Thanks Thanks:  43
Likes Likes:  140
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 428
  1. #76
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,211
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by easyrider View Post
    The €60 million or so that was spent on them could have bought a similar number of basic trainers, together with a similar number of armed light helicopters. (Dedicated attack helicopters are beyond our budget and probably not good value for money anyway.)
    Carrington how the hell could we buy a half dozen trainers and a half dozen "armed light helicopters" for 60 mil?
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  2. #77
    Colonel johnny no stars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    53.4°N 6.1°W (Dublin, Ireland, Europe, Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster)
    Posts
    2,449
    Post Thanks / Like
    Am I mistaken in thinking that the power output of the PC9s can be reduced for training, making them an attractive option for the Air Corps and one of the reasons they were purchased? Helicopters are fine, but you can't have helicopters and only helicopters. From what I've been told the PC9 was as powerful and well armed as could be afforded. Backseat generals should be bugged by backseat beancounters more often, then they could have a proper understanding of real life problems.
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

  3. #78
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Air Corps doesn't need trainers designed for air forces that operate fast jets, and given the small numbers of pilots trained each year, it doesn't need 8 trainers.

    The Air Corps needs pilots trained to fly the aircraft that it operates: helicopters, Cessnas, twin turboprops and twin-engined business jets. If and whenever the AC decides to buy F-16s or Mirages or Gripens or whatever - which is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future - that will be the time to buy some appropriate trainers.

    So AC pilot training can be adequately delivered with more basic aircraft, with pilots doing multi-engine or helicopter training following their initial training, depending on their assignments. Half-a-dozen such aircraft could be bought for a few million.

    Half-a-dozen armed EC135/635s could then be bought for what's left from the €60 million, although personally I think that's unnecessarily expensive. A single-engined light armed helicopter would be much cheaper, and would be adequate for the role.

  4. #79
    Colonel johnny no stars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    53.4°N 6.1°W (Dublin, Ireland, Europe, Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster)
    Posts
    2,449
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by easyrider View Post
    The Air Corps doesn't need trainers designed for air forces that operate fast jets, and given the small numbers of pilots trained each year, it doesn't need 8 trainers.
    Oh yeah you're so bloody smart you should be running the air corps! If they don't need that many trainers, explain why a whole cadetship competition was cancelled due to a backlog of students needing training. As I've already said, the power output can be limited making the PC9 something of a dual purpose aircraft.


    Before you go any further though, can you please, PLEASE explain what the hell it is about the DF that makes you feel the need to come on here and spout sh1te and ridicule every effort the DF makes in every area, be it good or misguided or just plain stupid (though everyone ridicules the last). In summary, what is your problem?
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

  5. #80
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    moving rapidly away.......
    Posts
    2,607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well said Johnny no stars.
    Easyparker, do you not think that the Air Corps might have some people who know what they are doing, or at least have a better idea then you, a well proven expert in nothing at all.
    The Air Corps have to use an extreamly limited budget to cover a lot of stuff, and the PC-9m's for all their girlie presence are a good aircraft for the job, doing basic to advanced training as well as being available for all weather training and operations.
    The PC-9m was the best choice for getting aircrew trained in all flying disciplines, covering both basic and advanced training, as well as provideing a step in the direction of combat capable aircrafts which may appear in the future.
    "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
    Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  6. #81
    Commandant Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,812
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny no stars View Post
    Am I mistaken in thinking that the power output of the PC9s can be reduced for training,
    That was something I didn't know-thanks. Still it must be an interesting experience- I was bucketing sweat before heading off on my own after 12 hours in a Cessna 150 with fixed gear, 100 horses and nice slow circuit speeds!

  7. #82
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi there
    Why would you want to alter an engine's power output? It doesn't make sense, unless you're simply doing a reduced-power take-off like an airliner, which does save wear and tear, but is less relevant to a trainer. Also, given that students get thirty hours in the sim before they get real aircraft time, I'd imagine that they would already be familiar with the PC-9s basic handling characteristics with full power.......I'd still prefer to have a basic trainer at hand for primary flight screening.Nothing beats getting to handle a real aircraft, early on, instead of finding out, later on in the training cycle, that the student is not going to make it.
    regards
    GttC

  8. #83
    Captain Fireplace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,664
    Post Thanks / Like
    Given that it certainly is unusual for an operator to have aircraft such as the PC-9M but not have any fast jets, it's not that surprising that some would question the wisdom of their purchase. However, if the AC are happy with the various training capabilities then so be it.

    After all, 60 million in the general run of things isn't all that much for a country to investment in it military's air wing. And of course, as has been said, maybe just maybe fast jets of some kind may be an option at some stage in the future. Not having advanced turbo prop trainers would be trotted out as an excuse against such a purchase.

    Major investments come in cycles. At the beginning of the decade the PC-9M, middle of the decade the AW-139, maybe at the end of the decade a light armed reconnaissance helicopter could be looked at.
    You will never have a quiet world until you knock the patriotism out of the human race

  9. #84
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    The PC-9 and much of the recent Air Corps purchases are "future proofing". No point getting a basic trainer just for training our pilots to move on to small airliners and helicopters if, in 5 years time we decide by some miracle to go the fast jet route.

    How many Identities has easy rider been through now?


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  10. #85
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi there
    Given that the PC-9s will be kept for at least twenty years, future-proofing is certainly part of the equation.It also does away with piston engines(except for the 172s, which will almost certainly be replaced by a turbine aircraft) and old, mechanical instruments, so future students will be in a glass-cockpit, turbine-powered environment from day 1, which suits their transition to bigger fixed-wing or to rotary.Right now, the only replacement for a PC-9 will be another one, when one prangs or if Pilatus improve the breed.If anything more warlike comes along, they'll be well placed to transition to it, as they will have done the gunnery-rocketry-bombing/combat tactics training already.
    regards
    GttC

  11. #86
    Colonel johnny no stars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    53.4°N 6.1°W (Dublin, Ireland, Europe, Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster)
    Posts
    2,449
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Hi there
    Why would you want to alter an engine's power output?
    Safety? You can do all the sim time in the world but it doesn't make you a pilot until you fly the thing for real. This brings back memories of sitting on a bus with a nerdy 13 year old boy behind me spouting on about how, thanks to some video game, he's effectively a qualified apache pilot.....
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

  12. #87
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    . Also, given that students get thirty hours in the sim before they get real aircraft time, I'd imagine that they would already be familiar with the PC-9s basic handling characteristics with full power.......I'd still prefer to have a basic trainer at hand for primary flight screening.Nothing beats getting to handle a real aircraft, early on, instead of finding out, later on in the training cycle, that the student is not going to make it.
    regards
    GttC[/QUOTE]

    The US air force put their pilots into the Cessna 172 for a few hours at the start of their training, for initial training, why does the air corps not adopt a similar approach, especially as they have the Cessna in operation?

  13. #88
    Commandant Come-quickly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    In relation to two of easyriders previous comments

    AH-6s: If anything could seem less suitable for CAS/Recce for our long ranged patrols in Africa than a PC-9 you may have just found it.

    ARHs: How much less expensive do you expect the purchase and upkeep of L-159s to be? At least specialist combat aircraft have a wide range of practical applications for us any purchase of viable deployable aircraft, be they transport or recce/cas is going to be a major purchase but if the need is there they can be obtained.
    The H-6 is small short ranged and some redundancy measures aside unprotected...perhaps we should consider some new build S.E. 5s as an alternative?
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

  14. #89
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Post Thanks / Like
    Came across an interesting article about the current state of the Air Corps - http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2008/475iac/iac.htm


    Here's what's said about training:

    "Ordered in January 2003, at a cost of sixty-million Euros, the IAC purchased eight PC-9M aircraft, a simulator, associated equipment and a support package. The PC-9s effectively replaced two types in Air Corps service, the Fouga Magister (which had already been retired by 1999), leaving the small SF-260 fleet to soldier on until the new trainer's introduction in 2004. The PC-9Ms are assigned to the Flying Training School and entered service with few teething problems, with the fleet recently passing 6,000 flying hours mark.

    As Captain Derek Furniss, the School's Chief Flying Instructor told us, "The PC-9 is relatively easy to handle and performs well." The aircraft is a powerful one for ab-initio pilots; "The PC-9 flies like a jet. Its speed and rate of climb can take students by surprise initially. You sometimes have to tell them to ease off on the power to give themselves a bit more time to think." However, this has not adversely affected students' success rates. As the CFI explained; "The drop-out rates among students have remained fairly constant at around the thirty percent level between old and new types." One difference is that with the PC-9 "a student's inability to complete their training sometimes does not become apparent until a later stage in the course than it did in a more basic aircraft like the SF-260." The PC-9 has also seen the re-introduction of ejection seats to the Air Corps. Commandant Jim Gavin, Commander of the Flying Training School, told us that "The PC-9 is the first aircraft with an ejection seat that the Air Corps has operated since the Vampire went out of service in the mid-seventies."

    The Flying Training School is at the heart of Air Corps flying operations. All Air Corps pilots have to pass through the School before moving onto operational units. It currently has a team of eight instructors and to date two classes have graduated on the PC-9. Captain Furniss, continued: "After completing nine months basic military training at the Curragh, Cadets commence their flying training at Baldonnel. Here students are put through an ATPL package as part of their military flying training." Use of the simulator is integral throughout the course, especially in the early stages, such that "the first solo flight is now not such a big milestone as perhaps it was in the past." During the 150 hour plus flying training syllabus, instrument flying receives considerable emphasis because of Ireland's notoriously changeable weather.

    Having successfully completed the Elementary Handling test, students progress to the Basic Handling phase of flying training. This includes student 'fly-aways' to other airfields in Ireland, more solo and instrument flying, general handling and ultimately an 'Applied Phase'. The final stage requires students to demonstrate their proficiency in all areas, as well as night and formation flying, flight planning, advanced navigation and weapons before finally receiving their wings. During the final phase of training students also travel to Flight Safety International, Paris for forty hours on a Beechcraft King Air 200 simulator. Training includes: twin engine operations, instrument flying and Line Orientated Flying Training (LOFT) exercises. On their return to Baldonnel students complete ten hours flying in the Air Corps' own King Air 200.

    As in many other Air Arms, the CFI told us "Numbers of graduating pilots can vary significantly, though probably averaging around three to six a year at present. 2007 saw three pilots graduate and 2008 is likely to see a slightly higher number." Following graduation new pilots are posted to a 'holding unit' (104 Squadron) flying Cessna 172s. This change, which is a bit of a culture shock after the glass cockpit of the PC-9, is however generally welcomed by the newly qualified pilots. It is an opportunity to consolidate their experience prior to assignment onto helicopter training, maritime patrol, the Ministerial Air Transport Service or back to the PC-9 for instructor pilot training."

  15. #90
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quite why they feel the need to go to France to learn how to fly a King Air is beyond me, as is the need to put someone back into a basic aircraft after raising them to the level of an airline pilot. As for a screening aircraft, it has always been successful for bigger and much better equipped air forces, so why the Don doesn't do it is beyond me. It would probably increase their student survival rate, given that a 30% loss rate is a poor result.
    regards
    GttC

  16. #91
    Colonel johnny no stars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    53.4°N 6.1°W (Dublin, Ireland, Europe, Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster)
    Posts
    2,449
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    given that a 30% loss rate is a poor result.
    regards
    GttC
    If they're not up to the standard they're not up to the standard. I'd rather see people incompetent at flying axed than coaxed along with a gently gently attitude. That's asking for trouble. Traditionally cadet classes for both military and civilian airline pilots would have a similar failure rate. Out of 20 that started in my dad's class, 5 failed and in his opinion as a now seasoned captain, were better off failing as they'd be a liability if they weren't axed. If you're going to strap people into basically a flying bomb, they ought to be good enough at their job to not have to worry about their ability.
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

  17. #92
    Lt General Barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Rancho Relaxo
    Posts
    4,704
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maybe rather than being used to coax along weak students, a trainer aircraft would allow the instructors to identify those unsuitable for flying earlier on in the course, and without having to risk a rather expensive PC9. Same outcome (ie those unsuitable are binned), but a lot of time and effort is saved, since the dead weight is removed earlier on.

  18. #93
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't accept that a loss rate of 30% is acceptable, espcially if there are only a small few cadets in the first place.It simply isn't good enough.It's a gross waste of money and resources to accept it, under the alleged goal of weeding out unsuitable people.For a force that conducts what is essentially civil-style flying (and before you argue, very little of what the Air Corps does is truly military or is not conducted by civil equivalents), with what is probably the best training system(a dedicated sim and an EFIS-equipped aircraft for the basics and 40 hours in a King Air sim for the Multi-engine) in the country, such a loss rate is no good, full stop.If you feed six cadets in at the start and lose one or two, that's barely good enough.It clearly means that the set-up is inadequate , which it clearly isn't, or it's too tough, which isn't the case.The answer is that the system is designed to be a pressure-cooker with few get-outs.It's designed to make you fail, rather than make you pass, which is pointless if the units are struggling for lack of pilots and are having to tell the Boss that they can't roster enough crews to fulfil their duties.Airlines don't accept high loss rates, obviously because of the bottom line, but also because their training is human-interaction based; ie, how will candidate x get on in a crew environment.As an example, a friend of mine is a captain with a certain airline.His cadet class lost one in basic, one in IR training and two in an accident.The rest passed and are all successful line pilots.So, clearly, their system works.
    Ability is a very subjective thing to try and divine and I'm less than convinced that the Air Corps have it down pat.
    regards
    GttC

  19. #94
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Don't they weed them out at simulator stage?


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  20. #95
    Colonel johnny no stars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    53.4°N 6.1°W (Dublin, Ireland, Europe, Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster)
    Posts
    2,449
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Maybe rather than being used to coax along weak students, a trainer aircraft would allow the instructors to identify those unsuitable for flying earlier on in the course, and without having to risk a rather expensive PC9. Same outcome (ie those unsuitable are binned), but a lot of time and effort is saved, since the dead weight is removed earlier on.
    Sometimes it only becomes apparent later on. Any fool can get a PPL with enough money and it's only when it moves on to the more difficult flying that people being inadequate becomes apparent.

    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    I don't accept that a loss rate of 30% is acceptable, espcially if there are only a small few cadets in the first place.It simply isn't good enough.It's a gross waste of money and resources to accept it, under the alleged goal of weeding out unsuitable people.For a force that conducts what is essentially civil-style flying (and before you argue, very little of what the Air Corps does is truly military or is not conducted by civil equivalents),
    Wasn't going to. I'm aware they're more civil type flying.

    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    with what is probably the best training system(a dedicated sim and an EFIS-equipped aircraft for the basics and 40 hours in a King Air sim for the Multi-engine) in the country, such a loss rate is no good, full stop.If you feed six cadets in at the start and lose one or two, that's barely good enough.It clearly means that the set-up is inadequate , which it clearly isn't, or it's too tough, which isn't the case.The answer is that the system is designed to be a pressure-cooker with few get-outs.It's designed to make you fail, rather than make you pass, which is pointless if the units are struggling for lack of pilots and are having to tell the Boss that they can't roster enough crews to fulfil their duties.
    Gently feeding people along is what isn't good enough. If the shit literally hits the fan you want someone who copes well under extreme pressure; not someone who fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Airlines don't accept high loss rates, obviously because of the bottom line, but also because their training is human-interaction based; ie, how will candidate x get on in a crew environment.As an example, a friend of mine is a captain with a certain airline.His cadet class lost one in basic, one in IR training and two in an accident.The rest passed and are all successful line pilots.So, clearly, their system works.
    How many started? If it was in and around the usual 20 or so, that's still a 20% loss, which is normal. I don't accept that they don't accept high loss rates. They'll happily lose anyone who isn't up to it as most of the people that go would never make command and where's the point in employing them once it becomes apparent you'll only ever get a first officer out of them? Given that they're also handling aircraft that can be less forgiving, (note CAN), and will also have dozens of passangers on board, if something goes wrong you want someone that is technically capeable and can cope under pressure. How someone gets along in a crew environment comes way, way after that. There are plenty of pilots out there that do NOT get along with most crew but make good pilots so it is never held against them.

    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Ability is a very subjective thing to try and divine and I'm less than convinced that the Air Corps have it down pat.
    regards
    GttC
    It is a very subjective thing to define but I think the best definition comes from peers and instructors. If a pilot is teaching someone to fly and it gets to the point where the student should be competent, the pilot should then be able to say "yes, I would fly with that person and if something were to happen and I needed to depend on them, I could". If they can't say that, or feel during training that they won't be able to say that about the student, then no, they don't have the required ability. If colleagues feel that someone is not up to the general standard required then they aren't. Sure, slow it down, gear it to gently bring people along to pass - still doesn't mean the people are able. All you get from that is a pilot that shouldn't be there and is a liability.
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

  21. #96
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    The PC-9 and much of the recent Air Corps purchases are "future proofing". No point getting a basic trainer just for training our pilots to move on to small airliners and helicopters if, in 5 years time we decide by some miracle to go the fast jet route.....
    I know that's the case the Air Corps makes for having advanced trainers, but they've been putting that argument forward for 30 or 40 years now. It hasn't happened during that period and let's be honest, what are the odds of it happening in the next 10 years? The same logic would have the Naval Service training to operate submarines and aircraft carriers, 'just in case', and the army all geared up for the day when a fleet of MBTs arrive....

  22. #97
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Come-quickly View Post
    In relation to two of easyriders previous comments

    AH-6s: If anything could seem less suitable for CAS/Recce for our long ranged patrols in Africa than a PC-9 you may have just found it.

    ARHs: How much less expensive do you expect the purchase and upkeep of L-159s to be? At least specialist combat aircraft have a wide range of practical applications for us any purchase of viable deployable aircraft, be they transport or recce/cas is going to be a major purchase but if the need is there they can be obtained.
    The H-6 is small short ranged and some redundancy measures aside unprotected...perhaps we should consider some new build S.E. 5s as an alternative?
    The AH-6 may not suitable, as you say, but many armies use a small single-engined helicopter to provide, among other capabilities, armed recce and escort for troop-carrying helicopters. There's a story on the thread about the DF deployment to Chad, where Irish troops and others were deployed by transport helis on a long-range patrol - there's a situation where you would need some armed escort. This sort of troop-lift is what the Air Corps are supposed to be building up to with the new AW139s. The next step is to provide an armed escort for those missions.

  23. #98
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi all,
    Very good comments there, jns.in the case of my friend mentioned above, the class size was 24 and two were killed in a crash, which skews the numbers a bit....I disagree with what you said about getting along in a crew environment.In the airline business, new pilots and cabin crew are trained to operate together from day one.The whole industry is based around team playing, active crew participation and co-operation.Soloists are not welcomed or encouraged.Which is why pilots get to interact with cabin crew for emergency training and spend a considerable amount of their career with them on duty, just as they do with engineers and ops people and have to get along with them to make the whole show work.The military is less good at this, partly because it is an rank/order-led hierarchy.If you really want to understand the difference, you should see how pilots have to learn to change mentalities when they leave the Don and join the airlines.Some of them are less than successful at this but soon get readjusted.People coming out of the military often lack the interactional skills with non-pilots because the system breeds them to percieve to be above the rest and an us-and-them attitude/culture is created.this is swiftly knocked on the head outside but it does take a while, in some cases.
    regards
    gttC

  24. #99
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by easyrider View Post
    I know that's the case the Air Corps makes for having advanced trainers, but they've been putting that argument forward for 30 or 40 years now. It hasn't happened during that period and let's be honest, what are the odds of it happening in the next 10 years? The same logic would have the Naval Service training to operate submarines and aircraft carriers, 'just in case', and the army all geared up for the day when a fleet of MBTs arrive....
    The Scorpions were bought in the late 1970's with the intention of eventually buying MBT

  25. #100
    6-40509-04014-7 yooklid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Right behind you.....
    Posts
    2,921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    The Scorpions were bought in the late 1970's with the intention of eventually buying MBT
    Really? I didn't know that...
    Meh.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •