banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 16:00 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2023, 12:48 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/21/11
Posts: 511
Post Likes: +591
Location: Northside of Atlanta
Aircraft: RV-6 & RV-10
Username Protected wrote:

And so the F-35 wouldn't survive either?

As I said before, we have had lots of conflicts where the A-10 was great. Not all conflicts are high threat with state of the art air defenses.

The F-35 is one answer to one question, not all answers to all questions. And crazy expensive to buy and fly.

Last I say, they were working on getting the F-35 cost down to $35,000 per flight hour. Versus $6000 for the A-10.

My tax payer side says the A-10 is still a useful, cost effective platform.


Here's the binary way the USAF looks at it:

The F-35 can conduct A2A and A2G missions in contested airspace. The A-10 can't.

The A-10 can conduct A2G missions in uncontested airspace. The F-35 can too. You can even hang stuff on the pylons if you're not concerned about stealth. It won't be as good at CAS as an A-10, but it does have A2G capability.

Fundamentally, the US military's position is to have the systems available to fight the "big bad" and to be adaptable enough to deal with other threats. The F-35 accomplishes that but the A-10 doesn't help if you're going up against the big bad.

I would not use cost/ flight hr as a primary factor. It is a distraction. The primary consideration is the ability of the platform to successfully complete the mission. However, if we do go down the cost/hr path, realize those numbers can be bent. A search of the internet shows a $22K/hr cost for the A-10 and a $33K/hr cost for the F-35. Again, I don't trust either figure, but let's use 'em anyway. The mission is a 400 NM out and back sortie. Go 400 NM, drop the weapons in one pass, RTB. The A-10's gonna take 2.5 hours@ 22K/hr = $55K of flight time for that mission. The F-35 is gonna take 1.5 hours and $50K. Whatever the operating cost difference is, it is insignificant by that measure.

The difference is whether the mission is successfully completed and the airplane returns home safely.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2023, 12:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 1357
Post Likes: +716
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Do you/did fly the CAS mission?


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2023, 21:54 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/13/19
Posts: 368
Post Likes: +481
Location: FL
Aircraft: F-35A, L-39, '74 B55
Username Protected wrote:
The problem with the A-10 is it wouldn’t be survivable near a modern battlefield. Hopefully, F-35’s will be.


So how will the F-35 survive? If you put more than 2 bombs on it, it is not longer stealth.

And the B and C models don't have guns, so need to carry a gun pod, again, kills the stealth.

And finally, when was the last "modern" air battlefield?


Although the F-35 carries weapons internally, it has a much, much better capability with network enabled weapons, etc. There's a next level to integrated targeting which is probably beyond the scope of this forum - but it's nothing to scoff.

I have a special place in my heart for CAS and most of my combat time is within that mission set. However, there are many different flavors of CAS and the A-10 isn't necessarily ideal for each one of them. GWOT style CAS in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq where the ground elements are out looking for close contact, sure. Some island in the Pacific covered by Luyang III MEZs, 400nm away from the nearest friendly airfield, probably not the A-10's niche.

There are certain other planning items that lead to the need and utility of CAS, mostly in the form of interdiction, preparatory fires, as well as ground element competence / planning, etc. It's not that the A-10 is inadequate for CAS, it's that the F-35 covers a far greater hole in the overall picture - particularly when it comes to collecting data and generating targeting/awareness for other players.

Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2023, 22:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/26/15
Posts: 9514
Post Likes: +8745
Company: airlines (*CRJ,A320)
Location: Florida panhandle
Aircraft: Travel Air,T-6B,etc*
Username Protected wrote:
I would not use cost/ flight hr as a primary factor. It is a distraction. The primary consideration is the ability of the platform to successfully complete the mission.

Big wars are a numbers game.

Air warfare planning used to be in terms of sorties per target. That was Vietnam and earlier; the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War were significant in this numbers game. Nowadays it's the other way around, targets per sortie. The F-35's systems are very much designed around that philosophy (the networking capability you mention and the pilot's situational awareness, compared to older weapons systems).

Grunts love the A-10 because it's like having your big brother backing you up when you're fighting the bully on the block. They like it because they know the bad guys can see and hear it coming, one group of bad guys gets schwacked while another group sees it, and they know they're next. Air support by stealth and standoff is a different mindset. A big brother who's invisible isn't really intimidating, right? But a visible, loud big brother who can survive a bloody nose better than anyone—but will be down for a few weeks of repair after this mission—how does that help the numbers game?



(I'm not trying to dispute either side of the argument, I just understand why people have strong opinions both ways.)


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2023, 13:11 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/18/21
Posts: 83
Post Likes: +82
Location: TN and WI
Aircraft: 767,727,A10,F16,F33A
Username Protected wrote:
The problem with the A-10 is it wouldn’t be survivable near a modern battlefield. Hopefully, F-35’s will be. Now, if the mission is to hold down an insurgency, the A-10 or AC-130 is big medicine.

The question is what is the appropriate balance between these and other platforms to handle contingencies? You probably want to have all of ‘em, but ultimately the budget drives what you can afford. The USAF has been smart in “defunding A-10’s” because the blowback always results in more money and they get to keep the A-10’s anyway.



I had the privilege of flying both the A-10A and the F-16C in the CAS mission. My A10 flying was late 1980’s until 1992. We converted to the F16 in 1992 because the Air Force brass wanted shiny new airplanes to replace the ugly A10. They claimed it was unsurvivable in a modern battlefield. Obviously, the results of Desert Storm proved them wrong. We were able to operate in a high threat environment, with Air Supremacy and effective Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, and the result was 80% of all armor and vehicles were killed by the A10 and B52. Prior to Desert Storm, many people bought off on the unsurvivability of the A10 platform. The following 16 years I flew the F16. Performing CAS in the F16 is not as lethal as the A10. The A10 has more fuel, thus time on station to bring the fight to the enemy. The F16 is always fuel limited. Due to maintaining a high tactical speed, it is more difficult to positively identify the target area and maneuver to employ ordnance rapidly and timely in a troops in contact environment. The 20mm cannon is a pea shooter compared to the 30mm cannon of the Hog!

I am surprised that 33 years after debating the survivability of the A10 in modern warfare, we are still engaged in that process.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2023, 10:17 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 1357
Post Likes: +716
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Username Protected wrote:
Although the F-35 carries weapons internally, it has a much, much better capability with network enabled weapons, etc. There's a next level to integrated targeting which is probably beyond the scope of this forum - but it's nothing to scoff.

I have a special place in my heart for CAS and most of my combat time is within that mission set. However, there are many different flavors of CAS and the A-10 isn't necessarily ideal for each one of them. GWOT style CAS in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq where the ground elements are out looking for close contact, sure. Some island in the Pacific covered by Luyang III MEZs, 400nm away from the nearest friendly airfield, probably not the A-10's niche.

There are certain other planning items that lead to the need and utility of CAS, mostly in the form of interdiction, preparatory fires, as well as ground element competence / planning, etc. It's not that the A-10 is inadequate for CAS, it's that the F-35 covers a far greater hole in the overall picture - particularly when it comes to collecting data and generating targeting/awareness for other players.


The A-10C has a lot of this capability. It is not the A-10 I flew.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2023, 10:22 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 1357
Post Likes: +716
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Username Protected wrote:
Due to maintaining a high tactical speed, it is more difficult to positively identify the target area and maneuver to employ ordnance rapidly and timely in a troops in contact environment.


This was one of the main reasons for the development of the A-10. The USAF kept relearning that CAS is better performed with slower, straight wing aircraft.

In Korea, the Navy (Skyraiders) and Marines (Corsairs) were much better CAS platforms.

In Vietnam, the USAF had to borrow Skyraiders from the Navy and convert trainers (T-28D and A-37) for CAS.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2023, 10:23 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 1357
Post Likes: +716
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Username Protected wrote:
I would not use cost/ flight hr as a primary factor. It is a distraction. The primary consideration is the ability of the platform to successfully complete the mission.

Big wars are a numbers game.

Air warfare planning used to be in terms of sorties per target. That was Vietnam and earlier; the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War were significant in this numbers game. Nowadays it's the other way around, targets per sortie. The F-35's systems are very much designed around that philosophy (the networking capability you mention and the pilot's situational awareness, compared to older weapons systems).

Grunts love the A-10 because it's like having your big brother backing you up when you're fighting the bully on the block. They like it because they know the bad guys can see and hear it coming, one group of bad guys gets schwacked while another group sees it, and they know they're next. Air support by stealth and standoff is a different mindset. A big brother who's invisible isn't really intimidating, right? But a visible, loud big brother who can survive a bloody nose better than anyone—but will be down for a few weeks of repair after this mission—how does that help the numbers game?

(I'm not trying to dispute either side of the argument, I just understand why people have strong opinions both ways.)


Assuming the F-35 makes the mission in the first place. When the F-35 was declared fully operational for the USAF, the availability was 7.7 hours.

PER WEEK.

Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2023, 11:57 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 01/21/14
Posts: 5098
Post Likes: +3639
Company: FAA Flight Check
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KOKC)
Aircraft: King Air 300F/C90GTx
A lot of this discussion focuses on the traditional Type 1 CAS.
Many of these concerns aren't even an issue in Types 2 and 3 CAS.
I'm sure the A-10C is better equipped than the older versions. I'm also willing to bet they are nowhere near as interconnected as the F-35s. And like it or not - that is the way of the world now. I think I should have been flying Skyraiders or Corsairs in Korea myself.

I've worked and flown with a bunch of former A-10 guys. It would have been my #1 desired drop had I gone the way of the USAF out of college. I thought the book 'Warthogs in the Gulf' had a good accounting of A-10 activity in the Gulf. Some of my college ROTC friends were featured in that book.

One thing I remember of it was saying that the A-10s minimum altitudes were raised up to above 10,000' because of the AAA/ManPad threat degrading the aircraft's ability to target effectively with the poor equipment it had on board at the time. Also - though they definitely are a terror for armor/vehicles - I've never seen a stat for it (and B-52s) being responsible for 80% of all losses attributed to those two platforms. If true - very impressive and I'd like to see the reference.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2023, 20:36 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/21/11
Posts: 511
Post Likes: +591
Location: Northside of Atlanta
Aircraft: RV-6 & RV-10
Username Protected wrote:

I had the privilege of flying both the A-10A and the F-16C in the CAS mission. My A10 flying was late 1980’s until 1992. We converted to the F16 in 1992 because the Air Force brass wanted shiny new airplanes to replace the ugly A10. They claimed it was unsurvivable in a modern battlefield. Obviously, the results of Desert Storm proved them wrong. We were able to operate in a high threat environment, with Air Supremacy and effective Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses...


First, a sincere thank you for your service. If you're ever in the Atlanta area, I'll happily buy you a beer and listen to every flying story you care to tell.

Second, here's where we disagree. I argue that in Desert Storm, A-10's didn't face a modern battlefield. The Iraqi radar network was down. In general, A-10's faced MANPADS and AAA, often visually aimed, because the SEAD folks had cleaned house early in the campaign. There was no airborne opposition to the A-10's, and the A-10's were protected by an overwatch of allied AWACS, jammers, fighters etc. The Iraqis had decent equipment (at least at the start of the war), but didn't employ it well. Even in Vietnam, radar crews learned to shut off their systems to minimize the risk of taking an ARM down the pipe. The Iragi's mostly turned on their radars until a HARM or other weapon rendered it unserviceable. Their pilots? Not at all up to Western standards.

My assumptions around a modern battlefield (say Ukraine) are that the enemy will still have RADAR guided SAM's operating near the battlefield, will have AWAC's and fighter support, etc. In other words, a battlefield that remains contested, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan where the big bad (Say a Mig-31 slaved to an AWACS) wasn't an imminent threat. I don't think A-10's are viable in that environment. Five A-10's were lost to enemy action against the Iraqi's, who were using MANPADS and AAA, with another twenty A-10's suffering significant damage. That's 25 out of 144 A-10's deployed. I think A-10's would get mauled in a modern battlefield while the enemy still had an intact air defense network. I would also add that air defenses have improved significantly in the 30 years since Desert Storm.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2023, 00:06 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/18/21
Posts: 83
Post Likes: +82
Location: TN and WI
Aircraft: 767,727,A10,F16,F33A
Username Protected wrote:
A lot of this discussion focuses on the traditional Type 1 CAS.
Many of these concerns aren't even an issue in Types 2 and 3 CAS.
I'm sure the A-10C is better equipped than the older versions. I'm also willing to bet they are nowhere near as interconnected as the F-35s. And like it or not - that is the way of the world now. I think I should have been flying Skyraiders or Corsairs in Korea myself.

I've worked and flown with a bunch of former A-10 guys. It would have been my #1 desired drop had I gone the way of the USAF out of college. I thought the book 'Warthogs in the Gulf' had a good accounting of A-10 activity in the Gulf. Some of my college ROTC friends were featured in that book.

One thing I remember of it was saying that the A-10s minimum altitudes were raised up to above 10,000' because of the AAA/ManPad threat degrading the aircraft's ability to target effectively with the poor equipment it had on board at the time. Also - though they definitely are a terror for armor/vehicles - I've never seen a stat for it (and B-52s) being responsible for 80% of all losses attributed to those two platforms. If true - very impressive and I'd like to see the reference.




You will have to sift through the vast array of statistics from the Gulf War Air Power survey. In there you will see that the Air Force employed 5,255 Maverick missiles against Iraqi tanks, vehicles and other hardened targets. All but 116 of those Mavericks were fired from the Hog! Combined with the 30mm cannon, the A10 weapon system accounted for the vast majority of armor and vehicle kills including over 900 tanks, 2000 military vehicles, and over 1200 artillery pieces. Moreover, interviews with Iraqi enemy prisoners of war revealed that the A-10 was the most feared aircraft on the battlefield.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2023, 00:18 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/18/21
Posts: 83
Post Likes: +82
Location: TN and WI
Aircraft: 767,727,A10,F16,F33A
Username Protected wrote:

I had the privilege of flying both the A-10A and the F-16C in the CAS mission. My A10 flying was late 1980’s until 1992. We converted to the F16 in 1992 because the Air Force brass wanted shiny new airplanes to replace the ugly A10. They claimed it was unsurvivable in a modern battlefield. Obviously, the results of Desert Storm proved them wrong. We were able to operate in a high threat environment, with Air Supremacy and effective Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses...


First, a sincere thank you for your service. If you're ever in the Atlanta area, I'll happily buy you a beer and listen to every flying story you care to tell.

Second, here's where we disagree. I argue that in Desert Storm, A-10's didn't face a modern battlefield. The Iraqi radar network was down. In general, A-10's faced MANPADS and AAA, often visually aimed, because the SEAD folks had cleaned house early in the campaign. There was no airborne opposition to the A-10's, and the A-10's were protected by an overwatch of allied AWACS, jammers, fighters etc. The Iraqis had decent equipment (at least at the start of the war), but didn't employ it well. Even in Vietnam, radar crews learned to shut off their systems to minimize the risk of taking an ARM down the pipe. The Iragi's mostly turned on their radars until a HARM or other weapon rendered it unserviceable. Their pilots? Not at all up to Western standards.

My assumptions around a modern battlefield (say Ukraine) are that the enemy will still have RADAR guided SAM's operating near the battlefield, will have AWAC's and fighter support, etc. In other words, a battlefield that remains contested, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan where the big bad (Say a Mig-31 slaved to an AWACS) wasn't an imminent threat. I don't think A-10's are viable in that environment. Five A-10's were lost to enemy action against the Iraqi's, who were using MANPADS and AAA, with another twenty A-10's suffering significant damage. That's 25 out of 144 A-10's deployed. I think A-10's would get mauled in a modern battlefield while the enemy still had an intact air defense network. I would also add that air defenses have improved significantly in the 30 years since Desert Storm.


Before the commencement of Desert Storm, the Iraqi military was considered the 4th largest in the world and that it too would be a modern battlefield with high threat radar Sams and a formidable IADs. In any future war we would want Air dominance and control of the battlefield before utilizing a weapon system like the A10. An F16 instructor of mine actually got shot down by an SA-6 over Iraq so obviously we didn’t have total control with our Suppression of enemy defense assets at all times during the conflict. The Iraqi troops were afraid to utilize their Manpads and radar guided Sams because of incessant bombing and preparation of the battlefield by B52’s and other manual bombing aircraft operating around the clock. In short, we faced a modern battlefield in Iraq but were effectively able to mitigate its combat effectiveness through brilliant war planning and execution.

Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2023, 01:11 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8012
Post Likes: +5713
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
Username Protected wrote:
…the Air Force employed 5,255 Maverick missiles against Iraqi tanks, vehicles and other hardened targets. All but 116 of those Mavericks were fired from the Hog!


One of the industry criticisms of the A-10’s effectiveness in the 21st-century is that we primarily use standoff weapons against ground targets to improve accuracy and to keep the aircraft and crew from getting shot up. This line of thinking says that it doesn’t matter that the A-10 has the baddest gun in the world because they are going to try like hell to keep the aircraft out of gun range. F-16s, F-35s, and F-15Es can all employ those weapons too. Iraq was probably the last major conflict where we’re going to use a lot of weapons aimed by Kentucky windage. Precision guided bombs and missiles are where it’s at now.

It’s all kind of moot at this point. The airframes are starting to show their age, there’s no proposal to replace the type with something similar, and USAF has committed to an F-35 order that provides enough planes for a 1-for-1 replacement of every A-10, F-16, and (I think) every F-15C. Though they haven’t said lately that they are planning on replacing the A-10, it does seem that the writing is on the wall.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2023, 10:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 1357
Post Likes: +716
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Username Protected wrote:
A lot of this discussion focuses on the traditional Type 1 CAS.
Many of these concerns aren't even an issue in Types 2 and 3 CAS.
I'm sure the A-10C is better equipped than the older versions. I'm also willing to bet they are nowhere near as interconnected as the F-35s. And like it or not - that is the way of the world now. I think I should have been flying Skyraiders or Corsairs in Korea myself.

I've worked and flown with a bunch of former A-10 guys. It would have been my #1 desired drop had I gone the way of the USAF out of college. I thought the book 'Warthogs in the Gulf' had a good accounting of A-10 activity in the Gulf. Some of my college ROTC friends were featured in that book.

One thing I remember of it was saying that the A-10s minimum altitudes were raised up to above 10,000' because of the AAA/ManPad threat degrading the aircraft's ability to target effectively with the poor equipment it had on board at the time. Also - though they definitely are a terror for armor/vehicles - I've never seen a stat for it (and B-52s) being responsible for 80% of all losses attributed to those two platforms. If true - very impressive and I'd like to see the reference.


The Gulf War A-10 didn't even have an autopilot. You had 3 comms (UHF, VHF AMm VHF FM), a TACAN and an INS. Targeting was via Mark 1 eyeball. Night missions used the IIR Maverick as a poor man's FLIR, they did not even have NVGs.

The A-10C is a whole different world. It can mark targets using a helmet mounted sight, pass that target to another aircraft, auto lase that target for itself or another aircraft and pass all the information using digital burst, including basic messages.

And the A-10C upgrade is around 20 years old.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2023, 10:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 1357
Post Likes: +716
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
And one more time, not all conflicts we fight will be high threat.

Why get rid of a paid for platform, that is cheaper to operate and gets the job done extremely well, that works in 90% of operations?

And the A-10 can and does employ standoff (to some extent) precision guiding weapons.

One size does NOT fit all.

If you want to see some of the C capability, check out the You Tube videos on learning to employ the C in DCS world (Digital Combat Simulator).


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next




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 2007-2024

.tat-85x100.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.