banner
banner

06 Dec 2019, 18:36 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup



Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 08:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 03/03/11
Posts: 935
Post Likes: +719
Aircraft: Solitaire
I wonder how they will solve the descend to breathable altitude issue? On the piaggio, the original design spec was to go to fl450 but they couldn’t meet the descend to breathable altitude test (I don’t recall what the time was, 6 min maybe). Even with two big turbines at flight idle, you pick up a head of steam going downhill.

There is no question in my mind planes can be radically more efficient than present. Just hard to make economics work to get it there.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 10:17 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 5491
Post Likes: +2898
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
Username Protected wrote:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9308989B2/en?q=Otto&q=Aviation&oq=Otto+Aviation

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention was borne out of frustration with the cost and inefficiency of the airlines' hub-and-spoke transportation model. This model was conceived by the airline industry, initially in an attempt to restrain passengers from using interline transfers to arrive at their destinations. It requires dense concentrations of passengers both at the relatively few hub facilities and in ever larger aircraft flying to fewer and fewer destinations. The inefficiencies for the traveler arise out of the time wasted traveling long distances from their true origin to the large hub or major airport, enduring the lengthy lines at check-in and security check points, and the ever-longer boarding process on the ever larger aircraft. In addition, the traveler must often fly to cities that are well out of the way to his final destination, and transfer with additional wasted connection times. The result is that for short trips (approximately 500 miles) average speeds reduce to the vicinity of 100 mph, and many longer trips that involve just one connection drop to 200 to 300 mph average. This inefficiency raises costs for the consumer, especially where the inefficiencies require overnight stays in order to catch connecting flights. There is an additional factor which is a disadvantage of the current hub and spoke system. The current system creates large concentrations of people, both at terminals and in ever larger aircraft, that create prime targets for terrorist activity. Larger numbers of much smaller aircraft operating in a widely distributed transportation system would present a more difficult target for any significant military or terrorist activity.

Clearly, there are compelling reasons for wanting an air transportation system that is economically superior to our current air transportation system in acquisition, operation and maintenance costs. To be a viable competitor, the system should have true origin to true destination speeds that significantly exceed current system speeds. It should require no additional infrastructure, and it should package passengers in small enough units that both the passenger load and the aircraft are militarily insignificant targets. To be truly competitive, it should provide non-stop transcontinental and intercontinental travel from any local airport to any other local airport. And ticket prices should be highly competitive with current average ticket prices.

Such a transportation system requires a unique aircraft. It must be capable of operation from any current airfield. Preferably, it would have operating costs well below current costs and competitive with commercial airliners, cruise at higher system speed than current commercial aircraft, have a longer range with full passenger and luggage load than most current business aircraft, provide passenger comfort comparable to commercial aircraft, and be capable of all-weather operation. The plane should also provide for ease of maintenance and require only a single pilot.


So that's just a bunch of gripes about current state of affairs in aviation, which has nothing to do with the "invention". Invention itself appears to be just new design for landing gear. Sounds like these guys wanted to have a patent for something so they can say to the investors that this thing is patented :shrug:

What is claimed:
1. A front landing gear system for an aircraft including:
a swing arm rotatively coupled to a wheel;
a forward link arm rotatively coupled to the swing arm;
an oleopneumatic cylinder rotatively coupled to the swing arm, the forward link arm and a bulkhead;
a plate directly and rotatively coupled to the bulkhead via a hinge with the oleopneumatic cylinder passing through the plate;
an actuation device rotatively coupled to the bulkhead and to the plate,
wherein retraction of the actuation device causes the plate, the forward link arm and the swing arm to move upward towards the bulkhead.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 10:47 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 11230
Post Likes: +3998
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1959 Travel Air
Username Protected wrote:
Trying some math...
At 65000 ft 125 mph ias is 500. Mph tas.
Using the red sfc of .35 lb/hp/hr and 40 mpg at 500 mph we get 240 hp. 4 place plane at 110 Kias that seems reasonable if you can make the diesel run at 65k ft.
The red a03 is said to go to 50kft stock.
That is mach .75 so issues with both prop and long thin wing will be real.


If you can make the engine run at 65,000 ft, not sure you need any kind of exotic airframe.


But let's say you can climb the thing at 1000FPM and 100KIAS. That takes you an hour (covering roughly 250 nm?) to hit 65,000. If you spend an hour at cruise and then come down at 2000 fpm again covering 150nm ... you've just taken 2:30 block to go 900nm. What market does that make sense in? Might make a great autonomous cargo bird for Fedex.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 11:02 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: 12/19/11
Posts: 2748
Post Likes: +970
Company: Bottom Line Experts
Location: KTOL - Toledo, OH
Aircraft: 2013 SR22T G5
I just noticed how little rotation angle it can achieve before striking the ventral tail. Yikes. If it does get produced I can't imagine how many tails strikes they're going to have...

_________________
Don Coburn
Corporate Expense Reduction Specialist
2013 SR22T G5


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 12:03 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 08/31/17
Posts: 456
Post Likes: +157
Aircraft: C180
Username Protected wrote:
Trying some math...
At 65000 ft 125 mph ias is 500. Mph tas.
Using the red sfc of .35 lb/hp/hr and 40 mpg at 500 mph we get 240 hp. 4 place plane at 110 Kias that seems reasonable if you can make the diesel run at 65k ft.
The red a03 is said to go to 50kft stock.
That is mach .75 so issues with both prop and long thin wing will be real.


If you can make the engine run at 65,000 ft, not sure you need any kind of exotic airframe.


But let's say you can climb the thing at 1000FPM and 100KIAS. That takes you an hour (covering roughly 250 nm?) to hit 65,000. If you spend an hour at cruise and then come down at 2000 fpm again covering 150nm ... you've just taken 2:30 block to go 900nm. What market does that make sense in? Might make a great autonomous cargo bird for Fedex.


360 block average is nothing to be ashamed of using your numbers above

Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 12:43 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 11/19/15
Posts: 853
Post Likes: +733
Company: Centurion LV
Location: Draper UT KPVU-KSMO
Aircraft: N100L 421C
Actually the autonomous fedex Market makes sense.

With no pilots the time to lower levels is a non issue. Also explains why they are not doing videos everyday on the development like Raptor. They seem pretty tight lipped about the project for already having a flying prototype. They only need one or two customers to make a very nice company.

That would give Fedex the ability to go long range direct to smaller areas.


Mike

_________________
InstaGram @Mtpyle and my company @CenturionLV


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 12:56 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 9538
Post Likes: +12323
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Aircraft: in storage
a lot of wisecracks here about the door holder, but look at the door itself, the huge surface area and wafer thin structure. What sort of differential is that going to hold ?

it only makes sense if it's a cargo door, there are no living things on board and no reason for pressurization


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 13:09 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 01/18/11
Posts: 5445
Post Likes: +2150
Location: Lake Marion, SC KOGB
Aircraft: B60 Duke
The navy had to route their UAV ver the US Mexico border to move it from California to maryland. I suspect it might take fedex awhile to get cross country aporoval.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 13:15 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 05/01/14
Posts: 284
Post Likes: +572
Username Protected wrote:
Trying some math...
At 65000 ft 125 mph ias is 500. Mph tas.
Using the red sfc of .35 lb/hp/hr and 40 mpg at 500 mph we get 240 hp. 4 place plane at 110 Kias that seems reasonable if you can make the diesel run at 65k ft.
The red a03 is said to go to 50kft stock.
That is mach .75 so issues with both prop and long thin wing will be real.


If you can make the engine run at 65,000 ft, not sure you need any kind of exotic airframe.


But let's say you can climb the thing at 1000FPM and 100KIAS. That takes you an hour (covering roughly 250 nm?) to hit 65,000. If you spend an hour at cruise and then come down at 2000 fpm again covering 150nm ... you've just taken 2:30 block to go 900nm. What market does that make sense in? Might make a great autonomous cargo bird for Fedex.


Bingo! Propeller driven aircraft tend to have lower optimal indicated climb speeds, so climbing high only makes sense on longer flights. Going to 65K? Very long flights! That doesn’t seem like the right aircraft to disrupt a hub and spoke model.

Then there is the loss of thrust at a TAS of 500 knots, FAA approval to carry passengers at that altitude, etc and the fact that pilot costs per passenger mile may more than offset fuel savings.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 14:56 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 11230
Post Likes: +3998
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1959 Travel Air
Username Protected wrote:

360 block average is nothing to be ashamed of using your numbers above


Shameful, no. But not remarkable either.

As noted above I don't see it being the mini 787 that finally allows nonstop service from Des Moines to Chattanooga.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 16:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 11/08/13
Posts: 1232
Post Likes: +560
Location: KCRQ
Aircraft: Breeezy, 182,601P
Assumptions...
Climbs at 100 KIAS
Climbs 1000 fpm to 25K ft (critical altitude for Red AO3)
Climb rate linearly decreases to 100 fpm at 70000. (service ceiling definition)
This yields a climb rate of ~250 ft/min at 64000 ft.
Cruises at 125Kias.
Descends at 150 Kias and 2000 fpm.
No wind.
Assumed climb was 26gph and cruise was 13 gph, descent 9.
For both cruise and descent I limited speed to Mach 0.8 (over that and I reduced IAS)
I Wrote a simple program to calculate optimum altitude for trips from 100 to 3000 nm.
I limited the altitude to 64000 ft.
All speed/distances are in knots.

100nm Optimum Alt = 21000 Time 00:40 Block TAS =147.355 using 12.6722 gal (7.89128 mpg)
200nm Optimum Alt = 38000 Time 01:08 Block TAS =174.092 using 22.347 gal (8.94974 mpg)
300nm Optimum Alt = 46000 Time 01:30 Block TAS =198.785 using 29.4045 gal (10.2025 mpg)
400nm Optimum Alt = 52000 Time 01:48 Block TAS =220.505 using 35.6792 gal (11.211 mpg)
500nm Optimum Alt = 57000 Time 02:05 Block TAS =239.554 using 41.7203 gal (11.9846 mpg)
600nm Optimum Alt = 59000 Time 02:20 Block TAS =256.969 using 46.15 gal (13.0011 mpg)
700nm Optimum Alt = 61000 Time 02:34 Block TAS =271.987 using 50.6341 gal (13.8247 mpg)
800nm Optimum Alt = 63000 Time 02:48 Block TAS =285.675 using 55.1855 gal (14.4966 mpg)
900nm Optimum Alt = 63000 Time 03:01 Block TAS =297.787 using 58.0703 gal (15.4985 mpg)
1000nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 03:14 Block TAS =308.529 using 61.8257 gal (16.1745 mpg)
1100nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 03:27 Block TAS =318.002 using 64.6585 gal (17.0125 mpg)
1200nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 03:40 Block TAS =326.352 using 67.4914 gal (17.7801 mpg)
1300nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 03:53 Block TAS =333.768 using 70.3242 gal (18.4858 mpg)
1400nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 04:06 Block TAS =340.398 using 73.157 gal (19.1369 mpg)
1500nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 04:19 Block TAS =346.361 using 75.9899 gal (19.7395 mpg)
1600nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 04:32 Block TAS =351.752 using 78.8227 gal (20.2987 mpg)
1700nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 04:45 Block TAS =356.651 using 81.6556 gal (20.8192 mpg)
1800nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 04:59 Block TAS =361.121 using 84.4884 gal (21.3047 mpg)
1900nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 05:12 Block TAS =365.217 using 87.3212 gal (21.7587 mpg)
2000nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 05:25 Block TAS =368.983 using 90.1541 gal (22.1842 mpg)
2100nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 05:38 Block TAS =372.459 using 92.9869 gal (22.5838 mpg)
2200nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 05:51 Block TAS =375.675 using 95.8198 gal (22.9598 mpg)
2300nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 06:04 Block TAS =378.661 using 98.6526 gal (23.3141 mpg)
2400nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 06:17 Block TAS =381.44 using 101.485 gal (23.6487 mpg)
2500nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 06:30 Block TAS =384.033 using 104.318 gal (23.9651 mpg)
2600nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 06:43 Block TAS =386.458 using 107.151 gal (24.2648 mpg)
2700nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 06:56 Block TAS =388.731 using 109.984 gal (24.549 mpg)
2800nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 07:09 Block TAS =390.866 using 112.817 gal (24.819 mpg)
2900nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 07:22 Block TAS =392.874 using 115.65 gal (25.0757 mpg)
3000nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 07:35 Block TAS =394.768 using 118.482 gal (25.3202 mpg)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 17:45 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 06/24/18
Posts: 10
Post Likes: +1
Aircraft: bonanza
Username Protected wrote:
Assumptions...
Climbs at 100 KIAS
Climbs 1000 fpm to 25K ft (critical altitude for Red AO3)
Climb rate linearly decreases to 100 fpm at 70000. (service ceiling definition)
This yields a climb rate of ~250 ft/min at 64000 ft.
Cruises at 125Kias.
Descends at 150 Kias and 2000 fpm.
No wind.
Assumed climb was 26gph and cruise was 13 gph, descent 9.
For both cruise and descent I limited speed to Mach 0.8 (over that and I reduced IAS)
I Wrote a simple program to calculate optimum altitude for trips from 100 to 3000 nm.
I limited the altitude to 64000 ft.
All speed/distances are in knots.

100nm Optimum Alt = 21000 Time 00:40 Block TAS =147.355 using 12.6722 gal (7.89128 mpg)
200nm Optimum Alt = 38000 Time 01:08 Block TAS =174.092 using 22.347 gal (8.94974 mpg)
300nm Optimum Alt = 46000 Time 01:30 Block TAS =198.785 using 29.4045 gal (10.2025 mpg)
400nm Optimum Alt = 52000 Time 01:48 Block TAS =220.505 using 35.6792 gal (11.211 mpg)
500nm Optimum Alt = 57000 Time 02:05 Block TAS =239.554 using 41.7203 gal (11.9846 mpg)
600nm Optimum Alt = 59000 Time 02:20 Block TAS =256.969 using 46.15 gal (13.0011 mpg)
700nm Optimum Alt = 61000 Time 02:34 Block TAS =271.987 using 50.6341 gal (13.8247 mpg)
800nm Optimum Alt = 63000 Time 02:48 Block TAS =285.675 using 55.1855 gal (14.4966 mpg)
900nm Optimum Alt = 63000 Time 03:01 Block TAS =297.787 using 58.0703 gal (15.4985 mpg)
1000nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 03:14 Block TAS =308.529 using 61.8257 gal (16.1745 mpg)
1100nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 03:27 Block TAS =318.002 using 64.6585 gal (17.0125 mpg)
1200nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 03:40 Block TAS =326.352 using 67.4914 gal (17.7801 mpg)
1300nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 03:53 Block TAS =333.768 using 70.3242 gal (18.4858 mpg)
1400nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 04:06 Block TAS =340.398 using 73.157 gal (19.1369 mpg)
1500nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 04:19 Block TAS =346.361 using 75.9899 gal (19.7395 mpg)
1600nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 04:32 Block TAS =351.752 using 78.8227 gal (20.2987 mpg)
1700nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 04:45 Block TAS =356.651 using 81.6556 gal (20.8192 mpg)
1800nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 04:59 Block TAS =361.121 using 84.4884 gal (21.3047 mpg)
1900nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 05:12 Block TAS =365.217 using 87.3212 gal (21.7587 mpg)
2000nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 05:25 Block TAS =368.983 using 90.1541 gal (22.1842 mpg)
2100nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 05:38 Block TAS =372.459 using 92.9869 gal (22.5838 mpg)
2200nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 05:51 Block TAS =375.675 using 95.8198 gal (22.9598 mpg)
2300nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 06:04 Block TAS =378.661 using 98.6526 gal (23.3141 mpg)
2400nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 06:17 Block TAS =381.44 using 101.485 gal (23.6487 mpg)
2500nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 06:30 Block TAS =384.033 using 104.318 gal (23.9651 mpg)
2600nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 06:43 Block TAS =386.458 using 107.151 gal (24.2648 mpg)
2700nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 06:56 Block TAS =388.731 using 109.984 gal (24.549 mpg)
2800nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 07:09 Block TAS =390.866 using 112.817 gal (24.819 mpg)
2900nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 07:22 Block TAS =392.874 using 115.65 gal (25.0757 mpg)
3000nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 07:35 Block TAS =394.768 using 118.482 gal (25.3202 mpg)


Even at twice the fuel burn that would be incredible performance


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 18:16 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 11230
Post Likes: +3998
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1959 Travel Air
Really interesting paul. More practical than I'd have thought.

What would it look like getting something with those specs from MEM-RNO today with actual winds aloft?

Is there an altitude where 125 KIAS is reliable against headwinds?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 19:56 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 09/29/10
Posts: 4338
Post Likes: +3008
Company: USAF Simulator Instructor
Location: Wichita Valley Airport
Aircraft: Bonanza G35
Username Protected wrote:
900nm Optimum Alt = 63000 Time 03:01 Block TAS =297.787 using 58.0703 gal (15.4985 mpg)

My 1956 G35 with tips will go 900nm no-wind but takes twice as long and uses 10 more gallons of 100LL, not kerosene.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 20:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 11/08/13
Posts: 1232
Post Likes: +560
Location: KCRQ
Aircraft: Breeezy, 182,601P
Playing with the simulation some more, its really sensitive to maximum Mach number.
If you set max mach at 0.6 the optimum conditions all max out at 51Kft.

I intended to set the max altitude at 65Kft and thought I had a programming off by one (all the results ended at 64K) alas digging farther they all mach limited out at 64K. Moving the max mach up caused the optimums to move up to 65K.

I also think that the climb numbers could be a lot better than what I simulated, its really dependent on how hard you can run the diesel high.

Trying to use slightly optimistic numbers,
If I set the mach limit to 0.92 and the critical altitude to 65K ft and the cruise IAS to 150kn I get:

100nm Optimum Alt = 13000 Time 00:38 Block TAS =155.569 using 10.7398 gal (9.31118 mpg)
500nm Optimum Alt = 63000 Time 01:52 Block TAS =266.554 using 35.9353 gal (13.9139 mpg)
900nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 02:38 Block TAS =341.565 using 45.9874 gal (19.5706 mpg)
1000nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 02:49 Block TAS =354.056 using 48.4507 gal (20.6395 mpg)
1500nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 03:46 Block TAS =397.682 using 60.7674 gal (24.6843 mpg)
2000nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 04:43 Block TAS =423.792 using 73.0841 gal (27.3657 mpg)
2500nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 05:40 Block TAS =441.171 using 85.4008 gal (29.2737 mpg)
3000nm Optimum Alt = 64000 Time 06:36 Block TAS =453.572 using 97.7175 gal (30.7007 mpg)


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next



uAvionix (banner)

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2019

.kingairdom.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.lopresti_85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.Electroair.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.fortner-85x50.jpg.
.L3_85x100.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.uavionix-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.Anrim_85x200.png.
.Showalter.jpg.
.tulsair-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.Bendix_85x50(1).png.
.avidyne-85x50-2017-11-22.jpg.
.rtc-85x200.jpg.
.FreeFlight_85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.Outright_85_50.png.
.garmin-85x200-2019-11-01.jpg.
.tas-85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.McPeck_85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.truecourse.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.heartlandsm.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Steel_85x50.jpg.
.Trace.jpg.
.westsky.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.dbm.jpg.
.ForeFlight.jpeg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.byerlyaviation-85x50.png.
.weatherspork_85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.sureflight-85x50.jpg.
.airplanesusa-85x50.png.
.jetacquisitions-85x50.png.
.jetaviva-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.cubcrafters.jpg.
.hpair-85x50.jpg.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.wildblue-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.methodseven-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.selectairparts-85x100.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.