Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A400M Will Be A Sitting Duck At Farnborough  
User currently offlinekatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 704 posts, RR: 6
Posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 11352 times:

Quote:
Airbus is pulling Europe's A400M airlifter out of flying displays at next week's Farnborough Airshow due to continued engine problems, forcing it to sit out popular annual stunts for the second year running, industry sources said.
http://news.yahoo.com/engine-woes-ag...mo-sources-185411080--finance.html

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinepygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 11239 times:

They slid first delivery to March 2013 as well.

They had only made it half way through the endurance testing when they had to stop due to metal chips found in the Avio gear box. They are on hold until they find the cause.

This continues to be a very troubled program. Good luck to them. Sounds like they need it.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...re-as-a400m-delivery-slips-to-2013


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11003 times:

The troubled A-400M military aircraft program is only challanged with delay after delay, cost increase after cost increase, and reduction in capability by the equilly failed F-35 program.

User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10844 times:

Lets see now.
During WWII the B-29 was designed, brought into production, and went into combat in less than 3 years. How many crews were lost because of unreliable engines, including Boeing's chief test pilot. Granted that was war and a different time. But the complexity of the R3350 in that day has to be similar to the engine and prop combination on the A400 today. Those early R3350s maybe lasted 50-100 hours. It was not considered unusual at all to change an engine. Not so today, these engines are expected to stay on wing for thousands of hours. How often does an engine on a C-130 get changed because the chip detector showed metal in the gear box? No body is watching those aircraft with this kind of attention. As I recall the JT-9 engines on the original 747s were a nightmare in development but ultimately ended up being very reliable engines.
The standards today are much higher and the bar is being raised every day. In the past you would have simply changed the engine and continued on, now it is considered a failure. Not so, product develpment at this level and these standards is incredibly challenging. If the auto industry had to meet these standard we would all be walking or riding bicyles. A simply family car would cost a million dollars.
I can't think of a single new aircraft that has launched in the last 15 years that came on line early and under budget. Everybody just better get used to it or lower your standards.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10664 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
and reduction in capability by the equilly failed F-35 program.

On the A400M it remains to be seen.

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 3):
The standards today are much higher and the bar is being raised every day. In the past you would have simply changed the engine and continued on, now it is considered a failure. Not so, product develpment at this level and these standards is incredibly challenging. If the auto industry had to meet these standard we would all be walking or riding bicyles. A simply family car would cost a million dollars.

Very well said.   

Some people still don't understand how much new technology on the A400 can be found and how complex it is.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10593 times:

The biggest mistake was to develop the engine, the politicians went against Airbus on this and now Airbus is paying the price. This whole program smells of political stupidity, it will never get repaid.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10534 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 4):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):and reduction in capability by the equilly failed F-35 program.
On the A400M it remains to be seen.

It will never have the low level TFR Germany wanted for terrain following missions. It's tanker air refueling capability has been puch back several years, and to get that capability it needs more developement money.

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
The biggest mistake was to develop the engine, the politicians went against Airbus on this and now Airbus is paying the price. This whole program smells of political stupidity, it will never get repaid.

Correct. EADS originally wanted to put a Canadian built engine on the A-400M, but the French politicians wanted (demanded) the engine be buit in Europe. At the time, the consortium that built the engine didn't exsist, nor was there any engine built in Europe that could be improved to power the A-400. Europrop, the consortium put together to develope and build the engine originally proposed the TP400-D1 engine until it was proven to be to heavy and the SFC was higher than what EADS wanted. So, Europrop with on the develope the TP400-D6 engines (11,000 shp) we have today on the A-400.

Pratt & Whitney Canada originall proposed a 10,000 shp turboprop engine called the PW-180, which was a version of the PW-10X program. This engine has been further developed into what is now called the PW-800 series engines, which has been further developed into the PW-1000G family of GTF engines.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12587 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10505 times:

Here are some more details about the issue and its impact:

Quote:

“We found metallic chips in one of the gearboxes and the origin is not yet identified,” said Maggie Bergsma, a spokeswoman for Airbus Military.

The discovery of shavings has interrupted testing, pushing back a multi-week production trial required for the European Aviation Safety Agency to certify the aircraft. Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautics, Defence & Space Co., aimed to deliver its first A400M to France this year.

Airbus already revised its delivery schedule to its lead customer to the end of March after initial setbacks. The latest gearbox problem arose on one of the four engines on the A400M undergoing a 300-hour function and reliability endurance flight test. Airbus has completed 160 hours of the program so far. The troubled engine has been replaced, though the test can only resume once the cause of the problem is determined.

Ref: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-a400m-delivery-slips-to-2013.html

The timing is most unfortunate.

A week ago, Airbus announced both A380 and A400M would be in the flying demonstration at Farnborough.

Now they have to pull out the A400M on the eve of the air show, just like they did last year at Paris.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14030 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10134 times:

AFAIK the A400M engine is one of the biggest, if not the biggest turboprop engine ever built. It is by far not trivial to design a gearbox, which on one hand can handle the torques and speeds involved and on the other hand be as light and compact as possible.

I think though that Airbus should have let the Canadians in to provide for an alternate engine instead of betting the house on the one RR engine. IMO it was mostly politics involved there, to save / create jobs at RR.

Jan


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7273 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10084 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 4):
Some people still don't understand how much new technology on the A400 can be found and how complex it is.

Let's see, this is still an engine turning a propellor, the basic of this is essentially unchanged since first designed, the biggest change has been turbines, so methinks they are trying to complicate things too much. ATR's and Bombadier props fly the world over every day, they appear to be re-inventing the technology rather than perfecting.

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
The biggest mistake was to develop the engine, the politicians went against Airbus on this and now Airbus is paying the price. This whole program smells of political stupidity, it will never get repaid.

A contributing factor no doubt

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
AFAIK the A400M engine is one of the biggest, if not the biggest turboprop engine ever built. It is by far not trivial to design a gearbox, which on one hand can handle the torques and speeds involved and on the other hand be as light and compact as possible.

The Russians had a very large turbo-pro pax a/c that did trans-continental runs with contra-rotating props to boot, it was probably just as large.

Personally, I think engineers today want to prove their mettle with each and every thing that they do, imagine how easy it would be to design the Concorde or the SR-71 today with all the high speed computers and software available, should be out the gate within 12 months, the longest thing would be the actual building of the a/c and the engine. Today with all this technology the design phase takes just as long as long as building the initial a/c, go figure.


User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10020 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
AFAIK the A400M engine is one of the biggest, if not the biggest turboprop engine ever built.

Actually the Russian Kuznetsov NK-12MV used on the Tu-95 and Tu-142 is the most powerful turboprop engine ever produced. It is rated at 15,000 ehp.

That being said I'm sure its on-wing time is nowhere close to what Europrop is striving for in the TP400.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 9965 times:

Politics aside, my intent was to point out how difficult product development in aerospace has become. There certainly were other choices available like the Antonov or a combination of C-130/C-17. The EU partners decided to spend their people's money at home even if it ended up costing more in the end the money stayed in the EU. This is a very basic economic principle keep the money local don't spend it overseas or even the next town over.

User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9912 times:

I'm not too sure about the name change either. Didn't Hercules make a fool out of Atlas?


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9911 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
AFAIK the A400M engine is one of the biggest, if not the biggest turboprop engine ever built. It is by far not trivial to design a gearbox, which on one hand can handle the torques and speeds involved and on the other hand be as light and compact as possible.

And it seems that the Soviets where the only ones who have ever gotten counter-rotating technology to work correctly.

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 10):
Actually the Russian Kuznetsov NK-12MV used on the Tu-95 and Tu-142 is the most powerful turboprop engine ever produced. It is rated at 15,000 ehp.

That's the one.......maybe the EU should have bought a de-rated version for the A-400 

Actually I am sure they are going to be eventually kicking themselves for not going with a turbofan.

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 11):
The EU partners decided to spend their people's money at home even if it ended up costing more in the end the money stayed in the EU. This is a very basic economic principle keep the money local don't spend it overseas or even the next town over.


Funny how they scream that the US is doing it with their tanker contract at the 767, but it is ok for them and the A400.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12587 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9852 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):

Let's see, this is still an engine turning a propellor, the basic of this is essentially unchanged since first designed, the biggest change has been turbines, so methinks they are trying to complicate things too much.

If you had noticed that high pitched vacuum cleaner noise when you were near a turbine, you might have thought that the gearbox needs to deal with a very big difference in revolutions per minute.

I suppose in your world everything scales in a linear fashion and the answer is to just make it bigger and everything will be fine, but that's not true.

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
Personally, I think engineers today want to prove their mettle with each and every thing that they do, imagine how easy it would be to design the Concorde or the SR-71 today with all the high speed computers and software available, should be out the gate within 12 months, the longest thing would be the actual building of the a/c and the engine.

I suspect engineers always have always wanted to prove themselves.

The main issues is that the bar has been raised.

You mentioned the Concorde, but didn't mention the Tu-144 "Concordeski".



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9850 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):

Never one to miss an opportunity, eh?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 7):
Now they have to pull out the A400M on the eve of the air show, just like they did last year at Paris.

Have they? One was flying at RIAT today and probably tomorrow. Don't see why it can't fly 100 miles to Farnborough on Monday.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6687 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9761 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
Funny how they scream that the US is doing it with their tanker contract at the 767, but it is ok for them and the A400.

Well, it's the US that gives lessons in free markets, allow us not to follow but to still point out the hypocrisy. Of course outside of military stuff the EU is actually the most open market there is, and we're being screwed big time for that.

Besides, the A330 and 767 are much closer airplanes than the A400M is of either the C130 or C17. And do you think the US manufacturers/politicians would have agreed to put assembly lines in the EU, like Airbus was prepared to do in the US (and is actually doing anyway) ?

As for designing planes being longer now, it's easy enough to understand, we're doing incremental stuff instead of revolutionary, while demanding extreme efficiency and low maintenance, some things the first jets or the Concorde are not really renowned for.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9749 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 4):
Some people still don't understand how much new technology on the A400 can be found and how complex it is.

And the same can be said about the F-35.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9745 times:

People seem to think that, because we have super computers, designing, building, testing, and then producing a new airplane ought to be pretty straightforward. The problem is super computers can compute huge volumes of numbers and statistics at phenominal rates but they can't solve the technical problems that go hand in hand with advanced technology. Bear in mind that advanced technology means stepping out with a determination to leapfrog what should have been the next logical technical gain. In other words, advanced technology means we're exploring uncharted territory and though we suspect we understand what we'll find, the truth often proves how very wrong we were.

Keep in mind too that building a highly advanced military airplane isn't nearly the same as producing the next year's model new car, allowing that the new car is a complete remake of the existing model or is an entirely new design.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the farther we reach in our attempts to make technological gains, the greater the danger that the uncharted ground will be very unforgiving.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3575 posts, RR: 27
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9720 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

looking at Farnborough pictures, it looks wet, so the problem (reported in a deleted thread) of landing on wet soils may be in play as well.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7273 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9710 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
If you had noticed that high pitched vacuum cleaner noise when you were near a turbine, you might have thought that the gearbox needs to deal with a very big difference in revolutions per minute.

Well I did mention turbines in my initial post, guess it was missed.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
The main issues is that the bar has been raised.

Yes, no new supersonic pax a/c and the SR-71 is still unmatched, and the advances on the 787 are in simple form scaling up existing tech.
I have watched shows of sea planes in Alaska - Beavers - being converted to turbines, it is well established tech.
How much are they raising the bar on the turbine engines being deployed in the A400M, will other a/c that presently use turbines be able to benefit from the new technology?

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 18):
People seem to think that, because we have super computers, designing, building, testing, and then producing a new airplane ought to be pretty straightforward.

Well if we follow the last two major aviation programs - A380 and 787 - the software worked like a charm, the folks using the software were the problem, none of the delays were due to the software having difficulty completing its tasks.


User currently offlineB737200 From Malta, joined Feb 2005, 225 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9643 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 20):
Well if we follow the last two major aviation programs - A380 and 787 - the software worked like a charm, the folks using the software were the problem, none of the delays were due to the software having difficulty completing its tasks.

Yes because the software crunches numbers, the people using the software need to see if what is coming out is making any sense and if the assumptions taken are valid, when you are dealing with new technology, with limited experience and understanding (because it is new) then this becomes harder.



Lady Guinness is ready to fly...
User currently offlineEZYAirbus From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2460 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9570 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 19):
it looks wet, so the problem (reported in a deleted thread) of landing on wet soils may be in play as well.

Farnborough is a hard runway.....was pissing down at RIAT yesterday but it still got airborne and did a flypast with the RAF heavies then did a couple of solo passes



http://www.glenneldridgeaviation.com
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7273 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9529 times:

Quoting B737200 (Reply 21):
Yes because the software crunches numbers, the people using the software need to see if what is coming out is making any sense and if the assumptions taken are valid

Which becomes more difficult when the people in control of the software decide to use one version in one location, and another version in another location and expect the parts designed and influenced by the software to fit seemlessly when bought together.
Let's not talk about ensuring that all sites are working on the same templates, that for another thread.  


User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2753 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9407 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 15):
Have they? One was flying at RIAT today and probably tomorrow. Don't see why it can't fly 100 miles to Farnborough on Monday

I was wondering about the same thing.

Quoting EZYAirbus (Reply 22):
was pissing down at RIAT yesterday but it still got airborne and did a flypast with the RAF heavies then did a couple of solo passes

The newly named Atlas (After the Greek giant) A400M (with the same origin as the name Hercules) performed well yesterday. It did a nice flyby and landed and used the propellers to stop the plane shortly after landing. So the issue with the gearbox cannot be the that pressing. Otherwise Airbus would not have flown it complemented with a relatively short landing.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
25 francoflier : I'm guessing a few bugs still need ironing out, but they'd rather simply not take the risk of having to cut a demo short and land with a feathered pr
26 autothrust : Source please?
27 MD11Engineer : It helps the politicians to get votes in their district. They can show off how they created jobs. Jan
28 Sinlock : The Boeing F/A-18 E/F. The Eurocopter UH-72 Lakota. On time and under budget but not a "New" aircraft.
29 Revelation : As per the thread starter: So it shall be flying the 100 miles, but it shall not be doing the "popular annual stunts for the second year running", sa
30 flightsimer : Why would we build a plant in the EU just to build planes to then have to fly back to the US? Airbus isn't building this A320 plant for Asian or Afri
31 Post contains images scbriml : Yes, I did read that. I also asked a perfectly reasonable question. If the A400M is performing "popular stunts" at another air show immediately befor
32 Post contains links and images Revelation : The various articles above seem to distinguish between simple fly-bys versus much more strenuous "flying demonstrations" which presumably the "stunts
33 Post contains links and images ZANL188 : Why did they change the name? View Large View MediumPhoto © A J Best
34 scbriml : It certainly looked like it to me through the rain, yes. It seemed to be the normal demo, then it participated in a flypast with the RAF.
35 nomadd22 : Not really a change. It didn't have an official name before.
36 Post contains links and images MadameConcorde : Beautiful pictures of yesterday's official opening ceremonies at Farnborough with the mighty XH558 Avro Vulcan now named 'The Spirit of Great Britain
37 ZANL188 : Grizzly was pretty official. Press releases etc.
38 Revelation : Apparently she made it there and is sat on the tarmac. As above, incredibly unfortunate timing two years in a row. This can't be helping potential sal
39 BigJKU : I still say the A400M was always an odd mix of requirements and goals. It looks like and is equipped like a very big tactical air-lifter. Like an over
40 Aesma : Well, we were talking about European customers buying a bunch of C-130 and C-17 instead of making the A400M. Airbus was going to build the tanker for
41 Revelation : Wiki sez: So the starting point was replacing the C-130 (i.e. a intra-theater airlifter) rather than going for something like a C-141 or C-17 (inter-
42 Post contains images scbriml : Yes, it didn't fly, which, given it's the very same aircraft that DID fly at RIAT two days ago, all the more confusing. In EADS position, I would hav
43 BigJKU : Nah, I know what it was originally going to do but there were no orders until 2003 so up until then they could have respecified the thing. It was 200
44 Revelation : I'm still not sure what kind of flying it did at RIAT. The source I listed above said it just did flybys, which are in essence circuits displaced a b
45 cmf : I seem to remember that is exactly what you and many US politicians advocated in regards to USAF tankers. The basic technology is the same but the re
46 Post contains images gphoto : A fair swap maybe We got fully matured C-17's from the off and we took the pain on the C-130J development for everyone else. Belgium, Italy and Germa
47 bikerthai : Boeing has two core competency. Large Aerospace System Engineering/Integration and Large Aerospace System Manufacturing. They would more likely fabri
48 kanban : I seem to recall some planes or choppers being manufactured in Italy under Boeing license.
49 Post contains links bikerthai : Do you mean this? http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...licopter-for-presidential-contest/ bt
50 kanban : no the other way around.. they were assembling Chinooks or something... and I could be wrong
51 ThePointblank : Augsta assembled Chinooks for the Italian Army and the Iranians.
52 Post contains links and images bikerthai : http://www2.l-3com.com/wescam/pdf/me...oks%20-%20defence%20helicopter.pdf "Italian Army Aviation received its first Boeing CH-47C Chinook transport he
53 kanban : Yah, and I was spending my third year at Boeing
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A400M Will Be A Sitting Duck At Farnborough
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
IR Footage Of F-22 At Farnborough posted Sun Jul 25 2010 10:34:23 by LimaNiner
Eye Catching Russian Display At Farnborough posted Tue Jul 15 2008 11:37:50 by GDB
Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough posted Thu Jul 3 2008 18:04:39 by EBJ1248650
Russian Part Of ISS Will Be Delayed posted Fri Apr 11 2008 07:11:04 by TheSonntag
Tornado Boys Will Be Boys posted Tue Dec 11 2007 19:43:37 by Cheshire
CNN V-22 At Farnborough Video... posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:25:52 by AirRyan
Why No KC-30 At Farnborough? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:14:36 by Solnabo
What Will Be The Next Heavy Transport Helicopter posted Thu Dec 23 2004 22:49:03 by Keesje
MMA Will Be 737-800ERX posted Sat Jun 19 2004 07:31:15 by N328KF
IAF: Phantoms Will Be Grounded posted Fri Jan 3 2003 18:41:42 by LY772

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format