Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Recent T-tails Larger Than RJ?  
User currently offlineYQBexYHZBGM From Canada, joined May 2009, 204 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5411 times:

The title of this thread is self explanatory. Since the end of the 717 line, no T-tail designs larger than RJs have been produced by the major passenger aircraft manufacturers. More importantly, since the end of 727 and Tu-154 production, no T-tails in the 180 passenger range have been produced, and the design has never been used on a passenger aircraft larger than the latter two models (although the initial concept of the 757 had a T-tail).

I understand that the T-tail design is subject to the "deep stall" phenomenon, but given that a number of large military / cargo aircraft use the design, does anyone have any conjectures as to why it hasn't been used on larger passenger aircraft, or on any recent models larger than the RJs?

Al
YQBexYHZBGM

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6433 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5407 times:

Quoting YQBexYHZBGM (Thread starter):
More importantly, since the end of 727 and Tu-154 production, no T-tails in the 180 passenger range have been produced, and the design has never been used on a passenger aircraft larger than the latter two models (although the initial concept of the 757 had a T-tail).

The MD-90 almost has the same amount of passenger capacity as the 727-200; it was originally supposed to be DL's 722 replacement until remaining orders were cancelled in favor of the 738. In fact, prior to removing the rear galley, DL's MD-90s had 150 seats, vs. 149 on the 722 prior to retirement.

[Edited 2013-09-16 12:13:31]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineCargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1259 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5248 times:

Quoting YQBexYHZBGM (Thread starter):
The title of this thread is self explanatory. Since the end of the 717 line, no T-tail designs larger than RJs have been produced by the major passenger aircraft manufacturers. More importantly, since the end of 727 and Tu-154 production, no T-tails in the 180 passenger range have been produced, and the design has never been used on a passenger aircraft larger than the latter two models (although the initial concept of the 757 had a T-tail).

It's heavier and less flexible in terms of future engine options for large aircraft (large meaning anything bigger than a CRJ, which has it's origins in the Challenger) and a limiting factor in stretches.

Fuel burn is everything now - and so devoting more weight and complexity and potentially limiting the future powerplant choices is a decision few would want to make.


User currently offlineC680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5147 times:

A further thought:

There are very few Business Jets that do NOT use a T-Tail design.

The smaller frames actually make for simpler systems by moving quite a bit to the tail.

And it is almost unheard of to have engine options on a Business Jet.

Center line thrust makes for greater stability in an engine out situation = easier to fly = safer.



My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2670 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5115 times:

Quoting YQBexYHZBGM (Thread starter):
but given that a number of large military / cargo aircraft use the design

That is to protect the horizontal stabilizer from accidental "ramp rash" during loading/unloading.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24817 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5055 times:

A search would find many earlier threads on this subject. Here are 3. There must be at least a dozen.
Benefits Of The T-tail (by Brenintw Feb 21 2008 in Tech Ops)
Why No More T-Tail Airplanes, Besides Regionals? (by c5load Mar 31 2010 in Tech Ops)
Are T - Tails Condemned To Extinction? (by Gonzalo Apr 4 2013 in Tech Ops)


T-tails are inefficient for larger aircraft. They also add to the overall length but much of that additional length is only to permit the engines to be attached and and doesn't increase passenger or cargo capacity.

Look at the original and smallest DC-9-10. It's overall length is a few feet longer than the 737-200 but the passenger cabin is several seat rows shorter. The 727-200 is also a few inches longer than the longest 707.

[Edited 2013-09-16 12:56:47]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4961 times:

Quoting Cargolex (Reply 2):
a limiting factor in stretches.

Tell that to the DC9 family!   

[Edited 2013-09-16 13:18:57]

User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4474 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

There's also the deep stall issue. That's why Boeing quit using the T-tail. It's in the Guy Norris book.

User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1256 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4736 times:

Quoting YQBexYHZBGM (Thread starter):
I understand that the T-tail design is subject to the "deep stall" phenomenon, but given that a number of large military / cargo aircraft use the design, does anyone have any conjectures as to why it hasn't been used on larger passenger aircraft, or on any recent models larger than the RJs?
Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 7):
There's also the deep stall issue. That's why Boeing quit using the T-tail. It's in the Guy Norris book.

*Facepalm*

I believe MX is also a factor. It's easier to do maintenance on an underwing engine than it is to get up alongside the fuselage on an MD-80 sized plane, although tail-mounted engines can also allow for shorter gear.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24817 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4660 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 7):
There's also the deep stall issue. That's why Boeing quit using the T-tail.

How many 727 deep stall incidents have there been? The only one I recall being mentioned was during the test program. If deep stall was a problem for the 727 I think there would be more reports considering that 1,832 727s were built and it's been in service for 50 years.


User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4474 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4470 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
How many 727 deep stall incidents have there been? The only one I recall being mentioned was during the test program. If deep stall was a problem for the 727 I think there would be more reports considering that 1,832 727s were built and it's been in service for 50 years.

It wasn't that there were a number of incidents, but that the potential for an incident was a risk that Boeing no longer wanted to build into its designs. The change came about during the early stages of the 757 and 767 programs, where both planes were originally designed with T-tails, and subsequently altered to eliminate the risk of a deep stall.

My source is this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Boeing-Guy-Norris/dp/0760304971

[Edited 2013-09-16 14:17:23]

User currently onlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2975 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4403 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 4):
Quoting YQBexYHZBGM (Thread starter):
but given that a number of large military / cargo aircraft use the design

That is to protect the horizontal stabilizer from accidental "ramp rash" during loading/unloading.

I think the real reason is so that paratroopers can jump out and not get sliced in half by the horizontal stabilizer.


User currently offlineYflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1003 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

Quoting IADCA (Reply 8):
tail-mounted engines can also allow for shorter gear.

My understanding was that the main reason planes like the DC-9 and 727 had t-tails was to accommodate the tail mounted engines, and they had tail mounted engines to allow for shorter gear. This was to make the plane easier to service at smaller airports that might not have air stairs, baggage belts, etc. That's not really a problem anymore, particularly at airports served by mainline jets, so there's no good reason for tail mounted engines anymore and thus no good reason for t-tails anymore.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6824 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4333 times:

The aerodynamic advantage of the T-tail is that it puts the horizontal stabilizer in "clean" air that is undisturbed (relatively) by the wing. This, I believe, reduces drag slightly and increases effectiveness, also slightly. The aerodynamic disadvantage is that it is subject to the deep stall effect, which is that when in a stall the wing can block airflow to the stabilizer, making it difficult or impossible to recover. The mechanical advantages of the T-tail is that, with rear mounted engines, engine access is much easier, and the horizontal stabilizer is less vulnerable to FOD or vehicle collision damage, which is why it is used so much on military transports. The mechanical disadvantages are that it requires more structure, and hence more weight, and is harder to access for maintenance.

And this raises the question of the advantages and disadvantages of tail mounted engines. Joe Sutter proved when working on developing the 737 that, for a large airliner, wing mounted engines would allow two more rows of passengers for the same weight and size of the airframe. This has been why all subsequent designs have had wing mounted engines. And with wing mounted engines the advantages of the T-tail just do not overcome the disadvantages, especially the extra weight, which leads to less efficiency.

[Edited 2013-09-16 14:36:05]


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineYQBexYHZBGM From Canada, joined May 2009, 204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4188 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
How many 727 deep stall incidents have there been? The only one I recall being mentioned was during the test program. If deep stall was a problem for the 727 I think there would be more reports considering that 1,832 727s were built and it's been in service for 50 years.

There were no incidents (to my knowledge) involving deep stall on the 727, mainly because of the lessons learned from development of the BAC 1-11. The test flight of the 1-11 crashed due to deep stall with the loss of all aboard, requiring a redesign of the tailplane.

Quoting Yflyer (Reply 12):
My understanding was that the main reason planes like the DC-9 and 727 had t-tails was to accommodate the tail mounted engines, and they had tail mounted engines to allow for shorter gear. This was to make the plane easier to service at smaller airports that might not have air stairs, baggage belts, etc.

Not to mention the reduced likelihood of debris or slush ingestion on gravel surfaced or poorly-maintained runways. Nonetheless, airlines such as Canadian North, First Air and Air Inuit now use 737s for such missions, despite their short gear and low-mounted engines.

In terms of aesthetics, the reason I find the 727 more visually appealing than other aircraft (including other T-tails) is the shallower angle of the forward edge of the vertical stabilizer. Very graceful.

A T-tail 767, I would have loved to have seen that!  

Al
YQBexYHZBGM


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16993 posts, RR: 67
Reply 15, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3911 times:

Quoting YQBexYHZBGM (Reply 14):
There were no incidents (to my knowledge) involving deep stall on the 727, mainly because of the lessons learned from development of the BAC 1-11.

I believe NW 6231 was in a deep stall at the end. However the initial stall was recoverable. The report mentions "uncontrollable stall".

Linking the report itself leads to a broken post, but it reference #2 on the Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriman_State_Park_plane_crash

On page 18
pitched up to nn extremely high angle of
the left horizontal stabilizer. Thsreaftcr, the aircraft probably rolled
attack, and continued todescc-: in?., uncontrollable stall to :he ground.


Quoting from the report about 727 stall characteristics.

Like other aircraft which have horizontal stabilizers located near or
on top of their vertical stabillzcrs. the R-727 does pass through a range
of high angles of att:lck where longitudinal instability occurs. ?his in-
stability causes the aircraft, when no control force is applied, to pitch
to even htgher angles of attack. Longitudinal instability is caused by
derraded horizontal statilizcr ctfectivcness whcn thc a:rcraft's attitude
is such that the horizontal stabilizer Is enveloped by the lowenergy tur-
bulent sir in the wake from the wings. When these high anzles of attack
are reachcd, a push forcc on the control colu;m is required to reduce the
angle of attack. For a b-727 with an aft c.8. location and stabillzcr
trim in the cruise range, wind cunncl data show thnc a noscdovn pitching
muent will dacrease the angle of attack and stall recovery can be attained
bg applying push forces to the control column



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineYQBexYHZBGM From Canada, joined May 2009, 204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3861 times:

I've read about NW 6231 before. I still haven't figured out why they didn't manage to recover from the stall. It's sad that the crew perished, but at least they weren't carrying passengers.

Al


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16993 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

Quoting YQBexYHZBGM (Reply 16):
I've read about NW 6231 before. I still haven't figured out why they didn't manage to recover from the stall. It's sad that the crew perished, but at least they weren't carrying passengers.

Seems to me it was classic tunnel vision caused by stress and worsened by a lack of understanding of stalls. Eerily similar to AF447 with iced up pitot tubes and holding back on the control column. In Macarthur Job's excellent Air Disaster series, the deep stall during this accident is clearly described and illustrated.

[Edited 2013-09-16 19:55:05]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3722 times:

IIRC at least one if not more Tu-154s were also lost to deep stall, possibly Il-62 as well.

Speaking of Il-62, both that and VC-10 were T-tails bigger than 727/154.

Quoting YQBexYHZBGM (Reply 14):
Not to mention the reduced likelihood of debris or slush ingestion on gravel surfaced or poorly-maintained runways. Nonetheless, airlines such as Canadian North, First Air and Air Inuit now use 737s for such missions, despite their short gear and low-mounted engines.

Yes, but the 737-200 has to have an additional system to alleviate that risk, that is the nose gear deflector and the tubes that blow air in front of the engines so that any small debris (sand, gravel) would be blown down or away isntead of being ingested.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 11):
I think the real reason is so that paratroopers can jump out and not get sliced in half by the horizontal stabilizer.

That would be alleviated by use of rear ramp, as is the case on several conventionally tailed military turboprops, i.e. An-26, C-130

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 13):

The aerodynamic advantage of the T-tail is that it puts the horizontal stabilizer in "clean" air that is undisturbed (relatively) by the wing. This, I believe, reduces drag slightly

Does it not have to be larger though, since the center of gravity and center of lift is closer, and the arm is shorter?

Especially the Tu-134 always strikes me as having a particularly large tailspan. Well visible when looking head on.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vladimir Korobkov




The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16993 posts, RR: 67
Reply 19, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3717 times:

Quoting Fabo (Reply 18):
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 13):

The aerodynamic advantage of the T-tail is that it puts the horizontal stabilizer in "clean" air that is undisturbed (relatively) by the wing. This, I believe, reduces drag slightly

Does it not have to be larger though, since the center of gravity and center of lift is closer, and the arm is shorter?

The opposite. Given the swept fin, the stabilizer of a t-tail tends to have a longer moment arm, and can thus be smaller.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineYQBexYHZBGM From Canada, joined May 2009, 204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3631 times:

Quoting Fabo (Reply 18):
Speaking of Il-62, both that and VC-10 were T-tails bigger than 727/154.

I checked passenger capacity of both the VC-10 and 154 before posting, both were less than a 727-200 in all coach configuration would have. I did not check the overall dimensions of the VC-10 in comparison to the other two; I believe the 154 is the largest of the three. I didn't think of the Il-62 at all.
Al


User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3616 times:

VC-10 and Il-62 both had relatively similar seating capacity with the 727, but much higher MTOW, owing to their long-range application. In both cases, just the fuel load itself attacked 727-200 MTOW, maybe even exceeded.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 19):
The opposite. Given the swept fin, the stabilizer of a t-tail tends to have a longer moment arm, and can thus be smaller.

That is true... didn't think of that.



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3570 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 11):
I think the real reason is so that paratroopers can jump out and not get sliced in half by the horizontal stabilizer

I would argue that a lot of people have jumped from a C130 and not died. It doesn't have a t-tail...  



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 743 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3518 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 4):
That is to protect the horizontal stabilizer from accidental "ramp rash" during loading/unloading.

Makes sense. No wonder the C-130, C-5 and C-17 all have high wings.



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19385 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3438 times:

Quoting Fabo (Reply 18):
Does it not have to be larger though, since the center of gravity and center of lift is closer, and the arm is shorter?

You're confusing a T-tail with tail-mounted engines. While it is true that many (most?) T-tail aircraft have rear-mounted engines, and that most rear-engine aircraft have T-tails, not all do. If the engines are rear-mounted, then the tailplane must be larger because the center of gravity is closer to the rear, you are correct. However, with wing-mounted engines (as on the C-5), a T-tail can be a bit smaller in span than a fuselage-mounted tailplane, as Starlionblue says.

Quoting Fabo (Reply 18):
Yes, but the 737-200 has to have an additional system to alleviate that risk, that is the nose gear deflector and the tubes that blow air in front of the engines so that any small debris (sand, gravel) would be blown down or away isntead of being ingested.

Just to clarify, you are describing the optional "gravel kit" that is available for the 732, but not any subsequent models.

There are good reasons why T-tails were more popular in the past, but aren't anymore. In the past, T-tails were designed on smaller jet aircraft that would serve smaller markets. 30-50 years ago (yes, we've had small jets for over 50 years), some of those airports might have semi-prepared airfields with gravel runways, much as those airports in northern Canada still do. In addition, such airports might not have a set of airstairs or a scissors-lift baggage loader available back in 1965. Mounting the engines on the rear of the fuselage served the purpose of reducing fuselage height (and indeed, built-in airstairs were much more popular back then) and also reducing FOD ingestion risk.

In this century, most airports with any commercial service have prepared airfields, even in the third world, while belt loaders and airstairs are standard eqiupment. Thus, those major benefits of rear-mounted engines are negated. Most of the T-tailed airliners being built today are regional jets with legacy designs. Back when the first CRJ and ERJs were made, they still had to take semi-prepared fields with no airstairs into account. Today, that is much less likely of an issue and so the new regional jets are being built with wing-mounted engines.

Wing-mounted engines allow for a weaker (lighter) wing structure because the bending moment from the wing's lift is alleviated by the mass of the engine. The fuselage doesn't need to be as strong to transmit all the thrust, so it can have a lighter construction. The placement of the engine nacelles almost completely in front of the wings also acts as an anti-shock body, which softens the sudden widening in aircraft cross-section at the wing root (the flap track canoes soften the transition back on the trailing edge). The proximity of the engines to the ground also simplifies maintenance. For that reason, almost all airliners being built today have wing-mounted engines and a conventional empennage.

This article discusses both the area rule with some of the aerodynamic issues with the T-tail.

I will add that military cargo aircraft like the C-5 have high-mounted wings for several reasons. First, it means that the wing spar does not have to protrude through the lower part of the cabin, making it much easier to load vehicles into the hold. Second, it allows the fuselage to sit very close to the ground so that vehicles may be loaded by built-in ramp. Third, such aircraft must be designed to fly into semi-prepared and even unprepared airfields and so raising the wing allows the engines to sit higher and out of the way of FOD. In those cases, T-tails are often used both to protect against FOD and also to keep the tailplane out of the jetwash.


25 daviation : I've always been fascinated by NW 6231 because (1) I was flying from LGA-BUF at the same time 6231 was flying from JFK-BUF (on a football charter), a
26 Viscount724 : The only T-tail commercial jets I can recall that once served airports with gravel runways in northern Canada were the 727 and (quite briefly) the Fo
27 Post contains images YQBexYHZBGM : Excellent technical review, DocLightning. I am an engineer, so at least I understand bending moments. I had to take fluid mechanics as an undergrad, b
28 Post contains links and images Starlionblue : In concept it is not very complex. The ideal aerodynamic shape is a cigar with pointy ends, with a constantly changing profile. This is the "Sears-Ha
29 DocLightning : Disclaimer: I am not. I'm a physician, but I understand basic mechanics (physics) well enough.
30 Post contains links and images mandala499 : The reason why nowadays T-tailed passenger jets will remain for smaller capacity aircraft is not just the above... Back in the days where VC-10 was h
31 JETSTAR : Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 6231 was the fatal crash of a Boeing 727 on December 1, 1974 in Harriman State Park near Stony Point, New York. The
32 Post contains images YQBexYHZBGM : I know that part. It still doesn't explain why they didn't figure out how to recover from the stall, unless as was previously suggested, the crew mis
33 LH707330 : There are a number of AF447 threads discussing the sidestick and stall warnings, which in the 330 are an aural warning that says "Stall" repeatedly,
34 Fabo : Two reasons, a) stick shaker should emulate the "shaking/buffeting" feeling many small airplanes have when approaching stall, that should, in theory,
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why No Recent T-tails Larger Than RJ?
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...
Why No Lighter Seats? posted Tue Sep 10 2013 15:00:01 by blobby3
Fed Ex And Why No Winglets For MD-10 posted Sun Aug 18 2013 09:10:19 by stuckontarmac
Why No Winglet On Horizontal Stabilizer? posted Thu Jun 6 2013 09:02:32 by A380900
Why No Spinner Painting On LH 748? posted Tue Feb 12 2013 13:47:28 by LZ129
Why No Rear-Engined Widebodies? posted Mon Sep 17 2012 17:41:54 by RussianJet
Why No Overwing Exit On E170? posted Fri Aug 10 2012 11:12:04 by bpat777
Why No NG Boeing 737's Flying HI Inter-island? posted Tue Jul 17 2012 14:06:12 by Valorien
Flaps: Why No Automatic Deployment/Retraction? posted Wed Apr 18 2012 04:59:55 by faro
Why No Curved Windshields On The A380? posted Tue Mar 6 2012 17:12:16 by 747400sp
Why No Double Lane Slide On The 748 Cargo U/Deck? posted Sat Dec 17 2011 06:16:19 by mikey72

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format