Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Blackburn Buccaneer: Why Was It So Popular.  
User currently offlineDIJKKIJK From France, joined Jul 2003, 1785 posts, RR: 4
Posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 16307 times:

I have read somewhere that RAF pilots often said things like " There's nothing bad about a Buccaneer" or " Only a Buccaneer can replace another".

Why was this airplane so popular amongst pilots? Why didn't the Canberra enjoy the same popularity?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Allan




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robin Powney




Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience.
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 16266 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

British pilots loved this airplane because it flew beautiful, it looked beautiful, and it was fast on the deck when carrying a serious load. They only retired them because they were getting old and could only really do one useful mission. The Tornado was not a complete replacement, but it did make the Buc redundant.

I saw a flight of them in SW Asia once....low and fast and loud as hell.


Canberra was not the same airplane, but it's still in service.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7479 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 16230 times:

To an extent, the Canberra was a piston bomber with jets.

In the Bomber/Strike role the RAF phased it out years ago.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16182 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 2):
To an extent, the Canberra was a piston bomber with jets.

I have to disagree....I believe it was an effort to enlarge the basic accepted Meteor shape into a larger aircraft capable of carrying an effective bomb load. It was intended as a mid-size bomber.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineTnsaf From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16124 times:

Buccaneer - effective sure, but good looking-not!


700 hours and counting...
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7479 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 16096 times:

I would say the same thing about the Meteor except that it was not a Bomber.

User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 16014 times:

I recall reading somewhere that not even an F-15 could catch a Buccaneer at low level.


Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineContact_tower From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16005 times:

US F-15 pilots could not even track Bucs during Redflag the first few times, they only way to track them, was to lock for the dust they kicked up........

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I belive the Buc is the fastest ever stike ac in the low level bracket, with warload.


User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 15993 times:

I wonder how it compares to the F-111 for speed.

The Buc did fly low. There was one at a Red Flag in the 1980's that left an 80 foot scar on the ground but kept on flying.
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineGhostbase From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 354 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 15955 times:

The Bucc was designed from the outset to deliver a range of conventional or nuclear stores at high-speed low-level attack against the Soviet navy and particularly the 'Sverdlov' class cruisers which were seen as a significant threat to the Royal Navy in the 1950's. For her size and weight she had a very small wing and was designed with the 'area rule' principle in mind which meant also that she could carry large quantities of fuel as well as a large rotary bomb bay. She was as tough as old boots with a core structure of steel forgings and many components milled from solid panels.

Apparently, on paper, the F-111F was faster at low level with a max speed of Mach 1.2 as opposed to the Bucc's Mach .92. However, Mach .92 at low level *was* the Bucc's maximum speed!

The source I am using quotes that the Bucc was actually faster and longer-legged at low level with four 1000lb bombs in the rotating-door bomb bay than an F-111 with a similar load. However the 'Vark had a very useful terrain following radar which gave it a great advantage in many conditions.

Regards the Canberra I always thought that most pilots liked flying the type. When she was designed and first flown the Canberra was a real first for a medium bomber in that she could fly as fast as contemporary jet fighters and in fact operate at higher altitudes, she was pretty manoeverable as well though her light wing loading made her a bit bumpy at low level. I am sure I read a story that when one of the Canberras that was bailed to Martin for the B-57 design to be produced it was flown over New York at maximum height and even though it was being tracked by radar no USAF interceptor could engage it.

 ghost 



"I chase my dreams but I never seem to arrive"
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 15942 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Buc was not as fast as the Aardvark, and could not keep up through terrain as they did not have the TFR which allowed for closer tolerances, but it was faster than a scalded dog on the ground and its useful load was pretty close to the F-111.

F-111F, 25,000 pounds (11,250 kilograms) with afterburners.
F-111F -- Mach 1.2 at sea level; Mach 2.5 at 60,000 feet.
Up to four nuclear bombs on four pivoting wing pylons, and two in internal weapons bay. Wing pylons carry total external load of 25,000 pounds (11,250 kilograms) of bombs, rockets, missiles, or fuel tanks.

Buc maximum speed 1,000 KPH 620 MPH / 540 KT
Buc weapons...4 Sea Eagles or Martel/AS.30 missile(SAAF) plus 4 1000lb bombs in the rotary weapons bay..LGB capable

Basically the Buc preceded the F-111 in development, and the advantages of the Vark can be accounted for by its relative modernity.

That said, the Buc was a successful carrier aircraft, which the F-111 never was even though it was designed to be, and the Buc was pretty near capable of everything the Vark was under 40kft.

It was a beautiful airplane and faster than hell down on the deck loaded for bear. Worth repeating.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15841 times:

Think of the Buccaneer as the SUV of the sky. Go anywhere, do anything and on an extremely stable platform. The design and build people got it just about right when they set out to make a plane which had upgrade potential as well as that much-vaunted construction from solid metal billets.

They were equally successful off the carriers as from the tarmac. Great aircraft.


User currently offlineBsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 15786 times:

According to one of my colleagues (ex-Buccaneer pilot) the aircraft was almost universally loved because when you wanted to have fun, you could, but you could also stick it 6 feet above the waves at 500kts and, "sit back and relax". In the cruise (even at low level) it was an incredibly stable platform, with no 'surprises'. Also, even though it didn't break very often (compared to its contemporaries), if it did then the handling characteristics didn't change much and the failures were easily manageable.

Also, from a pilot's perspective, it's usually more fun flying fast and low than fast and high. Since the Buccaneer was intended to be a low-level aircraft, a large percentage of the training flights were performed at low level. Result: thrilled pilots...



The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 15781 times:

Buccaneer suffered from the 'British curse', not enough updating during it's service life.
To be fair, it was seen as an 'interim' type once the RN's big carriers were phased out.

The Air Staff made a huge error in rejecting the Buccaneer until, after TSR-2 and then F-111K cancellation, they had no choice.

However, once established in RAF service, some improvements happened, in the mid 70's the bulged rotating bomb bay (to carry yet more fuel), Pave-Spike LGB capability, tweaking of the Blue Parrot radar to improve overland performance (this is the point a comprehensive avionic update should have taken place).

A decade later, to see them continue in the maritime strike role until the late 1990's, Sea Eagle ASM and some limited avionic updates happened, however it was never fully funded, so a plan to further upgrade avionics and even to convert some for a 'Wild Weasel' style SEAD role, never happened.

The end of the Cold War looked to spell the end of the Buccaneer with it's main mission of attacking the Soviet surface fleet, but the 1991 Gulf War provided a swan-song, in it's secondary role.
Once the need had been established to concentrate on medium level delivery of LGB's, there was a problem, the Tornado was still awaiting their own designator pods (though the two prototypes of the TIALD pod were sent and used successfully), so the Buccaneers went out to designate using their older 'Pave Spike' system, 6 later 12 aircraft were deployed, later the Buccaneers would swap the self protection AIM-9L for it's own LGB, and start dropping as well as just designating for others.

Going back, the refusal of the RAF to order the Buccaneer sooner, badly affected sales abroad, Germany was very keen for the Maritime role, but asked the question 'if it's so good, why has the RAF not brought it?' as well as a desire to standardize on the F-104 across the board, meant efforts there came to nothing. India was another potential buyer that never ordered.

In 1965/66, when the RN were converting to the S.2 Buccaneer, RAF Germany still relied on Canberra's in the strike role, in a shooting war they'd have been latter day Fairey Battle's, eventually the combination of F-4M and Buccaneers would replace the Canberra's in the 1969-72 period.

In 1966, a RN Buccaneer gave a dramatic demonstration of it's payload/range capability, launched from HMS Victorious in the Irish Sea, flew to and simulated attacking Gibraltar, then back to the carrier, with no in flight refueling.

In 1975, the tiny UK protectorate of Belize, was threatened by the violent military Junta in neighboring Guatelmala, HMS Ark Royal, in mid Atlantic, outside the range of it's F-4K's or any RAF aircraft, Launched 4 Buccaneers, two were tankers, enabling the other two to half way across the pond, get down low, then fly low and fast along the border with Belize and Guatelmala, (the tankers returned to the Ark, refueled, took off again and topped up the returning bombers), this display made the junta pull back, believing HMS Ark Royal was much nearer than it was.
(Soon RAF Harriers, Rapier SAMs' and a reinforced infantry battalion, were deployed to Belize to deter further aggression).

In late 1983, in the wake of the massive suicide bombs against US and French peacekeepers in Beirut, threats were also made against the smaller UK detachment.
RAF Buccaneers were deployed to Cyprus, and in deliberate view of the the world's media, fly so low over Beirut, they were actually flying in between tower blocks, also overflying suspected camps used by terrorists.
Maybe it was coincidence, but the UK peacekeepers in Beirut was never seriously attacked afterwards, for the remainder of their time there.

Buccaneers were finally retired in 1994, not sure how much longer the remaining South African ones operated for after that, (the second batch of 16 Buccaneers had been embargoed when a change of UK Government in 1964 took a tougher line against apartheid, also that was the end of spares support).


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 15761 times:

Some Buccaneer sites;
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/andrewbrooks1/themight.HTM

http://www.buccsociety.com/

http://www.blackburnbuccaneer.co.uk

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/buccaneer/

http://www.vectorsite.net/avbucc.html


User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 15726 times:

I recall one quote by a pilot that the Buccaneer wasn't so much built as carved out of the solid. I remember when one crashed due to metal fatigue during Red Flag some film was shown of a Buc maneuvering at very very low level in Nevada with cross hairs unable to lock on and an American accented voice in the background whooping incredibly at how agile and fast it was.

Don't forget either that Buccaneers carried out operational missions in the first Gulf war, initially marking targets for Tornadoes then later dropping LGBs themselves. We always seem to keep the best till last, remember Black Buck at the end of the Vulcans reign.


User currently offlineBsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 15642 times:

KennyK,

just a small point - Desert Storm was not the first Gulf War. The Iranians might have something to say about that terminology...

Also, while the Black Buck raids were a useful exercise for the RAF, getting in on what was essentially an RN/Army war, it sent more of a message to Whitehall and the 'Great British Public' than to the Argentinians.

For those of you who weren't aware, the first Black Buck raid happened on the 1st of May 1982, with the intention of bombing the runway at Port Stanley, the capital of the Falkland Islands, taking off from Ascension Isalnd.

In total, ten Victor tankers supplied themselves and one Vulcan bomber. There were supposed to be two Vulcans (one lead and one spare), but the lead aircraft failed to pressurise straight after take-off. In addition, one Victor got sick right after take-off, one broke the refuelling probe during turbulence and another had a fuel leak on the way home.

However, the target was hit and all aircraft made it home for tea and medals after a 7,500 mile round-trip.

For more details on these incredible missions, see, "The Falklands War 1982" by Martin Middlebrook, published by Penguin Classic Military History.



The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 15638 times:

While 'Black Buck' might have had a heavy morale focus, it must have concentrated minds in Argentina too.

Whilst Argentine Mirage III interceptors had already come off worse in initial clashes with Sea Harriers, still they had the numbers, to perhaps through eventual attrition, in concert with Daggers and possibly Argentine Navy A-4's, to eventually down enough Sea Harriers to make the Task Force untenable.

The major surface units, carriers and transports, would have to withdraw, no British landing, a de-facto Argentine victory.
But after Black Buck, the Mirage III's were only tasked with defending Argentine air bases, against a possible Vulcan strike.
That might have been politically untenable for the UK, but the Junta could not be sure of this, if the UK was crazy enough to launch Black Buck against the Falklands, who knows what they'd try next.

So the Mirage III's stayed pretty much out of the war, the similar Daggers stuck to strike, with orders not to engage Sea Harriers.
The huge numerical advantages enjoyed by the Argentine air arms, at least in terms against the Sea Harriers directly, was nullified.

Of course, had the replacement CVA-01 carriers been built, allowing for deficiencies in it's design (curable before building), each with 18 F-4K, 18 Buccaneers, 4 E-2C (probably by 1982), there would have been no attempt by Argentina on the Falklands in the first place.

Indeed, in 1977, when similar aggressive intentions to invade were apparent, Prime Minister Jim Callaghan (who had served in the RN in WW2), dispatched the nuclear submarine HMS Dreadnought and two Frigates to the area, but of course in 1977, HMS Ark Royal was still in commission, she might have been old, with sometimes temperamental machinery, but 12 F-4K's, 14 Buccaneers and 4 Gannet AEW.3's was still ultimately a credible deterrent.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 15624 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 16):
However, the target was hit and all aircraft made it home for tea and medals after a 7,500 mile round-trip

Your post makes it seem that the mission was all tea and crumpets. Wrong. Those guys had to fly one of the longest missions ever to that time over open ocean with little opportunity to divert anywhere about half the time. They were also flying a large and relatively slow bomber into airspace where enemy fighters were known to be operating with numerical superiority.

Quoting GDB (Reply 17):
While 'Black Buck' might have had a heavy morale focus, it must have concentrated minds in Argentina too.

It surely did. The effects of the British displaying their ability to reach out with weapons the Argentines did not have, and the willingness to use these weapons, made the Argentines lose their advantages. There's no way the British should have been able to go that far and take those islands back, but the Argentines were not able to sustain the losses the British were able to dish out first.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineFBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 15611 times:

Ahhh!... The "Buck"! "Last of the British Bombers"! Aeronautical pulcritude? NOT! "But handsome is as handsome does"! Just a few of the accolades given to this favourite of mine (one of quite a few,actually). An acquaintance of mine flew the "Buck" in the RAF,and the only negative thing he had to say about it was that the cockpit was "an ergonomic slum"! The magnetic compass was located somewhere down,to the left and behind you.Imagine trying to compare your gyro compass with this flying at 50 ft!
The DC-9/MD-80 family of planes has a magnetic compass located somewhere up and behind the co-pilot's head,deeply entrenched in the cockpit ceiling,only viewable through a series of rear-view/forward-view mirrors and a light.Surely the sign of a great airplane! Or am I wrong? Big grin



"Luck and superstition wins all the time"!
User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 15601 times:

There's no point making flying simple or we would all be doing it  stirthepot 

User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15553 times:

When I was in the SAAF (in the 80's), there were Bucc's based at Waterkloof (I can't remember what squadron, possibly 12 Sqn) - I don't remember them ever being tasked with actual combat stuff (although I'm sure they served on the SWA/Angolan border), but they were always going to AFB Pietersburg and Overberg for bombing practise. Loud as hell - sounded like a Mirage III falling down stairs.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 15544 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Bucs did conduct combat missions over Angola, and did well.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avbucc.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/andrewbrooks1/marais.htm

They were used not in their intended role as maritime strike craft but as low level ground attack aircraft, with a reputation for absorbing punishment and bringing the crew home.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 15544 times:

Looking at some sites, it seems SAAF retired the Bucc in 1991, about 6 left by then out of 16, (as no support from the UK since the mid 60's probably much of the reduced numbers was for spares rather than all attrition).

The SAAF Buccaneers were a result of the Simonstown agreement, South Africa provided the said naval base for UK use, in turn the UK provided frigates, Shackleton patrol aircraft and maritime strike Buccaneers.
The SAAF Buccaneers differed from UK ones by having two small JATO rockets in the rear fuselage, for hot and high use, as well as provision for French SA)">AS.30 radio command missiles (imagine a larger version of the US Bullpup).

SA)">AS.30 was used by RAF Canberra's in the 60's, deployed to the Mid and Far East, but never fitted to either RAF or RN Buccaneers, they waited for the more modern Anglo French Martel missile.
The AJ-37 anti radar version was used by France, and on Buccaneers, it was on a weapons list for Nimrod and Vulcan, though for the anti-radar later Black Buck missions, US AGM-45 Shrikes were used, Martel had been tested on Vulcan, but not for the hours of cold soak to the Falklands from Ascension Island, so the already heavily combat proven AGM-45 was substituted.
The AJ.168 Martel, was a TV guided version, unique to both the UK and the Buccaneer, imagine a bigger Maverick. The TV/data link for this was carried on one of the wing pylons.
Both were replaced by Sea Eagle.

Already controversial, arms sales to SA were effectively ended by the Wilson government's harder line on apartheid, the Simonstown arms sale only got approved by the Macmillan government as they were for maritime defence not for 'internal suppression'.
One result of this was the second batch of 16 Buccaneers was cancelled.

I understand that SAAF Buccaneers were used in anger, on bombing raids during the Namiba/Angola conflicts.

They also they would have carried an air dropped version of the SA nuclear weapon, (the small SA Nuke arsenal was dismantled in the early 90's), originally developed in the 70's with Israeli connivance, (how charming of them, helping nuke proliferation to rogue states, with tax $ too!).
A suspected test over the South Atlantic in 1979 set this programme in motion, SA got their test, Israel got to test it's 2nd generation, the first being from the first French tests. before DeGaulle expelled any Israeli involvement.

SAAF Buccaneers also were called upon to lessen the effect of oil spill from a wrecked tanker, by bombing it! Using both SA)">AS.30's and unguided rockets and bombs.
THe RN did the same, using Buccaneers against the Torrey Canyon in 1967, along with RAF Hunters.
To the RN's chagrin, this proved less than effective, the press gleefully reported how many bombs missed too, though enough damage was done with plenty of hits.
Better ways have since been found to deal with these incidents since!

(One of our Concorde Capts, rated as the best BA one by many, who left the fleet in the mid 90's, was in the RN in 1967 and was on the Torrey Canyon sortie. In banter with engineers, the ground guys would wind him up by asking how many of his bombs hit the tanker, knowing full well his aircraft had a 100% miss rate!)

Due to the solid technical capability of the SAAF, UK arms embargos had little direct effect, (a full UN one did not come in until 15 years the UK embargo, ignored again by Israel).
So SAAF were able to operate Buccaneers 25 years after UK support was cut off, SAAF Canberras were able to maintain a larger fleet no doubt due to the wide distribution of the type around the world, leading to many more black market spares opportunities as well as being a much less sophisticated aircraft.

I understand a Buccaneer is still flyable in SA, privately owned, one of a number of British 'heritage jets'.
If money was no object, I'd love to be in the back seat of this Buccaneer, low and fast!


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7479 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 15497 times:

Given that the Torrey Canyon was not moving and was not shooting back, I found the efforts of the RN/RAF less than impressive.

If you can't hit that sort of target, what chance have you with the real thing.


25 JGPH1A : Rogue state ? That's a little harsh. The SA government was only ever really a threat to their own people, if they'd seriously had ambitions against n
26 Post contains links Lurch : Hi GDB try this for a look at the Buc doing its thing along with the EE lightning's and Hunters of Thunder City! http://www.thundercity.com/ Speak to
27 SATL382G : I always felt that the Buc was more a contemporary of the F-105 than the F-111. No?
28 GDB : Well sort of, I think the timelines of the projects were similar, but with very different specs. F-105 was a USAF tac nuke bomber, as was Buccaneer, b
29 Post contains links GDB : To add to Lurch's post above, here is an account of a tourist going for a spin in a Buccaneer in South Africa; http://observer.guardian.co.uk/travel/s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Blackburn Buccaneer: Why Was It So Popular.
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...
ES-3A Shadow - Why Was It Retired? posted Wed Feb 9 2005 09:35:34 by Ghostbase
Flight Time To ISS - Why Does It Take So Long? posted Sat Mar 8 2008 03:16:45 by Flexo
Midair Refuling Over Cleveland Or What Was It? posted Fri Jun 10 2011 06:34:33 by rohanghosh
Stealth Blackhawk, Where Was It Built? posted Tue May 24 2011 21:10:06 by wardialer
Why Was A DE Gov't A310 At Ksea Last Week? posted Tue Jul 28 2009 16:48:23 by FlyPBA
Why Was This Government Gulfstream At SAN? posted Mon Jun 29 2009 11:39:49 by DL767captain
Why Was The Mirage 4000 A Failure? posted Mon Dec 1 2008 23:28:27 by Max Q
F-117, Why Wasn't It Called B-117? posted Thu Aug 28 2008 19:11:23 by Alberchico
Contract Losers - Y23 And The Y34 Was It? posted Fri Feb 15 2008 02:23:40 by Phil K
Why Was A Korean Airforce C-130 At BOM [Pic]? posted Thu Sep 20 2007 09:33:51 by Karan69
ES-3A Shadow - Why Was It Retired? posted Wed Feb 9 2005 09:35:34 by Ghostbase
Flight Time To ISS - Why Does It Take So Long? posted Sat Mar 8 2008 03:16:45 by Flexo
Midair Refuling Over Cleveland Or What Was It? posted Fri Jun 10 2011 06:34:33 by rohanghosh
Stealth Blackhawk, Where Was It Built? posted Tue May 24 2011 21:10:06 by wardialer
Why Was A DE Gov't A310 At Ksea Last Week? posted Tue Jul 28 2009 16:48:23 by FlyPBA
Why Was This Government Gulfstream At SAN? posted Mon Jun 29 2009 11:39:49 by DL767captain
Why Was The Mirage 4000 A Failure? posted Mon Dec 1 2008 23:28:27 by Max Q
F-117, Why Wasn't It Called B-117? posted Thu Aug 28 2008 19:11:23 by Alberchico
Contract Losers - Y23 And The Y34 Was It? posted Fri Feb 15 2008 02:23:40 by Phil K
Why Was A Korean Airforce C-130 At BOM [Pic]? posted Thu Sep 20 2007 09:33:51 by Karan69

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format