Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could An A380 Glide?  
User currently offlineskychef747400 From UK - England, joined Jun 2012, 3 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 21705 times:

This is my first post after years of reading your posts, opinions and information. Unfortunalty I am a fustrated flyer who spends my days cooking but when I get on a plane I can assure you I aprechiate you guys at the front of the plane, the people looking after me in the back and those on the ground.
After watching documentaries on Gimli Glider and Air Transat 236 I have been wondering if a 380 was ever in that suituation god forbid where there was no engines would it still be able to glide. Please don't flame me too much  

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinepoLOT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2257 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 21681 times:

Yes, all airplanes that can fly are capable of gliding.

User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3151 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 21636 times:

Quoting skychef747400 (Thread starter):
After watching documentaries on Gimli Glider and Air Transat 236 I have been wondering if a 380 was ever in that suituation god forbid where there was no engines would it still be able to glide.

It would be interesting to know what the A380's glide ratio is. The 787 glide ratio is supposedly just phenomenal, as was the A330's performance on Air Transat 236. I know about what the 787's is, but it's supposedly proprietary info.

The 777's glide ratio is more than 20:1 AFAIK. Older tail mounted airplanes like the 727 apparently have a significantly lower glide ratio.

Anybody know what the A380's glide ratio would be?


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 21636 times:

Quoting skychef747400 (Thread starter):
After watching documentaries on Gimli Glider and Air Transat 236 I have been wondering if a 380 was ever in that suituation god forbid where there was no engines would it still be able to glide.

Yes.

Taw intuition tends to tell our brains that, the heavier an object is, the worse it must glide. But that's not how the aerodynamics work. It doesn't matter how much it weighs, it matters how good the wing is (specifically, how high the lift to drag ratio is). Heavy airplanes have high weight but also high lift.

It all balances out such that, in the end, what matters is the L/D ratio. This ratio has been steadily improving for decades so the A380 probably glides as well as any large airliner out there except maybe a 787.

Tom.


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3151 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 21511 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
It all balances out such that, in the end, what matters is the L/D ratio. This ratio has been steadily improving for decades so the A380 probably glides as well as any large airliner out there except maybe a 787.

Tom.

Yeah, I figured we'd hear your knowledgeable input on this, Tom.   What's the 747-8 glide ratio? Do you know? Is it okay to post it, or is that also proprietary (in which case I wouldn't post it, nor expect anyone else to)?


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21228 times:

Hey, where's the flame!?  
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
the A380 probably glides as well as any large airliner out there except maybe a 787.

A very interesting statement ...., are you saying that the 787's glide ratio is better than any other commercial passenger plane in the skies? What makes it so? How much better? What exactly does that mean? The engines go out and the plane can fly another 200 miles or what? (Please don't reveal the propriety good stuff, just a general discussion of what puts the 787 in a different category is all I'm asking).

Also, how will the 350 compare to the 787?

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 2):
he 777's glide ratio is more than 20:1 AFAIK

What does this mean? The plane drops 1 ft every 20 ft? 1000ft every 20,000ft? That seems a pretty impressive glide ratio if so, no?


User currently offlinepeterjohns From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 207 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 20978 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
What does this mean? The plane drops 1 ft every 20 ft? 1000ft every 20,000ft? That seems a pretty impressive glide ratio if so, no?

Yes you are right- that s what it means. BUT how long does it take an airliner to clear 20.000ft? Keep in mind that is lateral distance. In cruise about 20-24 sec. Gives you a rate of descent of around 3000 ft/min. Still impressed!?

Of course in an all flame out situation one would adjust the speed to best glide, but it still gives you only about 15-20 min before touching down. I don´t even believe the 787 with it´s modern wing would have an advantage when it comes to L/D ratios, it´s simply not made for that.


User currently offlineamccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 20977 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
It all balances out such that, in the end, what matters is the L/D ratio.
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
A very interesting statement ...., are you saying that the 787's glide ratio is better than any other commercial passenger plane in the skies? What makes it so? How much better? What exactly does that mean?

As Tom has said the "capability" of an airplane to glide is a function of its Lift over Drag ratio. As you would expect from any modern commercial airplane the goal is to produce each unit of lift with the smallest amount of drag possible, therefore higher L/D ratios. Please note, that maximum L/D is different from cruise L/D, etc, etc, it is a function of multiple variables. Regardless, by simple inspection it would appear the 787 has a very high comparative L/D ratio and must therefore have an impressive glide ratio.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):

What does this mean? The plane drops 1 ft every 20 ft? 1000ft every 20,000ft? That seems a pretty impressive glide ratio if so, no?

Glide ratio is a unit less ratio. Therefore yes, if your airplane glide ratio is 20:1 you travel forward 20 distance units of 1 distance unit of loss of altitude.

[Edited 2012-06-30 15:34:56]


What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 20899 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
The plane drops 1 ft every 20 ft? 1000ft every 20,000ft? That seems a pretty impressive glide ratio if so, no?

Yes - 1 ft down for every 20 feet forward - assuming a constant speed.

The B767 and A330 were both at about 12:1

As an example just looking across the web - a hang glider runs about 15:1 - but a purposely designed sailplane runs 45:1 to 70:1.

Those are in still air at a constant speed. Obviously both are flown to see updrafts which extend the range considerably.

As far as more modern aircraft - glide ratio is a function of induced drag - thus smoother aircraft with better air-flows and lift glide better than older aircraft with less lift. Wingspan also has an impact upon the glide ratio.

Aircraft like the B787 (and I assume the A-380, B747-8 and A-350) have benefited from advances in technology to minimize the drag, make better use of their wingspan, etc.

Many of the things which make the aircraft more fuel efficient and longer range are the same things which would make the aircraft glide better if necessary.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 20869 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 4):
What's the 747-8 glide ratio? Do you know? Is it okay to post it, or is that also proprietary

As far as I know, it's proprietary. There's a very good public paper on the 747-8 development that includes a discussion of L/D changes on the 747-8 but it's qualitative only:
http://www.icas-proceedings.net/ICAS2008/PAPERS/073.PDF

The 747-8 is definitely better than the 747-400.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
A very interesting statement ...., are you saying that the 787's glide ratio is better than any other commercial passenger plane in the skies?

Yes.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
What makes it so? How much better? What exactly does that mean?

A combination of very high aspect ratio and the best aerodymamics we've got so far. My gut feeling is it's about 5% better, since Boeing was claiming about 1/4 of the 20% improvement on the 787 was due to aerodynamics, but that's an extremely rough measure.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
The engines go out and the plane can fly another 200 miles or what?

On the order of another 7 miles or so (typical glide range for airliners is about 100-150 miles).

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
Also, how will the 350 compare to the 787?

I would expect it to be equal or better, for most of the same reasons as the 787's is better than most else that's out there.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
What does this mean? The plane drops 1 ft every 20 ft? 1000ft every 20,000ft? That seems a pretty impressive glide ratio if so, no?

Yes, that's what it means. But the speeds are high so, as others have posted, you don't really have that long.

Something to keep in mind is that, although turbofans make quite a bit of thrust even at idle, it's only a tiny fraction of their rated thrust. So in a normal idle descent you're basically gliding. If you actually go engines dead your descent rate goes up a bit but it's not dramatic.

Tom.


User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2558 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 20832 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 4):
What's the 747-8 glide ratio? Do you know? Is it okay to post it, or is that also proprietary

As far as I know, it's proprietary.

When flight testing, are all engines purposely shut down at some time to test the glide ratio in the real world, or is it all done via computer simulation?

Quoting skychef747400 (Thread starter):
This is my first post after years of reading your posts

Welcome to a.net


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2215 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 19986 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):
The B767 and A330 were both at about 12:1

If that is true, the 777 can't have been at 20:1. It's simply not plausible that they would be that far apart.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 19689 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 11):
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):The B767 and A330 were both at about 12:1
If that is true, the 777 can't have been at 20:1. It's simply not plausible that they would be that far apart.

I should have said that the near 12:1 was observed performance during an entire actual unpowered flight event.

Both the B767 and the A330 could have flown more miles. Both had to drop altitude and try to bleed off speed to make their landings. They had to hit the runway in front of them.

The A330 flew about 65 nm with no power from 33,000 feet and had to execute some 360 turns to descend enough to make the runway.

The B767 first indication of a problem came about 120 nm from the eventual landing site. The plane descended from 41K to 35K before the second engine quit. At one point in the flight, the plane was measured as descending 5,000 ft in 10 nautical miles - which works out to 12:1. Later in the descent the glide ratio improved a bit. They also realized they were too high when the runway came in sight. Rather than do a 360, the pilot forward slipped the aircraft to cause it to descend at a higher rate and not pickup speed.

Glide ratio is always a bit theoretical and no jetliner aircraft is expected to achieve a perfect glide ration from start to end of an unpowered event. Something which hurts the overall Glide Ration would be the realtively high speed at cruise when the event begins - the aircraft has to slow to its best glide speed before it begins to achieve its best possible glide ration.


User currently offlineczbbflier From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18700 times:

Quoting skychef747400 (Thread starter):
After watching documentaries on Gimli Glider and Air Transat 236 I have been wondering if a 380 was ever in that suituation god forbid where there was no engines would it still be able to glide.

As you can see, the answer is definitively "Yes".

However, this will apparently not be an issue so long as there are no Canadian registered A-380s. Seems it's only Canadian registered airliners that run out of gas part-way through its flight.

But once one is registered in Canada, give it a few years and we'll soon find out!







(kidding)


User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 492 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18313 times:

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 13):
As you can see, the answer is definitively "Yes".

However, this will apparently not be an issue so long as there are no Canadian registered A-380s. Seems it's only Canadian registered airliners that run out of gas part-way through its flight.

But once one is registered in Canada, give it a few years and we'll soon find out!

To be fair, the Germans can also do it - it is not only the Canadians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapag-Lloyd_Flight_3378


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 18190 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 10):
When flight testing, are all engines purposely shut down at some time to test the glide ratio in the real world

Not that I'm aware of, at least for jet airliners. There is no circumstance where you shut down both engines (you shut down one pretty frequently). There are less risky and just as accurate ways to find the relevant aerodynamic parameters.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 10):
is it all done via computer simulation?

There will certainly be a projection from the simulations but the wings don't know or care if the engines are running or not, they just see air flowing over them. As long as you have accurate L/D information (which you get from flight testing) then you know what the glide ratio is without actually having to do a real unpowered glide.

The whole point of many flight test maneuvers like wind-up turns and roller coasters is to get the wings into odd aerodynamic situations so you can extract the true performance parameters.

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9150 posts, RR: 76
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 17073 times:

Quoting skychef747400 (Thread starter):
After watching documentaries on Gimli Glider and Air Transat 236 I have been wondering if a 380 was ever in that situation god forbid where there was no engines would it still be able to glide.

Almost every jet aircraft that descends, does so with idle thrust, they are effectively gliding from top of descent every flight.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):

Yes - 1 ft down for every 20 feet forward - assuming a constant speed.

The 777 "TWO ENGINE INOPERATIVE DRIFTDOWN" table shows from FL400 it will do 125 nm at 198 KIAS, that is less 20:1 at the optimum L/D speed. At 777 and 270 kt, it is similar to the A330 at 300kt, 106 nm.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):

The B767 and A330 were both at about 12:1

The A330 is better than that, looking at the all engines flame out QRH procedure, the aircraft will do 100 nm from FL400 (about 15:1) using a fixed speed strategy of 0.82/300kt. You would do better green dot, it is better than 3nm per 1000 ft.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinegrimey From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 456 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16603 times:

Anyone know what the BA 9 glide ratio was since that was on a B747-400, I was trying to find some information on that but came across this link on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...line_flights_that_required_gliding

What about the BA B777-200 (BA 38) that had to do a slight glide in LHR, although the captain changed the flap setting from 30 to 25 degrees in order to reduce drag and increase the glide.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 2):
Older tail mounted airplanes like the 727 apparently have a significantly lower glide ratio.

From what I understand is that with the tail being pushed down due to the extra weight at the rear, then the Angle of Attack is increased and therefore it is harder to maintain a good glide ratio.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3545 posts, RR: 67
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16383 times:

Quoting grimey (Reply 17):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 2):Older tail mounted airplanes like the 727 apparently have a significantly lower glide ratio.
From what I understand is that with the tail being pushed down due to the extra weight at the rear, then the Angle of Attack is increased and therefore it is harder to maintain a good glide ratio.

A more accurate explantion is that the 727, like most airplanes of its era, had lower aspect ratio wings than today's jet transports. Its best L/D was around 14 compared to around 20 for a modern design.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3151 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 14976 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 12):
The A330 flew about 65 nm with no power from 33,000 feet and had to execute some 360 turns to descend enough to make the runway.

Actually it was about 90 nm IIRC.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
The engines go out and the plane can fly another 200 miles or what?

On the order of another 7 miles or so (typical glide range for airliners is about 100-150 miles).

I think it's more like 90 miles. The quick rule of thumb is about 2 miles for every 1000 feet altitude. You certainly don't want pilots pulling out the charts in that situation, so the 2 miles for 1000 feet thing is just a quick estimate. The A330 showed they could beat that. A 777 or 787 would most certainly beat that - probably significantly for the 787. However, you really don't want to ever have to test that efficiency. If all engines failed, you'd much rather have a choice of easily reachable airports below you rather than getting to be the first crew to find out just how far a 787 can glide before hitting the ground (or water).


User currently offlinespeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 14165 times:

Quoting skychef747400 (Thread starter):
be able to glide

Usually every descent is made at thrust idle, so gliding is done routinely by every aircraft, A380 not excluded.

Some just have a better glide ration than others. Simply put its the rate of going forwards versus the rate of going down.

I would imagine the A380 has a reasonably good glide ratio.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13915 times:

Quoting skychef747400 (Thread starter):
This is my first post after years of reading your posts, opinions and information

Prepare for everything you hold dear about the civil aviation industry (favourite airline, airport, cabin crew etc) to be blown out of the water by the largest torpedo you have ever set eyes upon.

It is a simmering bubbling cauldron of open warfare.

We make sports fans look like pussy cats.

(but in a fun way)

Countries, governments, aircraft manufacturers.....none escape the onslaught.

  

(lol)



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinericknroll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 849 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13696 times:

I have read one description of the A380 that said it was essentially a 'self launching glider'. When you see them fly, you can see why. They just seem to float in the air.

User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13321 times:

Both the 787 and the A350 have an L/D of ~21:1. This is amongst others enabled by the use of CFRP for the primary wing structure, which enable aspect ratios beyond the maximum 9...10 achievable with metal wings [large commercial airliner context, ~M0,85]

A380 should have a lower L/D, I'd guess around 18...19 - this is not a matter of inferior technology, it is the result of a design compromise. First, the wing had to stay within the 80m span limit, so an otherwise achievable aspect ratio of 9...10 was out of question. Second, the A380 had to make use of four engines, as even the two most powerful engines available wouldn't have provided enough thrust. In a glide, four engines have more drag than two and a lower aspect ratio wing is less efficient.

On the other hand, the A380's low-set wing has a pronounced ground effect, so an unpowered landing would to be nicely cushioned.  


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 728 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13050 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 19):
If all engines failed, you'd much rather have a choice of easily reachable airports below you rather than getting to be the first crew to find out just how far a 787 can glide before hitting the ground (or water).

I'm curious about the spacing of airports in the world. If we take 11 kilometers as the default cruise altitude, and 787's glide ratio as 21, then we get a glide range of roughly 230 kilometers. Are there areas in, say, US or EU where this would not be enough to reach a commercial airport? How about any airfield?

Obviously over sea 230 kilometers may not be enough. Anyway, hopefully no one has to experience running out of glide range in ocean or elsewhere.


25 rfields5421 : US - Certain regions of the Rocky Mountains might fit that criteria - though airport elevations being close to 5,000 ft in places - that can cut the
26 prebennorholm : Unfortunately total power loss is more likely to happen at lower altitude. Three events in modern time in the US and EU didn't happen at anything lik
27 DocLightning : Why wouldn't that be published data? Doesn't a crew need to know that if they have an all-flame-out situation?
28 tdscanuck : A couple of reasons. For starters, it's basically a direct measure of how good the aerodynamics are, which the OEM's don't like to share for the same
29 BoeingGuy : That's not totally correct. The reason he didn't extend the speedbrakes is because the RAT only powers the Center Hydraulic System. The C Hyd system
30 prebennorholm : Well, it's a long time ago, but that's not how I remember it. And also not how Wiki describes it today: From Wiki: Without power, the pilots had to t
31 Post contains images KELPkid : Vg (the best rate of glide speed) is the speed that you want to trim the aircraft for (ideally) in an engine-out situation. It is also coincident wit
32 prebennorholm : Sure you are right. But when it is about dead sticking into a far away airport, then the biggest variable is the wind. At altitude we can easily have
33 Post contains images r2rho : The theoretical calculation is: tan(gamma) = D/L (or inverse of L/D) with gamma being the angle between glide path and ground. Or conversely, if you k
34 Post contains links wingscrubber : Related thread: Could An A380 Glide After Loss Of All Engine Power (by Bcal Jan 28 2005 in Civil Aviation) Here, somebody estimates a glide ratio of 2
35 musang : 747-200, Rolls Royce, IIRC. The Heathrow one did! Another complication so far not raised is the need, immediately after total engine loss, to keep th
36 tdscanuck : Although true, this isn't supposed to be as much of an issue as it used to be. The starting requirements on APUs have gotten stricter. Yes. It should
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Could An A380 Glide?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops 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...
Could An A380 Wake Flip Or Crash A C-5? posted Fri Nov 23 2007 06:58:36 by 747400sp
Could An E-Jet NEO, Be On It's Way? posted Tue Mar 22 2011 14:17:04 by 747400sp
Side-by-side LD-1 Containers On An A380? posted Sat Aug 21 2010 11:48:41 by 1337Delta764
Could An A350 1100XWB Work? posted Wed Apr 28 2010 12:23:43 by 747400sp
Could An Eight Wheel Jetliner Work? posted Sat Mar 20 2010 19:51:26 by 747400sp
How Long Do It Take To Fuel An A380? posted Tue Feb 2 2010 17:00:50 by 747400sp
Will There Ever Be An A380 900F? posted Mon Nov 10 2008 19:48:41 by 747400sp
How Long Does It Take To Fuel An A380? posted Thu Nov 6 2008 10:37:19 by Soxfan
How High Do The Bottom Of An A380 Fuselage Stands? posted Wed Sep 3 2008 12:59:52 by 747400sp
Could An A/C Captain Perform A Marriage? posted Wed Oct 3 2007 21:52:07 by KELPkid

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format