Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#3951613 - 05/10/14 01:11 AM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Laurwin Offline
Junior Member
Laurwin  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
I believe, (not 100% sure)

that the effective tactic in WW2 seemed to be boom and zoom.

1) gun kills needed certain distance

2) gun kills needed, I believe, tracking the bandit's course, until shooting moment, so you don't lose the tally of bandit

3) nothing good will come from not tallying the bandit

4) weak thrust to weight ratios in propeller fighters, seem to suggest that energy effective manouvering was preferred.

5) Turn fighting is not specifically energy effective in such scenario, compared to less turning and more vertical manouvering. But of course, some turning will always be necessary and in fact wanted, in order to get the gun shot opportunities. Diving and climbing preserves kinetic energy in form of inertia, I think. Especially if you have a heavy aircraft such as P-47, you will not use it easily in turn-fighting, too much mass. But when chugging that mass up and down, I think you preserve some of it in the aircraft quite well, right?

6) boom and zoom manouvering supposedly tries to minimize the turning and nose-pointing knife fight. Instead, altitude and kinetic energy will try to be conserved as much as possible.

7) altitude advantage was a serious advantage, almost out of proportion, in these old days of guns only, and weak propeller fighters.

8) as a consequence of altitude advantage being somewhat serious factor, oftentimes the first visual tally, on the bogey, became the needed prerequisite.

(explanation of the 8th; basically if me-109 sees high flying spitfire, first, me-109 is able to minimize spitfire's altitude advantage by climbing himself...

9) basically hellcat vs zero, zero has a couple knife fighting advantages, slightly higher power/mass ratio, slightly lower wingloading.

Last edited by Laurwin; 05/10/14 01:13 AM.
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#3951619 - 05/10/14 01:26 AM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Laurwin Offline
Junior Member
Laurwin  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
- On the other hand Deacon, I think you touched upon the important point that Pete also talked about...

- It is not good, if you start the fight outside bandit's turn circle...

- What can the attacker do, when he realizes, "I'm actually outside the bandit's turn circle, OH #%&*$# NOW HE'S TURNING INTO ME."



- earlier in the lesson Pete said, "attacker, when you see that you're outside bandit's turn circle, start thinking weapons parameters, start figuring out your weapons envelope and killing the bandit"

- I think that if this happened with hellcat vs zeke, hellcat could try snapshot in this case.

- if zero turns head-on vs hellcat instead of simply break turning, hellcat should shoot and kill the zero first (before the zero has completely turned into you and drawn a bead on you)!

#3951626 - 05/10/14 01:41 AM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Laurwin Offline
Junior Member
Laurwin  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Oon the other hand, I think that the flying hellcat into the "entry window" can work vs zero (fly to where the fight started and turn into the enemy?)

I've actually done this myself in the simulator game IL-2

The problem of the hellcat might become, later, closing in to the kill distance, though. This kind of geometry can work, but it feels really risky getting that close and personal vs the zero, and if you fly too fast, you will not be able to turn into the zero to get the gunshot. So you have to manage your speed well, also.

A competent Zero in this case, can still try to force scissors or just keep turning like mad, in the same direction as the original break turn.

Zero can really, turn on a dime. Hellcat may face head-on situation vs zero, if hellcat flies too fast through the "entry window".

In this same timeframe, zero has almost turned head-on vs hellcat (I think, it can be possible, but it depends on the speeds involved)

If zero does not keep turning like a maniac, into the same direction. Zero could try to force flat scissors, vs the hellcat.

Last edited by Laurwin; 05/10/14 01:45 AM.
#3951666 - 05/10/14 03:06 AM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,462
GrayGhost Online content
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Online Content
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,462
The B&Z was effective because it was an ambush tactic. That is preserves energy may or may not be relevant. The point is to catch the bandit unaware and shoot him down. Your energy and SA are preserved that way.

The same principles apply today: See first, shoot first. Altitude still gives you a huge advantage, but to this we now add quality of sensors and missiles.

Last edited by GrayGhost; 05/10/14 03:07 AM.

--
44th VFW
#3951759 - 05/10/14 11:00 AM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Well, the thing is that the Low Angle Hard Counter setup is specifically designed to make the attacker solve some of these outside the turn circle problems. It simulates exactly what you would prefer NOT to happen...the bandit sees you and reacts before you are able to get inside his turn circle, and now it's no longer a walk in the park to shoot him.

The points made about maintaining a tally and closing for the gun shot kind of apply no matter which method you choose to use, so they don't really constitute a difference as such.

The question then is still, if I am in (let's give me all the advantages) let's say a Zero, and I was about to attack a Wildcat from the same position as the Viper is attacking the Fulcrum in Pete's video, but the Wildcat sees me and turns into me, then why would I prefer to take a high aspect shot and try to manage the overshoot than unload to the wildcat's extended six and use my superior turn performance to saddle him up.

Until about the 80's, and really the 90's in Naval Aviation, I had never seen the far more effective entry window advocated.

My changes of killing the tough Wildcat are far greater with a good, long burst from his six and I'm exposing myself to far less chance of a reversal of fortune by offering the Wildcat an in close overshoot. I have a substantial turn performance advantage. What's the downside of the lag entry in WWII era aircraft?





#3951866 - 05/10/14 04:20 PM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Deacon211]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Laurwin Offline
Junior Member
Laurwin  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Originally Posted By: Deacon211
Well, the thing is that the Low Angle Hard Counter setup is specifically designed to make the attacker solve some of these outside the turn circle problems. It simulates exactly what you would prefer NOT to happen...the bandit sees you and reacts before you are able to get inside his turn circle, and now it's no longer a walk in the park to shoot him.

The points made about maintaining a tally and closing for the gun shot kind of apply no matter which method you choose to use, so they don't really constitute a difference as such.

The question then is still, if I am in (let's give me all the advantages) let's say a Zero, and I was about to attack a Wildcat from the same position as the Viper is attacking the Fulcrum in Pete's video, but the Wildcat sees me and turns into me, then why would I prefer to take a high aspect shot and try to manage the overshoot than unload to the wildcat's extended six and use my superior turn performance to saddle him up.

Until about the 80's, and really the 90's in Naval Aviation, I had never seen the far more effective entry window advocated.

My changes of killing the tough Wildcat are far greater with a good, long burst from his six and I'm exposing myself to far less chance of a reversal of fortune by offering the Wildcat an in close overshoot. I have a substantial turn performance advantage. What's the downside of the lag entry in WWII era aircraft?






Sounds about right to my understanding at least.

Wildcat vs zero, wildcat bouncing from the zero's six position, can still end up good for the wildcat of course.


Wildcat has the positional advantage and it could try to maintain the 3-9 line. Depends on the zero's speed also.

But if the wildcat cannot bag the kill, easily and FAST, then the fight stagnates.

Fight becomes a spaghetti bowl, close in foodfight. Slow and low.

In this kind of low altitude fighting zeke has advantages of turn radius and also minimum manouver speed, and also stalling speed is slower in a zeke.

Wildcat usually stalls first in any kind of co-E situation, so wildcat must manage his energy very carefully. And avoid any mistakes in close in knifefight vs zeke.

Beware of ruses, as Oswald Bolcke said himself...

But as to the equality of the matchup wildcat vs zeke. I believe, that overall, zeke was stronger fighter aircraft.

The difference was not huge, but zeke was somewhat better.

Zeke had better climb rate, better max speed, better accelleration, stronger or equal firepower, better turning performance at low speeds.

The only clear advantages of wildcat, over the zeke, were wildcat's better dive speed, better durability and ruggedness, better controllability at high speeds.

Last edited by Laurwin; 05/10/14 04:26 PM.
#3951901 - 05/10/14 06:05 PM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Well, again, we are taking this fight too far for this one piece of the discussion.

And we are putting the Zero (not the Wildcat) in the attacker's position in the standard LAHC setup: 4 or 8 o'clock. a few thousand feet high.

The Zero has lost surprise. He is the better turning fighter.

Why should he not perform the same lag entry that Pete describes above and choose to take the high deflection shot instead?

#3951926 - 05/10/14 07:00 PM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Deacon211]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Laurwin Offline
Junior Member
Laurwin  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Originally Posted By: Deacon211
Well, again, we are taking this fight too far for this one piece of the discussion.

And we are putting the Zero (not the Wildcat) in the attacker's position in the standard LAHC setup: 4 or 8 o'clock. a few thousand feet high.

The Zero has lost surprise. He is the better turning fighter.

Why should he not perform the same lag entry that Pete describes above and choose to take the high deflection shot instead?


well, that sounds exactly what the zeke ought to do really, assuming that this remains 1v1.

In the online servers sometimes 1v1 can become 1v2 in a jiffy, the-difficult-way cowboy

#3951943 - 05/10/14 08:19 PM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Originally Posted By: Laurwin
Originally Posted By: Deacon211
Well, again, we are taking this fight too far for this one piece of the discussion.

And we are putting the Zero (not the Wildcat) in the attacker's position in the standard LAHC setup: 4 or 8 o'clock. a few thousand feet high.

The Zero has lost surprise. He is the better turning fighter.

Why should he not perform the same lag entry that Pete describes above and choose to take the high deflection shot instead?


well, that sounds exactly what the zeke ought to do really, assuming that this remains 1v1.

In the online servers sometimes 1v1 can become 1v2 in a jiffy, the-difficult-way cowboy



Ah yes, well, that's the point.

As far as I'm aware, that lag turn entry came along about 40 years too late. They weren't teaching it in the Naval Air Training Command in the early '90s and I don't believe it was in Shaw's book. The first time I had seen it was as presented by Pete his material from the Falcon community...and revealed in his book Art of the Kill in the early '90s.

Andy, or someone else on the Air Force side that was around in the '70s/'80s, would need to chime in here about when this entry came about in their community.

My question is if there is a reason that it had never been considered before.



As for wingmen, that is always a consideration. But the surest way to turn 1 v many into 1 v many - 1 is by killing the bandit now rather than later.

That doesn't mean to sit there wallowing behind your adversary, but it does mean taking the time to kill him if the option presents itself.

#3951951 - 05/10/14 08:55 PM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,078
Lieste Offline
Senior Member
Lieste  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,078
You should really always assume that 1v1 is actually many v many with unknowns.

You cannot merely shoot anything that passes through the site, nor assume that you can turn with impunity.

In non-sterile conditions you want to remain on the fringe of the fight, with all other aircraft on one side of you, make single attacks when opportunity arises, keeping to the edge of the bogey cloud, make no turns of more than 90 degrees (or straight flight of similar duration) without a roll to clear your belly and low six. (If visibility is poor you may need to be continually reversing course in order to just clear you tail sufficiently ~ higher speed than your opponent's maximum sustained can help greatly here).

Under these conditions higher speed slashing attacks on un-aware targets are the safest and most successful tactics... you instantly fix yourself in space and make yourself a target for any opportunists if you engage in any prolonged turning fights. Higher altitude gives you a defence against co-speed aircraft types (they must slow to climb to you, you can accelerate away in a dive to escape, you can close on a target using your potential energy to increase speed etc.)

Funnily enough this matches the "desired" fighter characteristics of later war aircraft... powerful and fast, capable of turning enough to be effective as a guns platform, and with steadily improving visibility from the canopy. Turn fighters became outclassed or redundant... no need to excel at turning if turning is the last thing you want to be doing in a fight.

#3952215 - 05/11/14 04:58 PM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Lieste]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Originally Posted By: Lieste
You should really always assume that 1v1 is actually many v many with unknowns.

You cannot merely shoot anything that passes through the site, nor assume that you can turn with impunity.

In non-sterile conditions you want to remain on the fringe of the fight, with all other aircraft on one side of you, make single attacks when opportunity arises, keeping to the edge of the bogey cloud, make no turns of more than 90 degrees (or straight flight of similar duration) without a roll to clear your belly and low six. (If visibility is poor you may need to be continually reversing course in order to just clear you tail sufficiently ~ higher speed than your opponent's maximum sustained can help greatly here).

Under these conditions higher speed slashing attacks on un-aware targets are the safest and most successful tactics... you instantly fix yourself in space and make yourself a target for any opportunists if you engage in any prolonged turning fights. Higher altitude gives you a defence against co-speed aircraft types (they must slow to climb to you, you can accelerate away in a dive to escape, you can close on a target using your potential energy to increase speed etc.)

Funnily enough this matches the "desired" fighter characteristics of later war aircraft... powerful and fast, capable of turning enough to be effective as a guns platform, and with steadily improving visibility from the canopy. Turn fighters became outclassed or redundant... no need to excel at turning if turning is the last thing you want to be doing in a fight.




Granted. But again, outside the scope of the question...potentially.

Let's restrict the discussion to the 1v1 Low Angle Hard Counter which is perfectly representative of the classic "bounce" where the bandit has discovered the attacking fighter...which is why it has remained a staple of offensive BFM training, we can presume, since two airplanes were first able to shoot at each other.

What was the standard BFM training in the Training Command in the 90's looked something like this discussion from Robert Shaw's book: Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering



The fighter uses the vertical to aggressively stay inside the bandit's turn circle. Actually, this is pretty much best case. As often as not, the missile shot would often have been followed by a much more aggressive pursuit that could result in an in close overshoot if the fighter weren't careful.

From Shaw's book (he was a Phantom RIO) I get the impression that this type of maneuvering would be instantly recognizable to a Phantom, Skyhawk, perhaps even a Mustang or Corsair driver. Granted that lag turns are not an unheard of concept (particularly if the fighter were the poorer turner), but it seems the more aggressive version above was the standard turning attack...if you were staying to fight.

Somewhere in the early '90s, the concept of this same attack turned to this:



The lag turn entry that is advocated in Pete's book the Art of the Kill and which is pretty liberally littered over the internet and is the source of these illustrations. There are better illustrations on the internet of the entry window. I just couldn't find one large enough to post here.

Now, understanding my flying career was only a snapshot in time, I still find it interesting that what I'll call the "hot side attack" was the favored tactic over what seemed to be (having tried both) the superior "Lag Entry" even in the '80s and before.

It would seem to be some function of the introduction of more powerful 4th gen fighters that ushered in this change, but as I've said, it seemed to work just fine in the T-45A, which no one is likely to confuse with having F-16/18 like capabilities.


Expanding the discussion to staying on the edge of the furball, that's all great notional stuff. But not everyone can stay on the edge of the fight. If they could, there wouldn't be a fight to stay on the edge of. Someone is going to be in the middle of that furball, and sometimes it's going to be you.

Getting into a turning fight is always to be considered carefully whenever you are in a X v unknown environment, (which is almost always), but there is a reason that the bulk of BFM training revolves around defeating a maneuvering adversary, because unless you only pounce on the unsuspecting, you are going to need to engage someone sometime.

Now, if the fact that the age of the big Battle of Britain style furballs has passed or that, after engaging in a WWII turning fight, the attacking fighter would take so long to regain altitude that it was virtually a death sentence, then you could probably make an argument for taking what shot you could at the defending bandit and scooting back up to altitude.

Again providing that this didn't allow the bandit to reverse and get in a snapshot of his own.

But note that, in this discussion, both fighters are engaging in turning fights. That ship has sailed. It's just that, in the hot side attack, the fighter is working pretty hard to stay inside the bandit's turn circle and not overshoot. In the lag entry, the fighter is still offensive on the cold side of the turn, but has a far smaller chance of overshooting and will (likely) approach the gun shot opportunity at a much lower angle off the bandit's tail.

Anyway, we've probably progressed off the OP's original topic. The only reason I brought up what seems to be a historical difference in tactics, is that the OP began the post with a discussion of F-16s v MiG-29's that migrated into a discussion of Hellcats v Zeros, and I wasn't at all certain if the lag entry would work in the second case purely since it was not generally taught that way (based on what they taught me in the days of 3rd gen).

I just find the change in tactics curious.

#3952228 - 05/11/14 05:50 PM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,462
GrayGhost Online content
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Online Content
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,462
Deacon, just a non-pro opinion, but to me it seems all the same. It's all a turning rejoin and turning rejoins are done pretty much the same way. I think the change in tactics has more to do with the fact that in WW2 you were expecting furballs, and getting stuck in a turn isn't healthy ... but that's just a guess.


--
44th VFW
#3952231 - 05/11/14 06:09 PM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
Deacon, just a non-pro opinion, but to me it seems all the same. It's all a turning rejoin and turning rejoins are done pretty much the same way. I think the change in tactics has more to do with the fact that in WW2 you were expecting furballs, and getting stuck in a turn isn't healthy ... but that's just a guess.


You know that could very well be. And certainly a turning fight was not only dangerous from the predictability standpoint, but from the standpoint of how long it took you to get back your altitude after the big spiral down.

I just recall thinking "Wow, this is so much more controllable. Why didn't we do this all along?" when we started doing the lag entry in the fleet. I never understood what changed which made me wonder if it just didn't work in legacy aircraft. smile

Deacon

#3952253 - 05/11/14 07:52 PM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,462
GrayGhost Online content
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Online Content
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,462
The declaration that missiles would end all dog-fighting? smile


--
44th VFW
#3952361 - 05/12/14 12:14 AM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Aren't they making that declaration again? biggrin

#3952368 - 05/12/14 12:22 AM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Laurwin Offline
Junior Member
Laurwin  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
I was watching a WW2 team tactics video (youtube) about fighter tactics. Animations drawn by Disney!

Narrated by John S. Thach himself (inventor of thach weave attack and defense)

In 2v1, the easy way, and 2v2...

They mentioned, that the immediate objective of pair leader,and wingman, should be to "overpower" the singular enemy fighter (preferrably the enemy wingman, at first)

That is, disregard as much as possible, the enemy pair leader. Focus all attacks on the enemy wingman and overpower his capability to think and manouver. Ultimately killing the enemy wingman, and focusing then on the enemy leader.

#3952670 - 05/12/14 06:11 PM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Deacon211]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,462
GrayGhost Online content
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Online Content
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,462
It's not the same though - missiles actually work now and they're talking about using them as a kill vehicle or credible threat to blow through a fight (if we're talking about the F-35). Also, HOBS heaters have been shown to be reliable for some time now ... so, times are changing biggrin

That said, no one builds a plane to be a slug - there's much maligning of the F-35, but the thing actually seems to be quite capable when it comes to performance in real combat instead of contrived comparisons to clean light fighters.

Originally Posted By: Deacon211
Aren't they making that declaration again? biggrin


--
44th VFW
#3952913 - 05/13/14 11:58 AM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
I like the 35. I hope the ever straining budget doesn't shave away a lot of it's better features.

But, being a Marine, I still wish that the B had a gun. It's like a Ginsu Steak Knife...a thousand and one uses. wink

#3952958 - 05/13/14 01:50 PM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: Laurwin]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,462
GrayGhost Online content
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Online Content
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,462
I think you can optionally carry a gun in pod smile


--
44th VFW
#3953002 - 05/13/14 03:59 PM Re: mr. Andy Bush or someone else, please clarify fighter terminology [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
I think you can optionally carry a gun in pod smile


Well, true, but a gun in a pod is gun that can be taken off. I understand the value of that in a STOVL (or whatever the latest acronym is these days) since vertical ops in hot weather sucks as it stands. But I wonder how often they are going to strap that gun on there.

Plus, IIRC, it's an A/G gun (canted downwards). Nothing like requiring you to pull even MORE lead. lol. The Harrier was the same and we used to scare the crap out of the Hornet guys towing our gun banners, as we pulled the necessary massive lead required to hit it...the Hornet guys at first thought we were shooting at them! biggrin

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Andy Bush, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Amazon Warning
by Nixer. 05/18/21 03:08 AM
Good WW2 submarine article
by oldgrognard. 05/17/21 09:35 PM
Gonna run right out and buy a Japanese Car...
by Nixer. 05/16/21 01:22 AM
Arras, WWI Colorized
by Nixer. 05/16/21 12:50 AM
Gas prices going up
by wormfood. 05/14/21 06:52 PM
Mid-Air Collision in Denver, No Injuries
by Arthonon. 05/14/21 12:59 AM
Hey, Bitcoin, Elon doesn't like you.
by Mr_Blastman. 05/13/21 02:34 AM
I'll be damned !!
by NoFlyBoy. 05/11/21 07:13 PM
RM Jet Suit Boarding
by Red2112. 05/08/21 02:07 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0