History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:49 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:29 pm
Posts: 5285
S-4 35.56
MB-3 43.06
PW-9 39.06
P-1A 42.08
P-6A 50.10
P-6E 55.78
P-12B 52.14
P-12E 51.62
P-26A 47.13
P-35 63.35
P-35A 68.21
P-36A 68.89
P-36C 73.44
P-36G 79.39
CW-21A 66.78
CW-21B 72.32
FM-1 Airacuda 92.44
P-38D 104.80
P-38E 104.10
P-38F 123.70
P-38G 129.72
P-38H 131.16
P-38J 136.46
P-38K 148.14
P-38L 140.50
P-39C 79.95
P-39D 109.23
P-39K 110.45
P-39N 110.85
P-39Q 115.17
P-40A 80.20
P-40B 79.88
P-40D 95.39
P-40E 102.52
P-40F 116.96
P-40K 113.08
P-40L 114.48
P-40N 115.63
P-43 75.24
P-43A 82.12
P-47B 120.38
P-47C 131.85
P-47D 134.50
XP-47J 129.26
P-47M 138.64
P-47N 150.72
P-51A 121.09
P-51B 131.36
P-51D 135.71
P-51H 141.36
P-59 121.56
P-61A 142.18
P-61B 163.45
P-61C 176.38
P-63A 130.79
P-63D 131.99
P-63E 143.69
P-64 71.44
P-70 100.45
XP-72 153.95
P-80A 163.18
P-80B 186.59
P-80C 190.87
F-82E 145.31
F-82G 147.09
F-84B 182.46
F-84E 191.58
F-84G 197.67
F-84F 221.80
F-86A 208.24
F-86E 211.51
F-86F 207.51
F-86F+AIM-9 205.83
F-86H 277.83
F-86D 203.96
F-86K 273.11
F-89B 251.18
F-89C 257.90
F-89D 222.57
F-89H 198.76
F-89J 184.72
F-94A 200.99
F-94C 207.39
F-100A 336.60
F-100C 359.68
F-100D 342.03
F-100F/WW 321.60
F-101A 449.58
F-101B 415.86
F-102A 312.31
F-104A 443.31
F-104C 467.76
F-104G 511.36
F-104S 598.58
F-105D 526.41
F-106A 565.52
F-4C 511.92
F-4D 526.84
F-4E 623.16
F-5A 290.99
F-5E 351.58
F-12B 752.35
F-15A 899.72
F-15C 986.62
F-15E 1071.85
F-15SG 1245.90
F-16A Block 10 723.92
F-16A Block 20 836.72
F-16C Block 25 924.08
F-16E Block 60 1151.08
F-22 1609.84
F-35A 1393.07
F-35B 1408.44
F-35C 1394.35

_________________
There are 550 million firearms in the world, enough for one person in twelve of the world's population. The moral dilemma that faces us is how to arm the other eleven.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.1
PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6964
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
Interesting how the STOVL F-35 variant has the highest ranking.

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.1
PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:29 pm
Posts: 5285
Poohbah wrote:
Interesting how the STOVL F-35 variant has the highest ranking.


Indeed! Isn't that interesting. Although, I must admit there's a plus/minus in the F-35 figures because so much about the aircraft is still highly classified. What fascinates me is how the various gains and losses all balance out.

I would say, though, that the figures we have here kill the "its a piece of crap" argument stone dead.

_________________
There are 550 million firearms in the world, enough for one person in twelve of the world's population. The moral dilemma that faces us is how to arm the other eleven.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.1
PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6964
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
Frank Underwood wrote:
Poohbah wrote:
Interesting how the STOVL F-35 variant has the highest ranking.


Indeed! Isn't that interesting. Although, I must admit there's a plus/minus in the F-35 figures because so much about the aircraft is still highly classified. What fascinates me is how the various gains and losses all balance out.

I would say, though, that the figures we have here kill the "its a piece of crap" argument stone dead.


I remember when everyone said the CH-53E was a piece of crap.

And I was mentored by staff NCOs who remembered back in 'Nam when the CH-46A had an evil rep for having the aft pylon come off while on final to the LZ. (Basically, the pilots discovered a neat trick with the AFCS--they set it to "hover aft" mode, and the bird would stop on a dime and give back at least a nickel's worth of change back while flying into the LZ, great for evading enemy fire. After a few times of doing this, the four bolts that held the aft pylon to the rest of the airframe would crack, and that was that.)

So I keep that in mind with the Osprey and the F-35.

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.1
PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7568
Location: BM-9, BB-30
I'm curious how the F-16C Block 40/50/52 and F-16E Block 60 would score, assuming they're not "absent due to valued fingers" as it is.

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.1
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7252
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
The Bushranger wrote:
I'm curious how the F-16C Block 40/50/52 and F-16E Block 60 would score, assuming they're not "absent due to valued fingers" as it is.

Given that he was able to do numbers for the F-35, my guess would be that they were pretty much the same as the closest models listed.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 1127
Location: SSN-766, BB-55
To get in the Wayback Machine, any idea what the deal with the P-6E and P-12B was? They're materially better than then P-26, and not so far off the P-35. I had always understood the Peashooter to have been pretty advanced for its day, but that doesn't appear to hold up.

Jeff

_________________
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Two things surprise me here:

F-15C vs F-16 Bk 25: not much difference.
F-35B vs F-22: not much difference.

How much of the "levelling" aspect here can be attributed to more integrated sensor/ avionics fit vs aeronautical performance?

Also, the F-16E Bk 60 outranks the Tiffy..!!!

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7568
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Musing on that made me wonder about the first aircraft that WOULD have gotten a F-16E designation; is there enough data on the F-16XL for a computation to be made?

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
JPaulMartin wrote:
To get in the Wayback Machine, any idea what the deal with the P-6E and P-12B was? They're materially better than then P-26, and not so far off the P-35. I had always understood the Peashooter to have been pretty advanced for its day, but that doesn't appear to hold up. Jeff


It does; the P-26 was advanced for its day but being an advanced design doesn't necessarily translate into obvious performance improvements. This situation is a common one when there is a drastic generational change in aircraft design. Very often, the first examples of the new generation are little better than the last examples of the older generation and are often not quite up to that standard. Compare the first Meteors with the last Spitfires for example. or the P-59 Airacomet with the P-51H Mustang. The Bf-109B is really only a minor improvement over the He-51. The last biplane fighters being equal to or better than the first monoplanes is very common.

The big difference is that the last examples of the old generation have pushed that older generation just about as far as it can go. The designers make changes here and there, tweak this, play with that and gain a mph or two on speed and so on. Then the same people start tweaking and changing the new generation and they get drastic improvements. The P-26 was actually a significant advance over the biplane fighters, not in terms of its own advancement but for what it made possible in later developments.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Last edited by Francis Urquhart on Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
The Bushranger wrote:
Musing on that made me wonder about the first aircraft that WOULD have gotten a F-16E designation; is there enough data on the F-16XL for a computation to be made?


Sadly, no. There's manufacturer's estimates but I have about as much faith in those as I do in statements out of the White House.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 8:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Craiglxviii wrote:
F-15C vs F-16 Bk 25: not much difference.


Different emphasis and different profiles; what one gains in area is compensated by what it loses in others. F-15 vs F-16 was a serious area of debate in the 1980s.

Quote:
F-35B vs F-22: not much difference.


I think the anti-F-35 propaganda here has a lot to be blamed for. The F-35 is actually a good bird and a really good acquisition but all the mud-throwing (very little of which is actually justifiable) distorts perception of it.

Quote:
How much of the "levelling" aspect here can be attributed to more integrated sensor/ avionics fit vs aeronautical performance?


A huge amount. By the end of the tables we have aircraft that are essentially platforms for their avionics and missiles.

Quote:
Also, the F-16E Bk 60 outranks the Tiffy..!!!

Oh yes. The Typhoon is nowhere near as capable as its proponents would like to think. It's the reverse of the F-35 situation. Perception of the F-35 is downrated because of the mud slung at it for mostly political reasons; the Typhoon is upgraded by public lauds bestowed on it for mostly patriotic reasons. The Typhoon is good (it is in the "thousand plus club after all) but it isn't that good. It's just that small step behind the curve.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 2072
Location: Georgia
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Craiglxviii wrote:
F-35B vs F-22: not much difference.


I think the anti-F-35 propaganda here has a lot to be blamed for. The F-35 is actually a good bird and a really good acquisition but all the mud-throwing (very little of which is actually justifiable) distorts perception of it.


What I'm wondering is, why does the B come out on top? I'd have expected it to fall slightly below the A and C models due to the weight and range. Or is it an artifact of the fuel loads and listed MTOW on the others being so high that it penalizes them?

The problem with the F-35 is that it doesn't look like a fighter. It's not slick and pointy, it doesn't have missiles hanging off to look impressive, it doesn't have a Mach 2 top speed nor a thrust-to-weight ratio exceeding the previous aircraft. It's lumpy, stumpy, and boring.

Or to put it another way, it doesn't fit the way people think most fighters are (which is driven by what they think happened in Vietnam). It doesn't matter how effective it really is (in fighter, CAS, or strike roles), if it's not doing it exactly the way they think the current aircraft do it, it must stink.

_________________
To do much in this life, you must learn much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
gtg947h wrote:
What I'm wondering is, why does the B come out on top? I'd have expected it to fall slightly below the A and C models due to the weight and range. Or is it an artifact of the fuel loads and listed MTOW on the others being so high that it penalizes them?


It's a weight and load issue; the B version is rated at around 10,000 pounds lighter than the others to permit VSTOL. It pays for that in other areas but the penalties don't make up for being that much lighter. We use MTOW because that's the one weight figure that is pretty much the same for everybody.

Quote:
The problem with the F-35 is that it doesn't look like a fighter. It's not slick and pointy, it doesn't have missiles hanging off to look impressive, it doesn't have a Mach 2 top speed nor a thrust-to-weight ratio exceeding the previous aircraft. It's lumpy, stumpy, and boring.


The issue is more political than anything else. There's the political left who want defense programs cancelled regardless and will say and do anything to achieve that. Then there's the fighter mafia who want the F-22 back in production (they're right but not at the expense of the F-35) the ground attack mafia who would sell their grandmothers to the Chicago stock pens to keep the A-10 in the inventory. Then there's the better tomorrow mob who say we should cancel the F-35 and replace it with the better aircraft we'll surely have tomorrow. Then there's the people who just want to show how clever they are by pounding on the F-35.

The real problem is that F designation. The F-35 is really a 21st century A-7. If we called it the A-35, a lot of problems would go away. Only then, it would be painfully obvious we don't really have a front line fighter.

Quote:
Or to put it another way, it doesn't fit the way people think most fighters are (which is driven by what they think happened in Vietnam). It doesn't matter how effective it really is (in fighter, CAS, or strike roles), if it's not doing it exactly the way they think the current aircraft do it, it must stink.


Very true. How often do we read that Vietnam showed there was still a need for guns on fighters? The fun thing is that the most air-combat successful air force in Vietnam (the VNAF) didn't fly fighters with guns. All their front-line combat aircraft were missile-only MiG-21s. The idea that the VNAF was operating gun-armed MiG-17s comes from the fact that they were the ones US pilots usually spotted. They never saw the MIG-21s that were actually killing them. (It turned out a lot of SA-2 "kills" were actually won by MiG-21s.)

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Craiglxviii wrote:
F-15C vs F-16 Bk 25: not much difference.


Different emphasis and different profiles; what one gains in area is compensated by what it loses in others. F-15 vs F-16 was a serious area of debate in the 1980s.

Quote:
F-35B vs F-22: not much difference.


I think the anti-F-35 propaganda here has a lot to be blamed for. The F-35 is actually a good bird and a really good acquisition but all the mud-throwing (very little of which is actually justifiable) distorts perception of it.

Quote:
How much of the "levelling" aspect here can be attributed to more integrated sensor/ avionics fit vs aeronautical performance?


A huge amount. By the end of the tables we have aircraft that are essentially platforms for their avionics and missiles.

Quote:
Also, the F-16E Bk 60 outranks the Tiffy..!!!

Oh yes. The Typhoon is nowhere near as capable as its proponents would like to think. It's the reverse of the F-35 situation. Perception of the F-35 is downrated because of the mud slung at it for mostly political reasons; the Typhoon is upgraded by public lauds bestowed on it for mostly patriotic reasons. The Typhoon is good (it is in the "thousand plus club after all) but it isn't that good. It's just that small step behind the curve.



Hmm now this brings an interesting question. Your model spits out a final "score" that must aggregate from other scores in different areas- from memory, armament, avionics, stuctural density, armour value, speed, wing loading and so on and so on. Can we (I say "we", I mean "you" ;) ) compare individual aspects of each of those scores to say, well an improvement HERE would substantially increase the overall score, and put in an educated guess as to the impact in other areas?

For instance- the Tiffy. I'm a Brit so it's close to my heart. Let's say that your sub-total scores show, it's the engine thrust that lets it down. Therefore the recommendation would be, to improve its performance as a fighter it's engine thrust needs increasing with no increase in weight, drag etc.

Is this an analysis that could be done, and if so what would the recommendation be- from this model- for our pretty Tiffy?

Edit- I like my fingers to work and to continue doing so.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14355
Location: PCE(R)-857
Francis Urquhart wrote:
JPaulMartin wrote:
To get in the Wayback Machine, any idea what the deal with the P-6E and P-12B was? They're materially better than then P-26, and not so far off the P-35. I had always understood the Peashooter to have been pretty advanced for its day, but that doesn't appear to hold up. Jeff


It does; the P-26 was advanced for its day but being an advanced design doesn't necessarily translate into obvious performance improvements. This situation is a common one when there is a drastic generational change in aircraft design. Very often, the first examples of the new generation are little better than the last examples of the older generation and are often not quite up to that standard. Compare the first Meteors with the last Spitfires for example. or the P-59 Airacomet with the P-51H Mustang. The Bf-109B is really only a minor improvement over the He-51. The last biplane fighters being equal to or better than the first monoplanes is very common.

The big difference is that the last examples of the old generation have pushed that older generation just about as far as it can go. The designers make changes here and there, tweak this, play with that and gain a mph or two on speed and so on. Then the same people start tweaking and changing the new generation and they get drastic improvements. The P-26 was actually a significant advance over the biplane fighters, not in terms of its own advancement but for what it made possible in later developments.


The Germans had two monoplanes in service by Armistice Day - the Fokker D.VIII/E.V, and the Junkers D.I. The D.I in particular, with the all metal construction, low wing, and the like, looks a lot like the configuration adopted by many a WWII fighter. So why didn't non-German monoplane production start earlier? Were the results of the Morane-Saulnier monoplanes so unsatisfactory, or was the engine and construction not really there yet?

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Certainly for the British, there was official hindrance to the development of the monoplane for the majority of the war. At least that's what the commentator at the Shuttleworth Collection told us.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Johnnie Lyle wrote:
The Germans had two monoplanes in service by Armistice Day - the Fokker D.VIII/E.V, and the Junkers D.I. The D.I in particular, with the all metal construction, low wing, and the like, looks a lot like the configuration adopted by many a WWII fighter. So why didn't non-German monoplane production start earlier? Were the results of the Morane-Saulnier monoplanes so unsatisfactory, or was the engine and construction not really there yet?


I think the tactical concepts weren't there. The paradigm of the WW1 fighter was that of a fragile, unstable, slow aircraft that could barely stay airborne but could turn almost in its own length and was generally as agile as hell as long as it didn't fall apart. The whole generation of WW1 fighter pilots trained to that paradigm. In the 1930s that switched to the slash and run style where speed and firepower were the dominant factors. That's a hell of a mental adjustment and it takes a demonstrable and significant advantage to bring it about. Remember, in 1942, there were still holdouts who wanted biplanes to fill the dogfighting role.

(Now there's a thought; a jet-engine biplane . . . . .)

The other side of the equation is that the monoplanes that were around in 1918 didn't have that advantage. The glimmerings of it were there but so were the sacrifices made to develop it. The monoplanes that were around were less maneuverable than the biplanes and that was a critical deficiency. Their performance wasn't good enough to compensate for that. It was only when technical development meant they has the performance and biplanes had more or less bounced off the glass ceiling that the change came.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Craiglxviii wrote:
Certainly for the British, there was official hindrance to the development of the monoplane for the majority of the war. At least that's what the commentator at the Shuttleworth Collection told us.


That's quite correct; there were structural problems with the early monoplanes that caused a great distaste for the technology and there was the Bristol Bullet. That and the need to keep aircraft flowing to the front discouraged any great experimentation. It took the arrival of bombers that were faster than contemporary fighters to change that.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: USAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7568
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Francis Urquhart wrote:
(Now there's a thought; a jet-engine biplane . . . . .)

Leave it to the Poles...
Attachment:
PZL M-15.jpg
PZL M-15.jpg [ 40.75 KiB | Viewed 1548 times ]



...also, would it be possible to include the YFM-1 Airacuda? It actually technically "entered service" briefly with the AAC, so I'd assume there might be just enough data to scrape by...

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group