Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

Shortround6 · May 31, 2019

tomo pauk said:
I will not claim here that Vickers (H)MGs were the next best thing after sliced bread, however there was more than a decade worth of time for the British to perfect both the HMGs and their installations before the war starts.

The British would have been better off just licencing the Big Browning and scaling it down to the .5 in Vickers cartridge size. They had given up on getting the .303 Vickers to work in remote fixed locations, why would they take on the headache of getting the big Vickers to work in similar circumstances? Penitential for a higher rate of fire favors the Browning.

This is partly the point why I've suggested a DB engine to be installed - originally, the heavy BMW 139 (850 kg 'naked') was supplanted by an even heavier 801 (935 naked, 1155 kg outfitted), indeed necessitating strengthening of airframe, as well as a new, bigger & heavier wing (18.3 sq m instead of 14.9). The DB 601A was at 610 kg 'naked' (720 kg outfitted); add ~150 kg worth of cooling system and we're at 760 kg - 90 kg less than BMW 139. No fancy and heavy oil system, a lighter prop.
The DB 601E went to 660 kg 'naked' (725 outfitted), that will be ~810 with cooling system, or almost 80 kg lighter than a naked 801C or D. No armored oil system either, a lighter prop.
Other reasons for the DB engine is actual availability, lower drag, a far better reliability and lower consumption.

The Fw 190V1 went to 3000 kg ready for take off, the armed V2 to 3150 kg.

The availability is subject to question, depending on year (or month) with demands for DB 601s coming from all sides.
Prototype FW 190s had two Mg 17s which hardly worthwhile armament in 1939/40, granted with the DB you could try to put a gun through the prop.

When you are done what advantage to you have over the 109 except for wider track landing gear? You have a higher staling speed unless you enlarge the wing.
The small wing, light weight 190 is too small to take the DB 603 0r Jumo 213 engines when they show up without doing a major redesign.

tomo pauk · May 31, 2019

Shortround6 said:
The availability is subject to question, depending on year (or month) with demands for DB 601s coming from all sides.
Prototype FW 190s had two Mg 17s which hardly worthwhile armament in 1939/40, granted with the DB you could try to put a gun through the prop.

I'd go with 3 cannons.
Availability of BMW 139 is about 5? The production of DB 601 can be ramped up much better than it will be the case with a brand new BMW 801.

When you are done what advantage to you have over the 109 except for wider track landing gear? You have a higher staling speed unless you enlarge the wing.
The small wing, light weight 190 is too small to take the DB 603 0r Jumo 213 engines when they show up without doing a major redesign.

World-beating rate of roll instead of questionable rate of roll of the 109, a far better cockpit layout than 109, 525 liters of internal fuel (550 L in unprotected tanks of the 190 prototype) vs. 400, can carry better firepower in the wings, wings being of a lower drag than what Bf 109 used, fully covered undercarriage for lower drag.
The DB 603 will indeed need a bigger wing, among other things, althugh I'm not against the bigger wing entering production even some time in 1942 for DB 605-engined machine.

Ivan1GFP · May 31, 2019

tomo pauk said:
I'd go with 3 cannons.
Availability of BMW 139 is about 5? The production of DB 601 can be ramped up much better than it will be the case with a brand new BMW 801.

World-beating rate of roll instead of questionable rate of roll of the 109, a far better cockpit layout than 109, 525 liters of internal fuel (550 L in unprotected tanks of the 190 prototype) vs. 400, can carry better firepower in the wings, wings being of a lower drag than what Bf 109 used, fully covered undercarriage for lower drag.
The DB 603 will indeed need a bigger wing, among other things, althugh I'm not against the bigger wing entering production even some time in 1942 for DB 605-engined machine.

Hello Tomo Pauk,
My belief is that if the FW 190 had been switched to the DB 601 engine very early in the game, it would have gone pretty much nowhere.
The Me 109 was a "reasonably" streamlined aircraft with recessed radiators mounted in the wings.
Historically, the FW 190 with inline engines also had the annular radiator setup and drag would not have been different from what was achieved with the BMW 801 with a cooling fan.
Remote mount radiators such as in the wings would call for a serious redesign and possible alteration of armament possibilities.
The power achievable with a DB 601 engine at the time was significantly below what was achievable with the BMW 801.
The weight savings in power plant is offset by the significantly heavier structure of the FW 190.

My belief is that the result would be an aircraft that is no faster than the Me 109 and climbs slower but has a better roll rate and taps into the same limited source of engines as other aircraft demanded at the time. With a lower power to weight ratio, maneuverability would suffer as well.

- Ivan.

Kevin J · May 31, 2019

tomo pauk said:
I will not claim here that Vickers (H)MGs were the next best thing after sliced bread, however there was more than a decade worth of time for the British to perfect both the HMGs and their installations before the war starts.

This is partly the point why I've suggested a DB engine to be installed - originally, the heavy BMW 139 (850 kg 'naked') was supplanted by an even heavier 801 (935 naked, 1155 kg outfitted), indeed necessitating strengthening of airframe, as well as a new, bigger & heavier wing (18.3 sq m instead of 14.9). The DB 601A was at 610 kg 'naked' (720 kg outfitted); add ~150 kg worth of cooling system and we're at 760 kg - 90 kg less than BMW 139. No fancy and heavy oil system, a lighter prop.
The DB 601E went to 660 kg 'naked' (725 outfitted), that will be ~810 with cooling system, or almost 80 kg lighter than a naked 801C or D. No armored oil system either, a lighter prop. Engines' weights, ready to be installed, are 1155 kg for the BMW 801C/D vs. ~875 for the DB 601E.
Other reasons for the DB engine is actual availability, lower drag, a far better reliability and lower consumption.

The Fw 190V1 went to 3000 kg ready for take off, the armed V2 to 3150 kg.

Spitfire Mk.III was not a whole redesign, but more of an ironed-out standard Spitfire - old wing, old fuselage, old tail, with aerodynamical nip & tuck there and there.

Let me repeat myself, no changes to the production lines until the threat of invasion is over, which means the successful counter attack at Moscow by the Soviets which threw the Nazi's back 100 km.

tomo pauk · May 31, 2019

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello Tomo Pauk,
My belief is that if the FW 190 had been switched to the DB 601 engine very early in the game, it would have gone pretty much nowhere.
The Me 109 was a "reasonably" streamlined aircraft with recessed radiators mounted in the wings.
Historically, the FW 190 with inline engines also had the annular radiator setup and drag would not have been different from what was achieved with the BMW 801 with a cooling fan.
Remote mount radiators such as in the wings would call for a serious redesign and possible alteration of armament possibilities.
The power achievable with a DB 601 engine at the time was significantly below what was achievable with the BMW 801.
The weight savings in power plant is offset by the significantly heavier structure of the FW 190.

My belief is that the result would be an aircraft that is no faster than the Me 109 and climbs slower but has a better roll rate and taps into the same limited source of engines as other aircraft demanded at the time. With a lower power to weight ratio, maneuverability would suffer as well.

- Ivan.

Let's compare power of a DB 601E with that of BMW 801C.
For take-off, in second half of 1941, it is 1200 PS vs. 1560. At altitude, it is 1200 @ 4.9 km vs. 1380 at 4.6 km. All figures are without ram effect, the DB 601E have had a better ram air intake, so it will gain more % of power at high speeds and high altitudes. By late 1941/early 1942, the DB 601E will make 1350 HP for take off, 1320 HP at 4.8 km.
The 190D-9 gained a 10% drag reduction by switching to a big V12 engine with an annular radiator vs. 190A-8. 10% drag reduction might not sound much, but you will gain more speed that way than by increasing the engine power by 10%. We know that D-9 was faster than A-8 by 40+ km/h at 6-7 km altitude, despite engine power being greater by just single digits, %-wise.
As for the engine availability, Germany will have to make/procure tooling for all of it's engines, be it V12s or twin radials. Tooling required for BMW 801s will not just materialize from thin air, the 801 didn't even shared for example bore and stroke with any previous BMW or BRAMO engine to help out.

Kevin J said:
Let me repeat myself, no changes to the production lines until the threat of invasion is over, which means the successful counter attack at Moscow by the Soviets which threw the Nazi's back 100 km.

There were plenty, plenty of changes to production lines in mid/late 1940, when Westland was making a switch from Whirlwind production to Spitfires. There were also changes in production lines at Bristol, when change was being made from Beaufort to Beaufighter.
Aparently, not everyone was convinced that Germans will land with their rubber ducks willy-nilly.

Kevin J · May 31, 2019

tomo pauk said:
Let's compare power of a DB 601E with that of BMW 801C.
For take-off, in second half of 1941, it is 1200 PS vs. 1560. At altitude, it is 1200 @ 4.9 km vs. 1380 at 4.6 km. All figures are without ram effect, the DB 601E have had a better ram air intake, so it will gain more % of power at high speeds and high altitudes. By late 1941/early 1942, the DB 601E will make 1350 HP for take off, 1320 HP at 4.8 km.
The 190D-9 gained a 10% drag reduction by switching to a big V12 engine with an annular radiator vs. 190A-8. 10% drag reduction might not sound much, but you will gain more speed that way than by increasing the engine power by 10%. We know that D-9 was faster than A-8 by 40+ km/h at 6-7 km altitude, despite engine power being greater by just single digits, %-wise.
As for the engine availability, Germany will have to make/procure tooling for all of it's engines, be it V12s or twin radials. Tooling required for BMW 801s will not just materialize from thin air, the 801 didn't even shared for example bore and stroke with any previous BMW or BRAMO engine to help out.

There were plenty, plenty of changes to production lines in mid/late 1940, when Westland was making a switch from Whirlwind production to Spitfires. There were also changes in production lines at Bristol, when change was being made from Beaufort to Beaufighter.
Aparently, not everyone was convinced that Germans will land with their rubber ducks willy-nilly.

With all respects you're wrong with the Whirlwind being replaced by the Spitfire in 1940, that happened in late 1941 when Westland made 50 Spitfire I's while everyone else had gone onto the Vb. Beaufort to Beaufighter, no problem, yes in 1940, both use the same wings, different engines, different fuselages. Its not a complete redesign.
British Production of Aircraft By Year During The Second World War

tomo pauk · May 31, 2019

Kevin J said:
With all respects you're wrong with the Whirlwind being replaced by the Spitfire in 1940, that happened in late 1941 when Westland made 50 Spitfire I's while everyone else had gone onto the Vb.

Indeed, you're right, Westland didn't make any Spitfires in 1940. On the other hand, they made their 1st Spitfires much before Soviets have thrown Germans 100 km from Moscow.

Beaufort to Beaufighter, no problem, yes in 1940, both use the same wings, different engines, different fuselages. Its not a complete redesign.
British Production of Aircraft By Year During The Second World War

Spifire III vs Spitfire I/II: same wing, same fuselage, much less of a difference in engine weight and size than it was between Taurus and Hercules.
A production Beaufighter was more of a brand new aircraft, than a redesign of the Beaufort.

Kevin J · May 31, 2019

tomo pauk said:
Indeed, you're right, Westland didn't make any Spitfires in 1940. On the other hand, they made their 1st Spitfires much before Soviets have thrown Germans 100 km from Moscow.

Spifire III vs Spitfire I/II: same wing, same fuselage, much less of a difference in engine weight and size than it was between Taurus and Hercules.
A production Beaufighter was more of a brand new aircraft, than a redesign of the Beaufort.

From Wkipedia,
Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin-powered variants) - Wikipedia
The Mk III was the first attempt to improve the basic Spitfire design and introduced several features which were used on later marks. Powered by a Rolls-Royce RM 2SM, later known as the Merlin XX, developing 1,390 hp (1,036 kW) due to its two-speed supercharger, the wingspan was reduced to 30 ft 6 in (9.3 m) and the area reduced to 220 square feet (20.4 sq m) while the overall length was increased to 30 ft 4 in (9.2 m). The strengthened main undercarriage was raked forward two inches, increasing ground stability and had flaps to fully enclose the wheels when retracted. The tailwheel was also made fully retractable. The windscreen was redesigned, with a built-in, internal laminated glass, bulletproof panel and optically flat, laminated glass quarter panels.[73]

The first Mk III N3297 was first flown on 16 March 1940. In addition to N3297 in early 1941 a Spitfire Mk V, W3237 was converted to a Mk III, although it didn't have the retractable tailwheel. W3237 replaced N3297 when the latter was delivered to Rolls-Royce; W3237 went on to become a test aircraft and was still being used in September 1944.[74]

Although the new Spitfire was developed to replace the earlier marks on the production lines, a decision to allocate the limited supplies of Merlin XX to the Hurricane II series meant that the Mark III lapsed. Priority then focused on the Mark V series. The Mk III with the Merlin XX was capable of a maximum speed of 400 mph (640 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m).[75]

N3297 became the power-plant development airframe, the wings were replaced with standard Type A and the aircraft was delivered to Rolls-Royce at Hucknall. A prototype Merlin 60 two-stage engine was subsequently installed, in effect making this aircraft (renumbered the type 348) the prototype Mk IX.[76]

I'd wouldn't call these changes minor. Castle Bromwich was having difficulties getting the Spitfire IIa into production and you want to introduce a new mark, the III. You don't care that the Hurricane will be less effective without the Merlin XX engine. You cannot be serious. Maybe in peacetime, with limited production nos, no problem, with war, the threat of imminent invasion. Once the USSR was invaded it gives us a window of opportunity to change the production lines, the German defeat at Moscow, even better, the threat of invasion is off.

tomo pauk · May 31, 2019

Kevin J said:
From Wkipedia,
Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin-powered variants) - Wikipedia
The Mk III was the first attempt to improve the basic Spitfire design and introduced several features which were used on later marks. Powered by a Rolls-Royce RM 2SM, later known as the Merlin XX, developing 1,390 hp (1,036 kW) due to its two-speed supercharger, the wingspan was reduced to 30 ft 6 in (9.3 m) and the area reduced to 220 square feet (20.4 sq m) while the overall length was increased to 30 ft 4 in (9.2 m). The strengthened main undercarriage was raked forward two inches, increasing ground stability and had flaps to fully enclose the wheels when retracted. The tailwheel was also made fully retractable. The windscreen was redesigned, with a built-in, internal laminated glass, bulletproof panel and optically flat, laminated glass quarter panels.[73]

The first Mk III N3297 was first flown on 16 March 1940. In addition to N3297 in early 1941 a Spitfire Mk V, W3237 was converted to a Mk III, although it didn't have the retractable tailwheel. W3237 replaced N3297 when the latter was delivered to Rolls-Royce; W3237 went on to become a test aircraft and was still being used in September 1944.[74]

Although the new Spitfire was developed to replace the earlier marks on the production lines, a decision to allocate the limited supplies of Merlin XX to the Hurricane II series meant that the Mark III lapsed. Priority then focused on the Mark V series. The Mk III with the Merlin XX was capable of a maximum speed of 400 mph (640 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m).[75]

N3297 became the power-plant development airframe, the wings were replaced with standard Type A and the aircraft was delivered to Rolls-Royce at Hucknall. A prototype Merlin 60 two-stage engine was subsequently installed, in effect making this aircraft (renumbered the type 348) the prototype Mk IX.[76]

I'd wouldn't call these changes minor. Castle Bromwich was having difficulties getting the Spitfire IIa into production and you want to introduce a new mark, the III. You don't care that the Hurricane will be less effective without the Merlin XX engine. You cannot be serious. Maybe in peacetime, with limited production nos, no problem, with war, the threat of imminent invasion. Once the USSR was invaded it gives us a window of opportunity to change the production lines, the German defeat at Moscow, even better, the threat of invasion is off.

I would call the changes minor.
Wing was not some new design, just the standard wing with standard wing tip replaced by short wing tip - just like it was done on numerous Mk.Vs, IXs and VIIIs for example. (Dowding disliked the wing on the Mk.III 1st prototype, saying that it will be confused with Bf 109E in air combat).
Length grew due to installation of a longer engine, as we can expect.
Spitfire III with Merlin 60 has no bearings on 1940, not even on 1941.
I do care about Hurricane. Install a proper carb ( not the lousy float-type) on it, less draggy exhausts, Merlin XII and it is no worse than the historical Hurricane II. Later, install the Merlin 45.

Kevin J · May 31, 2019

tomo pauk said:
I would call the changes minor.
Wing was not some new design, just the standard wing with standard wing tip replaced by short wing tip - just like it was done on numerous Mk.Vs, IXs and VIIIs for example. (Dowding disliked the wing on the Mk.III 1st prototype, saying that it will be confused with Bf 109E in air combat).
Length grew due to installation of a longer engine, as we can expect.
Spitfire III with Merlin 60 has no bearings on 1940, not even on 1941.
I do care about Hurricane. Install a proper carb ( not the lousy float-type) on it, less draggy exhausts, Merlin XII and it is no worse than the historical Hurricane II. Later, install the Merlin 45.

The people who were fighting the war thought otherwise.

tomo pauk · May 31, 2019

Kevin J said:
The people who were fighting the war thought otherwise.

Have all of them though the same?

Kevin J · May 31, 2019

tomo pauk said:
Have all of them though the same?

In 1939, the Air Ministry considered cancelling Spitfire production in favour of the Beaufighter, in 1940, Castle Bromwich was way behind in ramping up Spitfire production. A Spitfire III in 1940 just isn't going to be approved.

tomo pauk · May 31, 2019

Kevin J said:
In 1939, the Air Ministry considered cancelling Spitfire production in favour of the Beaufighter, in 1940, Castle Bromwich was way behind in ramping up Spitfire production. A Spitfire III in 1940 just isn't going to be approved.

Indeed.
Let's make war-winning aircraft, like Defiant, Botha and Lysander by hundreds. In 1940.

Kevin J · May 31, 2019

tomo pauk said:
Indeed.
Let's make war-winning aircraft, like Defiant, Botha and Lysander by hundreds. In 1940.

In the case of the Defiant, it became an effective night fighter. The Botha was a disaster. The Lysander could still have been useful in the event of an invasion, and used like the Po-2 in the USSR as a light night bomber. By the time the Spitfire III comes along, we're struggling to get Spitfire II production up and running. We need to keep the Hurricane competitive. The Hurricane is our most numerous front line fighter, its cheaper to build than the Spitfire, and while it is taking heavier losses, in terms of cost, it is still competitive in unit costs to the Spitfire. So if the Spitfire destroys 1.7 enemy per loss and the Hurricane only 1.1, but the Hurricane is 2/3 the Spitfire's unit cost and is easier to train to use and more rugged and usable overseas then it is the better fighter so it deserves the better engine.

fastmongrel · May 31, 2019

Avro Lancaster fitted with 2 stage Merlins,120 ft wings, stripped of all armament and given a low drag gloss paint job. Dont fight the Nightfighters fly over them.

mikemike · May 31, 2019

The Fw190 engine question is one of my favorite "What-ifs". Development of the DB603 began in mid-1936; the RLM stopped the DB603 cold in march 1937 (the official reason was "In this power class, we already have the BMW801 in development, and that is sufficient for our foreseeable needs"), otherwise it would have been in series production by the start of the war. The 190 was held back by problems with the engine and its installation; had the BMW actually worked from the start, the 190 would have gone into service late in 1940 or early in 1941 (intended initial armament, b.t.w., was 2xMg151 and 2xMG17 in the wing roots). Focke-Wulf put the DB603 into the 190 early in 1942. The installation posed no particular problems, the rear fuselage had to be lengthened slightly to compensate for the longer nose, and the DB603 power pack with annular radiator weighed actually less than the BMW801 installation. In mid-1942, the Fw190 V15, with a pre-series engine, demonstrated a maximum speed of 696km/h (434 mph) at an altitude of 6950 m (22.790 ft) using climb power, and the V16 achieved 724 km/h at 9000 m (451 mph at 29.500 ft) and a climb rate of 17.5 m/sec (3440 fpm) up to 4500 m (14.750 ft) using takeoff/emergency power, all this with the series-production wings. Putting this all together, had the development of the DB603 progressed normally, the Fw190 series could have switched early to something very close to the Ta152 with an engine reliably delivering about 1600 - 1650 hp, giving the Luftwaffe a fighter with a performance surpassing that of the Spit IX in the early summer of 1941.

Shortround6 · May 31, 2019

Kevin J said:
In the case of the Defiant, it became an effective night fighter. The Botha was a disaster. The Lysander could still have been useful in the event of an invasion

The effective night fighter is quite debatable, a fair number were used as night fighters and few German planes were shot down by them But over the winter of 1940/41 none of the British night fighters were shooting down German aircraft in more than 1s and 2s. The Defiant didn't get radar until the fall of 1941, successful interceptions by Defiants at night in the fall/winter of 1941/42 can be counted on the fingers of one had with fingers left over. The Lysander was pretty much useless for any combat role. Using a 900hp engine to do what the PO-2 did with 125 hp rather points out the waste of resources the Lysander was.

Kevin J said:
So if the Spitfire destroys 1.7 enemy per loss and the Hurricane only 1.1, but the Hurricane is 2/3 the Spitfire's unit cost and is easier to train to use and more rugged and usable overseas then it is the better fighter so it deserves the better engine.

No, they figured the Spitfire could get by using the Merlin XII engine against the 109E (they didn't know about the F). The Hurricane didn't deserve the MK XX engine because it was better.
It got the MK XX engine because it was the Best way to keep the Hurricane competitive. Any other version of the Merlin available in the Fall of 1940 would have meant a Hurricane of such poor performance that it would never operate at close to parity with the 109. Using the MK XII in the Spit and the MK XX in the Hurricane got the largest number of roughly equal fighters.
MK XX Spits would have been better but MK III & MK XII Hurricanes would have been distinctly 2nd rate.

Ivan1GFP · May 31, 2019

tomo pauk said:
Let's compare power of a DB 601E with that of BMW 801C.
For take-off, in second half of 1941, it is 1200 PS vs. 1560. At altitude, it is 1200 @ 4.9 km vs. 1380 at 4.6 km. All figures are without ram effect, the DB 601E have had a better ram air intake, so it will gain more % of power at high speeds and high altitudes. By late 1941/early 1942, the DB 601E will make 1350 HP for take off, 1320 HP at 4.8 km.

Hello Tomo Pauk,
By 1942, the BMW 801D would have been in production and that would be giving about 1700 PS at Take Off.
Power at altitude would also be improved and that isn't even counting the power adders used for emergency power.

tomo pauk said:
The 190D-9 gained a 10% drag reduction by switching to a big V12 engine with an annular radiator vs. 190A-8. 10% drag reduction might not sound much, but you will gain more speed that way than by increasing the engine power by 10%. We know that D-9 was faster than A-8 by 40+ km/h at 6-7 km altitude, despite engine power being greater by just single digits, %-wise.

I have always thought that the A-9 was a closer match than the A-8 to the Dora and the margin for speed may be just a bit closer.
Certainly the armament installation of the A-9 is closer.
The FW 190D-9 was also the end result of a LOT of development and I am not entirely convinced that such a clean installation was likely in 1941 especially when one looks at the other FW 190 prototypes with inline engines.

tomo pauk said:
As for the engine availability, Germany will have to make/procure tooling for all of it's engines, be it V12s or twin radials. Tooling required for BMW 801s will not just materialize from thin air, the 801 didn't even shared for example bore and stroke with any previous BMW or BRAMO engine to help out.

I believe the issue here is that the BMW 801 would be relying on different factories, different engineering staff, etc.
If it were so simple to just tool up another factory to build the same Daimler Benz engine, then it would have made more sense to have everyone build those instead of the early JuMo engines or BMW 801 engines that were being installed in bombers.

- Ivan.

PAT303 · May 31, 2019

Spifire Mk.III was not a whole redesign, but more of an ironed-out standard Spitfire - old wing, old fuselage, old tail, with aerodynamical nip & tuck there and there.[/QUOTE]

Totally different engine, different cropped wings with undercarriage doors, retractable tail wheel, internal BP wind screen, new 7'' longer fuselage to improve the COG. All up the MkIII rolled better, accelerated better was 60MPH faster than the Emil, both at best altitude. It's a shame it wasn't produced but war time conditions dictated terms

wuzak · May 31, 2019

PAT303 said:
Totally different engine, different cropped wings with undercarriage doors, retractable tail wheel, internal BP wind screen, new 7'' longer fuselage to improve the COG. All up the MkIII rolled better, accelerated better was 60MPH faster than the Emil, both at best altitude. It's a shame it wasn't produced but war time conditions dictated terms

The wings were modified, not standard. The wing tips were cropped, but it wasn't the removable tips of the standard wing.

The fuselage was also strengthened, and the radiator size increased and the duct redesigned to lower drag.

And the Mk III was maybe 50mph faster than the Bf 109E.

Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

Major General

Creator of Interesting Threads

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

1st Sergeant

Airman

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads