting something just in case they might use it 50 years from now.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
I thought US Patents were only good for about 28 years.

Patents in the United States last 20 years from the date of filing. Though, this patent has a 384 day extension (probably because of a delay caused by the Patent and Trademark Office) so, this patent would expire in January 2027 - 16 years from now.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 9):
Boeing needs to get a BWB airliner in development.

Not gonna happen. Think about how far the tips of a wing rise and fall when a plane banks - could be 30, 40, or 50 feet even. Think about how uncomfortable it would be for someone riding in a seat that is far from the middle of the row when it banks. Talk about a rollercoaster ride!

Quoting enilria (Reply 13):
Did anybody notice that the cunards appear to be above the windows in one diagram (OP) and below the windows in another diagram (post #3)? Isn't that a bit shoddy for a patent drawing?

Nah, it's just a different embodiment of the invention in the patent.

The patent doesn't give you a monopoly on a plane that looks like the drawings. Instead, a patent gives you a monopoly on the thing that you have "claimed:" which are the numbered list at the end of the patent. This patent has 29 claims, and each of them includes a forward swept wing.

Interesting!!!



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMPDPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1005 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 30856 times:

I like the design, I tend to think that it is too experimental for the 797, much like the sonic cruiser was in the late 90's. A few things though:

Those are likely not designed as canards but as a second wing, much like the Avanti. A canard is different, where as a second wing is designed to created the extra lift to put the center of lift in the right spot.

Also the forward swept wings though they are more unstable probably don't pose that much of an issue with the fly-by-wire controls of today. I mean they say the F-22 is so unstable that a pilot would literally not be able to control it without the aid of a computer. Though I tend to thing the forward swept wing would gain little in the efficiency area over the traditional swept wing, but due to the placement of the wing, the traditional aft swept wing wouldn't work.

The engine placement would be ideal as well for the open rotor engine. And quiet too.

As for the jet-way issue, you would just put the boarding door further back, much like boarding from L2 on a 757. Then you put a small door upfront for emergencies.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 2):
There is no economic reason why an airliner will ever have canards or forward swept wings. Too much weight, too many unknowns, and a limited cg envelope.

There are economic reasons for canards and forward swept wings though. I would recommend reading about the Avanti aircraft for more details but from what I have read. Placing the wing in the center of the fusalage's vertical axis is ideal for weight purposes, but then the wingbox would go right through the passenger cabin so the idea with the avanti was to put the wing behind the cabin (much like above). However the center of lift would be way out of wack so to correct this they added the forward wing to add the forward lift needed to get the center of lift in the right spot. Now the Avanti uses a straight wing and therefore travels at .70Mach, if this was to be a successful aircraft out to 3000nm, they would need to travel faster. However a traditional swept wing would further cause center of lift issues and would hang off the back, so a forward swept wing does the same thing. And today with all the fly-by-wire technology the instability of it is moot.

To me this design makes sense, far more sense than the blended wing body that always comes up.



One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15842 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 29386 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Thread starter):
Could that become the 797?

Not likely. I don't see much that would make this more efficient than a conventional plane. Canards and double tails are weight that doesn't need to be there.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 8):
Must admit that I want to fly something like that before I die!
http://www.avantair.com/

Or you could try and find one of the rare, non-broken up examples of the sky Edsel (more like a Porsche 928 really) known as the Beechcraft Starship.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 9):
Boeing needs to get a BWB airliner in development.

They are already doing work on that, and others are as well. But there are still many things that need to happen before BWB will become a commonplace airliner. The 737 replacement will not be BWB if we are talking around 2020.

Quoting parapente (Reply 10):
One of the elegant aspects of this route is that the blades themselves would be rotating "behind" the pressurised part of the tube.Furthermore you have 2 and a half "tails" so that any damage to one would not be disasterous. The sound muffling (OR) route is of course obvious in this design.

If solving the problems with open rotor are going to degrade the benefits of open rotor, it isn't going to happen. Like I said before, I have to think at this point that open rotor is the aeronautical equivalent of hydrogen cars.

Quoting parapente (Reply 10):
hey are going down (they say - often) a conventional route.

The conventional route became the conventional route for a reason.

Quoting parapente (Reply 10):
If a fool like me can see that this is the OR solution,then so of course can Airbus.So I really don't believe that this can receive a patent.

The patent office won't care. The patent is on the configuration, not the powerplant. It covers the placement of the engines, not what engines are placed there. Furthermore, there isn't a cap on patents, so all Boeing would have to do is just submit another with drawings of open rotor engines on it.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 15):
For a typical aft swept wing, as the angle of attack increases the lift imposed on the tip wants to twist the wing back to level.

This also makes forward swept wings more structurally inefficient, if I remember correctly.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11583 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 28865 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
The conventional route became the conventional route for a reason.

  

Quoting parapente (Reply 10):
So I really don't believe that this can receive a patent.

Why not?

All it has to be to get a patent is not anticipated (as in, no one else has publicly done this exact same thing) and not obvious (basically put, more than just an incremental step from what is already known to the world). The patent's individual claims are how you judge anticipation and obviousness, not the drawings. In this case, the claims describe a very detailed configuration that presumably has never been designed before.

See 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103.  
Quoting parapente (Reply 10):
But it is the route that I would love to see - circa 2025.

This patent will expire shortly after then, in January 2027.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinerl757pvd From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4718 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 28440 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 13):
Did anybody notice that the cunards appear to be above the windows in one diagram (OP) and below the windows in another diagram (post #3)? Isn't that a bit shoddy for a patent drawing?

It looks like the lower canards are on the "prop" version and the upper ones are on the traditional jet engine one. Not sure if there is a reason for that or maybe the borrowed from an order design for one of the two.

The interesting thing is that by accomodating both types of the engine (traditional and external (whatever its called)) it makes the airplane more flexible and marketable.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3157 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 28387 times:

Quoting joost (Reply 12):
Now if only the whole development process would also take just 9 months

No. You're assuming a human gestation period. This should be more akin to the gestation for a blue whale. So, 12 months.  
Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
because of the retraction/extension mechanism weight, retractable canards are out

As out of the box as this proposal is, and far future thinking, I think retraction mechamisms might also evolve. If it's necessary, it's necessary. Never say never on a patent that's 20 years out if it's built at all.

"Those newfangled wing-mounted turbofans will never work. Baggage carts will run into them every day."
--Curmudgeon, 1952

-Rampart


25 bikerthai : There is one thing about the placement of the wing that makes it not as efficient. The existing design place the wing box at more or less the center o
26 DIJKKIJK : They could be made foldable, couldn't they?
27 Post contains images Stitch :
28 D L X : It should be noted that a patent (this one or any one) is not a design document. So in other words, don't interpret those drawings as what the plane
29 Post contains images planemaker : With BWB pax would not be out on the wingtips. In any case, by the time we would see a BWB there would be no reason for a high bank rate. And add the
30 bikerthai : Was the Northrop Flying Wing unstable also? I read that a flying wing was difficult to control before the days of computers, but I'm not sure if they
31 BMI727 : You can build flying wings with tails, but the Northrop flying wings were difficult to control. The YB-49 did have vertical tail surfaces and most BW
32 D L X : They wouldn't have to be at the wingtips to have a very substantial movement when the plane rolls. I mean, consider flying a window seat in a 747 - t
33 srbmod : Boeing offered an option on the 777 for folding wingtips so airlines could fit the a/c into a smaller gate space, but airlines were not interested be
34 planemaker : Because other than in an emergency there won't be any requirement for high bank angles nor high bank rates.
35 D L X : I'm just thinking the River Visual here in DC requires a pretty significant bank angle. This is not an emergency manouver, just an ordinary one that
36 planemaker : Yes, the "visual" can result in significant bank angles but that is because the aircraft has to follow the river for two reasons: 1) noise abatement
37 KC135TopBoom : Thanks D L X and AADC10. Or just try to imagine a B-767-300ER and a L-1049 Connie. Two jets, two props, and three peices of tail. Agreed, I think the
38 Post contains links sxb : U2 had a similar design when they called for their ecojet http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ore-images-of-easyjets-ecojet.html http://www.easyjet
39 bikerthai : Or have your canard above the door similar to the 757 F-22 flying test bed. Kind of ugly though! bikerhtai
40 MD-90 : The P.180 is an incredible aircraft but it doesn't actually have canards--those are small wings for lift only, since they don't control pitch (if the
41 goblin211 : This really isn't something new. Boeing had this idea in '04 maybe earlier? I remember seeing the exact same design in a book about the history of Boe
42 Post contains images goblin211 : I do like garpd's idea of the 797. seems more likely.
43 rcair1 : Nah - typical. Often they are different "embodiments" Yes - it is 20 years, unless the patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclai
44 Post contains images planemaker : The Avanti "canard" does have flaps. You can see them lowered in this pic...
45 Post contains images D L X : You probably saw it sometime in 2006, when this patent was filed. What? And read limitations from the specification into the claims?!
46 LimaNiner : I thought that one benefit of canards is that they provide control by varying the amount of *up*ward force, as opposed to the traditional tail-mounte
47 ferpe : This is indeed an advantage, the major reason why canard designs are not more common despite this advantae is that it has to be dynamically semi- or
48 MD-90 : Crap, I forgot, yes it does. However they're simpler to implement when the it's not a canard controlling pitch. Imagine if the canard required variab
49 SLCPilot : Wow ! Are there any images of this? I imagine this to be somewhat (very, very loosely) akin to the strakes on the front of an MD-80. As for FBW being
50 ThirtyEcho : Given the status of petroleum reserves in the world. I think that the 797 will look a great deal like a DC-3.
51 planemaker : The F-16 cannot be flown without FBW, nor the F-22, for example, precisely because they were designed to be dynamically unstable so as to make them a
52 Post contains links tommytoyz : I know one of the guys that worked on the Avanti and had many conversations with him about all sorts of concepts. One thing you must realize, is that
53 bwvilla : I once saw a TV programme about unstable aircraft designs where some expert said that trying to fly one of these modern fighter jets without FBW woul
54 SLCPilot : Again, my point is the instability comes from the location of the CG, NOT the shape of the aircraft. We know the shape of the aircraft, not the CG. A
55 bikerthai : The aircraft CG (weight) is only a part of the instability equation. The aerodynamic CG or the moment of lift of the airfoil (or wing) is the other p
56 Post contains images planemaker : CG is a "canard" in this discussion. In the old days one of the simplest, graphic examples of stability is a marble and bowl. With the bowl right way
57 pylon101 : I am just wondering. If Grumman X-29 and Sukhoi SU-47 were abandoned, does it provide us any insight in discussing civil aircraft and this particular
58 HAL9k : The plane as shown on the drawings on the initial posts can't have retractable canard, as the wing is a swept wing (forward or rearward needs balanci
59 planemaker : You are correct but... it isn't just a "standard" T tail. The Avanti is a bit more unique (and innovative) in that the "standard T tail" actually is
60 tdscanuck : Forward sweep, if you don't have to pay a weight penalty for the extra required stiffness (enter composites) can have better drag characteristics. Th
61 rcair1 : I always thought that this was such a waste - you are creating downward force that must be counteracted, and induced drag to build that downward forc
62 bikerthai : I forgot about this aspect. To be efficient structurally, forward swept wing will need to be composite. With automated tape laying, the cost of tailo
63 HAL9k : Yes you are completely right on the 3 surface lifting concept. By the way the Avanti is pitch controlled by elevators on the tail surfces, not on the
64 planemaker : Yes, typically, since it reduces weight and drag. It varies not only by aircraft type and CG location but also, obviously, on flight regime. Typicall
65 tdscanuck : It's more efficient for airliners to live with the downforce on the tail than all the other compromises that have to be made with a canard. A canard
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...
Check Hauling --- Could This Be The End Of It posted Wed Oct 29 2003 02:21:22 by Atcboy73
Could Embraer Be Subcontracted For The 797? posted Tue Mar 15 2011 18:32:16 by VC10er
What Could Have Caused This On The JAT 737? posted Wed Mar 21 2007 17:19:16 by JoKeR
Boeing To Announce The 797 At Paris Airshow - Part 2 posted Thu Mar 10 2011 10:17:33 by SA7700
Could Boeing Market The 747 LCF? posted Sun Dec 12 2010 17:53:09 by deltadart106
Could MAN Become A Major International Hub? posted Mon Oct 25 2010 15:24:15 by sandyb123
Can This Change The Way We Fly? posted Tue Jun 29 2010 17:24:08 by blr380
Could You Pass The Toilet Paper Please? posted Sun Jun 27 2010 21:40:10 by Skydrol
Could LRU Be The Next NM Airport For AA/AE? posted Sun Jan 24 2010 13:09:50 by 1337Delta764
Could This Work For An Full Service Airline? posted Mon Nov 23 2009 07:18:21 by Burkhard