What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Practicing stall recovery, the fabled base to final turn with engine failure

I've had this discussion before in these forums and pretty much got flamed. However, I'll give it another go. I wouldn't attempt a turn back unless I had at least 1000' under my belt or turned crosswind. Bear in mind I have 18,000+ hours including military fast jet and instructor. Here's why -

- you are going to be surprised. It will take longer than you think to get the nose down so you are probably going to be slower than you plan

- to do the maneuver effectively, you need 45 bank

- you are going to have a lot of adverse yaw, especially if you pull and load up. This will swing the nose up and further reduce speed

- "I've practiced it dozens of times". At altitude, if you have any sense. Chances are you are going to have a lot of ground rush that you didn't anticipate. So again, instinctively pull up a bit

- now you realize you aren't turning as you want so put in bottom rudder to help the turn. The video shows the rest. 800' minimum to recover when you were ready for it. Basically, you are dead.

Now I'm going to hear about the mountains, trees, alligator infested lakes ahead so you have to do it. Fine. Assess your own risks. But in general by far the safest option is to land ahead - usually. A turn back may save the aircraft if you get it right but everyone should understand it is a high risk maneuver. Landing ahead may end up with a bent aeroplane but chances are you will walk away from it.

My 2c (or 2p ....)
 
I've had this discussion before in these forums and pretty much got flamed. However, I'll give it another go. I wouldn't attempt a turn back unless I had at least 1000' under my belt or turned crosswind. Bear in mind I have 18,000+ hours including military fast jet and instructor. Here's why -

- you are going to be surprised. It will take longer than you think to get the nose down so you are probably going to be slower than you plan

- to do the maneuver effectively, you need 45 bank

- you are going to have a lot of adverse yaw, especially if you pull and load up. This will swing the nose up and further reduce speed

- "I've practiced it dozens of times". At altitude, if you have any sense. Chances are you are going to have a lot of ground rush that you didn't anticipate. So again, instinctively pull up a bit

- now you realize you aren't turning as you want so put in bottom rudder to help the turn. The video shows the rest. 800' minimum to recover when you were ready for it. Basically, you are dead.

Now I'm going to hear about the mountains, trees, alligator infested lakes ahead so you have to do it. Fine. Assess your own risks. But in general by far the safest option is to land ahead - usually. A turn back may save the aircraft if you get it right but everyone should understand it is a high risk maneuver. Landing ahead may end up with a bent aeroplane but chances are you will walk away from it.

My 2c (or 2p ....)
Your points are well taken. But, the one factor that exists with every instance of engine out on takeoff/turnback/engine out landing scenario is - every pilot, (E-AB) plane, specific loading (weight, passengers, CG), surrounding terrain, and weather condition will all be different. One size does not fit all. It may fit many, but not all.
 
Eddie,
Excellent video, very good demonstration and I'm pretty sure this is a major killer in most categories not just RVs. Thanks for documenting it so well. I need to go through this myself with an instructor.

BTW you said during the vid that Best Glide is 80kts. Is that best endurance (ie lowest decent rate) or best range?
 
Your points are well taken. But, the one factor that exists with every instance of engine out on takeoff/turnback/engine out landing scenario is - every pilot, (E-AB) plane, specific loading (weight, passengers, CG), surrounding terrain, and weather condition will all be different. One size does not fit all. It may fit many, but not all.

I believe I acknowledged that, Mark.

However, it's all about risk/reward. To land ahead is relatively simple. The chances of not damaging the aircraft, unfortunately, are low. But even if you flop in at 50kts, the chances of survival are good.

Turning back is an extreme maneuver requiring high levels of skill. It is unforgiving. I taught in training jets in the RAF. We had strict limits in respect of height and speed to attempt such a maneuver. Only instructors were allowed to attempt it. If it went wrong, we had an ejection seat. Students were not allowed to attempt it and we were forbidden from demonstrating it to them. This in an aircraft that gained energy quickly with (forgive me) above averagely skilled pilots.

The bottom line is that to pull it off successfully is extremely difficult. The consequences of failure are nearly always fatal. Watch the video again.....
 
Thanks for putting it on youtube. I have told several friends to watch this video. There may be better videos about the stall spin, but this is the best I have seen to explain how so many both low and high time pilots can get into trouble very quick.
Buy your instructor lunch. He deserves it!
 
Here's why, in a nutshell......

- At 60 AOB, you pull 2g in a balanced turn

- Stall speed is proportional to SQRT of g = x1.414

- So, if Vs is 50kts, it is now 70kts. Assume your best glide is 80kts - see where this is going? Your margins have gone.

- Put in bottom rudder. The lower wing goes back, reducing its relative airspeed. Also, a certain amount of blanking from the fuselage. Lower wing stalls and you tuck under.

- Back to the video........

If you really feel the need to turn back after an engine failure then firstly keep some extra speed. Secondly, at the first sign of any loss of control unload the wings and roll level to the nearest horizon. if you have to land ahead, so be it. Flop in at 50kts and you have a good chance of walking away......
 
Eddie,
Excellent video, very good demonstration and I'm pretty sure this is a major killer in most categories not just RVs. Thanks for documenting it so well. I need to go through this myself with an instructor.

BTW you said during the vid that Best Glide is 80kts. Is that best endurance (ie lowest decent rate) or best range?

Hi Doug

From my testing it was best range.

Cheers
Eddie
 
Without wishing to monopolize this or in anyway sound condescending......

Best glide of 80kts is wings level. In a turn, you increase induced drag so the total drag curve moves up and to the right, hence best glide (the tangent from the origin - best EAS/drag ratio) increases. Worst case (dependent on lots of variables) if you maintain the normal best glide, you could be below min drag speed and therefore speed unstable.

So, there are 2 good reasons to have extra speed in a turn engine out.......
 
Last edited:
Reason to start the turn with extra speed, most days here in West Texas in the spring the wind is close to 20kts. Imagine starting the turn with +20 and ending the turn with -20! :eek:
 
Reason to start the turn with extra speed, most days here in West Texas in the spring the wind is close to 20kts. Imagine starting the turn with +20 and ending the turn with -20! :eek:

I hope are not implying that the airplane will lose airspeed turning downwind.
 
A review of how the groundspeed changes... but not the airspeed (maybe) when you make turns downwind and upwind is good to look at.
Common misunderstanding.
 
I hope are not implying that the airplane will lose airspeed turning downwind.

There will be a momentary loss of energy. This is one of those primer war issues, but it shouldn't be. Any airline pilot who flies a square holding pattern with the auto throttle on will tell you that the AT changes setting during upwind vs downwind turns to maintain speed. For us Aero Engineer types this is all well known.
 
I am trying to get my head around an example of auto throttles on an airliner flying square boxes or rectangles !?!?!?!?
I have not tried that in my RV yet. But I know I don't see any airspeed change when the wind shifts. Unless it is of a velocity to be a shear situation.
GS changes proportionally of course... and makes a difference in where the airframe will be in a certain amount of elapsed time.
 
Even in our planes, an autopilot flying a hold is usually following a GPS supplied ground track. So with a tailwind, it will command a steeper bank, which will require more power (what we'll see without auto-throttles is a slight decrease in speed), and vice versa with a headwind.
If you fly your emergency 180 with a constant bank angle you won't see any change in airspeed - but the ground track won't be a perfect semi-circle, either, if the wind is blowing.
 
Last edited:
There will be a momentary loss of energy. This is one of those primer war issues, but it shouldn't be. Any airline pilot who flies a square holding pattern with the auto throttle on will tell you that the AT changes setting during upwind vs downwind turns to maintain speed. For us Aero Engineer types this is all well known.

No- this is basic airspeed vs ground speed stuff. By your logic flying continuous 360 degree turns would cause airspeed loss every time the airplane turned downwind. It doesn't happen. All student pilots learn this doing ground ref maneuvers.
 
No- this is basic airspeed vs ground speed stuff. By your logic flying continuous 360 degree turns would cause airspeed loss every time the airplane turned downwind. It doesn't happen. All student pilots learn this doing ground ref maneuvers.

If you're doing a constant bank 360 airspeed is constant. But a 360 ground reference circle will call for a steeper bank on downwind. Steeper bank = less lift unless the nose is raised slightly, which increases induced drag a bit, which calls for more power or accept less speed. But since we encourage students to avoid steep banks, it's not too noticeable. Transport catagory aircraft, otoh, do holding in slow flight, and the increased drag at higher bank angles is more obvious.
 
A rapid turn from a headwind to tailwind will cause a loss of airspeed - it won't be the full effect but it can be noticeable......
 
A rapid turn from a headwind to tailwind will cause a loss of airspeed - it won't be the full effect but it can be noticeable......

Again, it's the steep bank that slows the plane. You will see exactly the same thing with no wind, or tailwind to headwind. Imagine you are watching this experiment from a balloon. All the turns look exactly the same!
 
Not so, I am afraid. Yes, any steep turn will lose speed if you don't add power or ( in the case of engine out) lower the nose.

However, whilst the IAS is a function of speed relative to the moving air, momentum is a function of speed relative to the ground. In a normal, gentle turn the aerodynamic forces gradually change the aircraft momentum so that the effect is negligible and for practical purposes undetectable. In the case of a rapid turn, you cannot overcome the momentum quickly enough. In effect, you have created your own wind shear

Finally there is the optical effect. At low levels you will notice the extra ground speed and mentally translate that as extra airspeed. As the ground gets closer, it is going past relatively faster which exacerbates the effect. Couple this with the low nose required to keep the speed and the temptation is to pull up, especially as you are probably looking over your shoulder for the runway.

This is a great discussion. As I see it we have now highlighted at least 6 reasons why airspeed can get low and/or a stall induced in a steep, low, power off turn:

- increased stall speed due g
- greater induced drag due turn
- asymmetric lift due yaw
- higher best glide speed due increased induced drag
- wind shear
- ground rush

Given a classroom, a whiteboard and 4 color pens, I could explain it better :D. I hope that many are now beginning to understand, however, why a turn back is a low percentage, unforgiving maneuver.
 
If you're doing a constant bank 360 airspeed is constant. But a 360 ground reference circle will call for a steeper bank on downwind. Steeper bank = less lift unless the nose is raised slightly, which increases induced drag a bit, which calls for more power or accept less speed. But since we encourage students to avoid steep banks, it's not too noticeable. Transport catagory aircraft, otoh, do holding in slow flight, and the increased drag at higher bank angles is more obvious.

Correct. I shouldn't have even mentioned ground reference maneuvers- just the 360's at a constant bank. There is no loss of airspeed each time you come to the downwind transition.

A rapid turn from a headwind to tailwind will cause a loss of airspeed - it won't be the full effect but it can be noticeable......

Due to the added drag, a rapid turn period will cause an initial loss of airspeed unless power is added. It has nothing to do with the wind direction. I am surprised we are having this discussion.
 
Thought experiment......

100kts IAS into a 20kt headwind. GS is 80kts. Imagine you can instantaneously rotate the aircraft 180. The GS will remain at 80kts due momentum. However, the instantaneous wind has changed from 20 head to 20 tail so your IAS is now 60kts.

OK, you can't do that. What happens when you turn is that you change your momentum using the aircraft's aerodynamics. However, a rapid turn downwind turn absolutely will cause a noticeable loss of airspeed - not the full 40kts in the thought experiment, of course, but still measurable.....

This is in addition to (and may to an extent be masked by) the loss due to induced drag.
 
Correct.


Due to the added drag, a rapid turn period will cause an initial loss of airspeed unless power is added. It has nothing to do with the wind direction. I am surprised we are having this discussion.

As an aero engineer with over 25 yrs of flight dynamics experience I can tell you that there is an effect due to wind direction. It is temporary. There is a loss of airspeed, hence a drag reduction and the aircraft accelerates back to the initial condition, but some energy is lost. Aircraft accidents due to windshear are an extreme example of this.
 
100kts IAS into a 20kt headwind. GS is 80kts. Imagine you can instantaneously rotate the aircraft 180. The GS will remain at 80kts due momentum. However, the instantaneous wind has changed from 20 head to 20 tail so your IAS is now 60kts.

If you instantaneously rotate the airplane 180 degrees you will instantaneously have the same 100KTS of airspeed on the tail, and the airplane will flip *** over tea kettle. I don't understand how your example correlates IAS changes with wind direction.

As an aero engineer with over 25 yrs of flight dynamics experience I can tell you that there is an effect due to wind direction. It is temporary. There is a loss of airspeed, hence a drag reduction and the aircraft accelerates back to the initial condition, but some energy is lost. Aircraft accidents due to windshear are an extreme example of this.

Temporary windshear effect is totally different than a stable air mass that you are a part of, and moving with. What you are saying is no different than saying the speed boat that is moving upstream will lose water speed as it makes a sharp turn downstream. Like the airplane, it is part of the fluid mass. It's like flying a small R/C airplane inside an enclosed tractor trailer and making a sharp turn toward the front of the trailer and claiming airspeed is lost because of the direction the truck is traveling.

Based on the two posters here, it seems your theory only exists outside the USA. :) Sorry, couldn't resist.
 
Last edited:
How did a discussion around stall recovery get turned into the never ending debate around downwind turns? The original topic may be helpful to new/returning pilots; the downwind turn discussion has in the past been proven to be clownshoes.

39_istock_000040869644_small.jpg
 
That this debate never ends

is an embarrassment to the aviator community. And a testament to how ground-based our perceptions of momentum and kinetic energy are, and how strongly we will resist a counter-intuitive argument with nothing but our long-held convictions to bolster our opinion.

Any "instantaneous reversal generates your own wind-shear" blah-blah applies just as much on a windless day as it does during a gale headwind. Call it a horizontal tail-slide if you want to - it will make the wing stop flying real quick, and it has nothing to do with the wing's speed over ground.

As an aside, I've embarrassed myself by holding tenaciously to an untenable debate position before. It's painful to watch. Give up the downwind turn fallacy; we'll let you back into the fold without judging. :p

-Stormy
 
How did a discussion around stall recovery get turned into the never ending debate around downwind turns? The original topic may be helpful to new/returning pilots; the downwind turn discussion has in the past been proven to be clownshoes.

39_istock_000040869644_small.jpg

Wait, but what if you were in a very small clown car, facing backwards, wearing clown shoes, while the car was going up a down escaltor? Oh, and the escalator happened to be mounted on the rear of a large flatbed truck. The truck is driving North at 40 mph and instantly turned South while you, in the clown shoes, stepped to the rear of the car. Now, the question is, wouldn't this be an awesome thing to see at the circus?? :D
 
I find the degree of vitriol is usually inversely proportional to the qualification of the respondant in these discussions.
 
I find the degree of vitriol is usually inversely proportional to the qualification of the respondant in these discussions.

Perhaps, as a professional PhD physicist, I feel an obligation to educate the public; for that I appologize. But it is a long standing principle that all inertial (non-accelerating) reference frames are equivalent. You just choose the one that is easiest. In this case, the point of view that is moving with the air mass (note this excludes any wind shear, since you cannot have two different speeds at the same time) is the easy one. All airplanes now look exactly the same, regardless of whether they're turning north or south. They don't 'know' about the wind, because they don't know about the ground. As mentioned previously, pilots can see the ground, and may react differently with different ground speeds.
 
I politely ask the aero engineers here to provide an aerodynamic explanation of how an aircraft flying in steady state geothermal wind can lose airspeed based solely on which way the wind happens to be blowing across the ground. What if the ground disappeared, and the airmass you're flying in could somehow keep traveling through the void of space? What then, constitutes "upwind", and "downwind"? If there is no longer ground for an "upwind" and "downwind" frame of reference, then does this "downwind turn" effect go away? If so, it seems the only explanation is that this big rock called Earth has a special tractor beam reserved for pilots who dare commit a downwind turn.
 
I find the degree of vitriol is usually inversely proportional to the qualification of the respondant in these discussions.

Obviously you didn't understand what I heard ;)

Moving back to the original point of the thread. I practiced a similar stall/spin scenario of the related overshoot on final turn and agressive bank back to center line. There are a a few documented RV fatal accidents from this.
It is very similar in practice to the engine out scenerio presented here.
My 6 argued almost violently with lots of shake, rattle, and noise before she would break. If I kept stubborn, I could force the break and it wanted to immedialty snap inverted. It was easy to catch and simple release of control pressure and it was all over.
You would have to have a lot going wrong to get into this type of trouble. Heavy, hot, slow, cross controlled, etc.... However, stretching for the runway when you have it in sight is hard to not lose discipline.
 
I could discuss how aircraft fly in an inertial frame of reference, and the airmass in which it flies does act on it. I could explain the equations of motion (or try at least). I could show how vitually all flight simulators (boeing, airbus, you name it) are programed and matched to flight data, and if they were done otherwise they simply would not be able to reproduce the famous Dallas/Fort Worth windshear profile, which is a cert requirement, but it would just end up in a cluster**** and it would get personal in about 2 seconds (in fact it already has). People decide what they think is right, based on....well, I'm not sure. The idea that the airplane moves in the airmass oblivious to inertia sounds sensible. These things are not obvious and are not easy to visualize. People have struggled with them for years. Jimmy Doolittle wrote his phd thesis on this topic (don't remember what his conclusion was). Telling people something different than what they believe tears their world apart and they get upset, and then, to use a Canadianism, they go for the man, not the puck. I was not sure until I started working in the field, but once confronted with the equations of motion, and the fact that they accurately reproduce the aircraft response, I couldn't deny it.

Is it possible I am wrong? Sure, I might have misunderstood something. But my conclusion is based on the modeling of physics verified with experimental data, vs hearsay. So I have to continue believing this phallacy until proven otherwise and everyone else can believe what they want. I don't think I am articulate enough to explain it in such a way that it will change anyone's mind. And people can pile on and call me anything they want, I don't mind. I have a thick skin, and, according to some colleagues, perhaps a thicker skull. It's all good fun.

Perhaps we can use the time to discuss something less contentious, like gun control, abortion, health care, climate change or primer. :eek:
 
Last edited:
You keep mentioning wind shear, which is a sudden change in wind direction/speed. I don't know of anyone who disputes wind shear effects on airplanes. We are talking steady state wind.

And BTW, this topic is actually a non-controversial issue for 99.9% of folks in the aviation community. It's pretty much on par with a flat earth and a faked moon landing. ;) Until someone comes up with a more compelling argument than "it's too complicated for you to understand", I'll carry on flying my airplane as normal, with my ignorance shielding me from stall/spinning into the ground each time I dare commit a downwind turn.
 
I know I will hate myself for this...

http://macsblog.com/2014/02/turns-wind-and-airspeed/

"I’ve heard from many pilots who say they accept the concept of wind shear changing airspeed. Good. It’s a fact. All airline jets and most business jets fly with devices that detect and warn of wind shear and they do it by measuring changes in inertia.

But there are many pilots who simply refuse to believe that turning an airplane in a breeze also changes inertia and thus causes at least momentary change in airspeed. For some reason these people can accept that rapidly changing wind direction—which we call wind shear—is real, but changing ground track and thus changing the wind direction and velocity makes no difference in airspeed."
 
Last edited:
I know I will hate myself for this...

http://macsblog.com/2014/02/turns-wind-and-airspeed/

"I’ve heard from many pilots who say they accept the concept of wind shear changing airspeed. Good. It’s a fact. All airline jets and most business jets fly with devices that detect and warn of wind shear and they do it by measuring changes in inertia.

But there are many pilots who simply refuse to believe that turning an airplane in a breeze also changes inertia and thus causes at least momentary change in airspeed. For some reason these people can accept that rapidly changing wind direction—which we call wind shear—is real, but changing ground track and thus changing the wind direction and velocity makes no difference in airspeed."

J Mac! The deified aviation authority hisself. LOL. And read the comments to his article....which fails to mention exactly how an aircraft's intertial frame of reference can possibly be the ground and not the airmass itself.
 
Last edited:
Inertial frame of reference is used for all aircraft and space craft navigation and control (equipped with INS). Subs use it too. And no, subs don't drift in a current oblivious of the earth. While 99% of pilots don't accept this, 100% of engineers who work in automatic guidance and control do. Draper (MIT)tested his first
airborne inertial navigation system in 1953 on a b29 and it was a spectacular success. It navigated across the us using an entirely self contained apparatus. No ground based stations were required. If an airplane moved in the airmass oblivious to earth the system would never work.

As a result if his work MIT won the contract for the Apollo guidance computer and one of his INS units took America to the moon. Hey wait a minute, maybe this isn't a Canadian theory after all! Now don't start telling me that there is no wind on the moon! I know that!

So it doesn't surprise me that Mac took some heat. The majority don't accept the established physics. It is not at all obvious or easy to visualize. You said that this question has been settled by 99.9% of the aviation community. I would correct that by saying 99.9% of pilots. There are a lot of other aeronautical wive's tales alive and well in the pilot community, handed down from generation to generation. Learning aerodynamics from a private pilot ground school and other pilots is like learning about sex in the school yard.

Dangit I said I wouldn't do this.....
 
Last edited:
I now have to break my self-promise to restrain from further comments.
Scott, for a cross country trip across the US, the surface of the earth is not an inertial reference frame. It's a rotating sphere, which gives rise to pseudo forces like centrifigal and Coriolis forces. That's not to say it cannot be used; you just have to make the correct calculations. A good INS will detect the sideways acceleration if you lift off the runway in a crosswind, so it 'knows' about it - whatever your reference frame. And since it is started on the ground, at rest, the ground may be the best choice of reference frames. Not unique, just the easiest math. But for a pilot making turns in a steady breeze, the frame at rest with the air mass is clearly the easiest one to use. If the pilot is under the hood and makes standard rate turns, they all look the same to the guy in the balloon, floating with the air. Wind or no wind relative to the ground. The plane's aerodynamics' performance does not depend on the direction of a steady wind. If you can show that different inertial reference frames give different answers, you should put in for your Nobel prize.
 
Last edited:
But in our light airplanes the effect is not relevant under normal conditions, I have not even noticed the effect when doing 5+G turns in a Decathlon during aerobatics.

I would agree with that - there is so much more speed being lost due to the induced drag from a 5g turn that the effect of wind would not be noticeable. It is a small effect. I also would not expect people to stall their airplane on downwind turns unless they were right on the hairy edge to begin with. My response was due to somebody saying its a myth, which it is not. ("you mean you dragged us through all this on a technicality????? - You @#$%@#$%"). Uh... ya.

Back to the topic :eek: It is fun to demonstrate these kind of ball at the side effects, a very well mannered plane like the Diamond DA40, really snaps in a climbing stalling turn with power on if you mismanage the rudder. :p

Hmmmm - In another thread Mr Luddite said that airplanes are resistant to spinning when you stall with full rudder!

"I've never been able to spin an RV from a full deflection slip if you ease the stick all the way back. If you yank the stick sharply from high speed, you could snap/spin, but if you just simulate "creeping hand" syndrome from a full deflection slip, it's spin resistant. Most airplanes behave this way."

Now it might be that in the airplane he was flying the CG was forward and he was aft stick limited, which is worse in sideslip, so he was not able to get to stall AOA. But that is not the case with a lot of airplanes. Many will stall quite easily, and at a higher than normal stall speed, and with nasty characteristics. It is a spin entry, as you state. And I have seen it happen with large transport aircraft as well, sometimes resulting in fatal accidents. In fact they recently wrote off a C130 gunship doing it in production flight test - the airplane recovered, bit it was "bent" and had to be scrapped. So please don't try this at home without lots of altitude and spin recovery training.
 
Hmmmm - In another thread Mr Luddite said that airplanes are resistant to spinning when you stall with full rudder!

"I've never been able to spin an RV from a full deflection slip if you ease the stick all the way back. If you yank the stick sharply from high speed, you could snap/spin, but if you just simulate "creeping hand" syndrome from a full deflection slip, it's spin resistant. Most airplanes behave this way."

Now it might be that in the airplane he was flying the CG was forward and he was aft stick limited, which is worse in sideslip, so he was not able to get to stall AOA. But that is not the case with a lot of airplanes. Many will stall quite easily, and at a higher than normal stall speed, and with nasty characteristics.

Since nobody can explain how steady state wind causes wind shear effect on turning aircraft, I think we may have to drop this one. The mark of a true grasp on any issue is the ability to clearly explain it. I'd welcome that.

However, I think you deliberately misrepresented my quote above. What I was referring to was a power off slip to land scenario. Many people slip with excess speed for fear of stall/spinning - which partly defeats the effectiveness of the slip. What I was saying is that most airplanes are spin resistant in a power off slip to land configuration, even with full rudder deflection. Your RV-4 applies. Go try it. From a power off 65-70KT approach, enter a full deflection slip with a flap setting of your choice - i.e. full. Now ease the stick back as if you had "creeping hand" syndrome. Pull it to the stop while keeping the full slip inputs. If you can produce a spin from this, you've produced something I've always failed at. There are other ways to spin from uncoordinated flight, but this specific configuration is generally spin resistant in these airplanes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top