Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 63

Thread: Whose responsibility is accuracy of W&B?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like

    Whose responsibility is accuracy of W&B?

    Newbie here.

    I've been looking at a bunch of late mode planes for purchase and reading through log books.

    On a number of planes the weight provided does not match w&b.

    I recently noticed the W&B on a plane which was based on equipment added/removed did not match the equipment currently installed. There are items which would significantly (20 pounds+) change weight. Props. Tires. Etc. Bear in mind this is not an old aircraft so it's not like 80 years of mods.

    I look through logs but never considered "is this w&b correct?"

    How do you protect against this? Is this liability from passed to new owner? I know most say "don't put a plane on a scale" but I don't want to absorb someone else's liability.

    Planes in question have limited useful load and I am trying to stay legal.



    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    91.103 - Pre Flight Action- the Pilot In Command Shall . . .

    91.417 - Maintenance Records - the Owner or Operator shall keep the following records

    43.9 each person who performs maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilds or alters an aircraft shall make a record entry

    In short, the person that makes changes is responsible to make the appropriate entry, the owner or operator is responsible for seeing that those entries are done, and the pilot in command is responsible for checking before flight that they have been done.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    What dgapilot said.

    Now, what makes you say the "propeller" for instance, on that plane, wasn't on that airplane the last time it was weighed? Is there a logbook entry for the installation of the prop, but no notation of a change in W/B? Could it be that that prop was identical in weight to the one replaced?

    The point being, it may take some digging to really figure out what the "correct" weight is. That said, the weight and balance report has a mechanic's signature on it (or it should). If anything was added or removed since that certificate was signed, the plane isn't legal.....that is, permanently installed equipment....portable GPS is not "installed".

    MTV
    Thanks Dcider thanked for this post
    Likes DENNY liked this post

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you really want to stay legal, weigh the plane, just be prepared for the truth!! The key to buying airplanes is to find a good IA and listen to what he/she says about the plane. Most small planes will fly over gross weight without problems (happens every day) the key is the where is the CG. DENNY
    Likes BC12D-4-85, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  5. #5
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    6,596
    Post Thanks / Like
    In simpler terms, here's what the FAA W&B Handbook says. The mechanic or repairman is responsible for keeping the W&B current, which implies accurate. Some are better at it than others.

    Responsibility for Weight and Balance
    Control
    The responsibility for proper weight and balance control
    begins with the engineers and designers and extends to the
    technicians who maintain the aircraft and the pilots who
    operate them. Modern aircraft are engineered utilizing stateof-the-art technology and materials to achieve maximum
    reliability and performance for the intended category. As
    much care and expertise must be exercised in operating
    and maintaining these efficient aircraft as was taken in their
    design and manufacturing:
    1. The designers of an aircraft set the maximum weight
    based on the amount of lift the wings or rotors can
    provide under the operational conditions for which
    the aircraft is designed. The structural strength of the
    aircraft also limits the maximum weight the aircraft
    can safely carry. The designers carefully determine
    the ideal center of gravity (CG) and calculate the
    maximum allowable deviation from this specific
    location.
    2. The manufacturer provides the aircraft operator with
    the empty weight of the aircraft and the location of its
    empty weight center of gravity (EWCG) at the time
    the certified aircraft leaves the factory. Amateur-built
    aircraft must have this information determined and
    available at the time of certification
    3. The FAA-certificated mechanic or repairman who
    maintains the aircraft keeps the weight and balance
    records current, recording any changes that have been
    made because of repairs or alterations.
    4. The pilot in command (PIC) has the responsibility
    prior to every flight to know the maximum allowable
    weight of the aircraft and its CG limits. This allows
    the pilot to determine during the preflight inspection
    that the aircraft is loaded so that the CG is within the
    allowable limits.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    I rarely encounter "correct" Cub weight & balance documentation. Worse on Super Cubs, but problematic on all older light planes.

    Most mechanics are not well schooled in such things - they are better at fixing stuff than at paperwork. Buy an aircraft that you like and fix the computation errors.

    If somebody has weighed a Cub and placed it in the 1PLM category, look carefully to see if it can legally be returned to two place. A local Cub has the empty weight noted on about six 337s - no way that aircraft will ever return to two place without stripping all the mods and going back to factory weight.
    If you insist on weighing, keep the numbers on the W/B sheet, and resist the temptation to file them in OKC.

    Opinion.
    Thanks JeffP thanked for this post
    Likes Pete Schoeninger, silflexer liked this post

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks, all.

    One issue for me is the planes I am looking at are S-LSA. I believe there is a 890 lb empty weight cap or you are no longer legal- forget about gross.

    Most of the planes are a few pounds from that number...
    Thanks JeffP thanked for this post

  8. #8
    Cub Builder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    North Central AR
    Posts
    705
    Post Thanks / Like
    When a mechanic makes a change to the equipment, it's his responsibility to make an entry showing the change to the W&B. However, the accuracy of his entry depends completely on the accuracy of the previous entries. Math errors, especially using negative and positive numbers are very common here. And planes put on weight as they age due not only to equipment changes, but grunge under the floorboards, small items added by the pilot, etc. It all adds up. Ultimately, it's the pilot's responsibility to ensure the plane is being flown within the W&B limits. As previously mentioned, they fly over gross all the time, but getting outside of the CG limits puts you into a bad mode of test piloting. It's rare that I ever weigh a plane that comes within 100# of what the W&B paperwork says it weighs, and they are almost always significantly more.

    -Cub Builder
    Thanks JeffP thanked for this post

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardiff Kook View Post
    Thanks, all.

    One issue for me is the planes I am looking at are S-LSA. I believe there is a 890 lb empty weight cap or you are no longer legal- forget about gross.

    Most of the planes are a few pounds from that number...
    There is no empty weight limitation for a Light Sport aircraft (unless specifically identified by the manufacturer). The only limitation is gross weight. Of course, when the empty weight goes up, the useful load goes down. That's what often makes a single place airplane out of a two place airplane.
    Thanks mixer thanked for this post

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    As others have stated, when a change to the aircraft occurs, the mechanic is responsible to update the W&B and Equipment List. Unfortunately, the Equipment List is most often neglected. Recognize that it is the OWNER that should be holding the mechanic to provide the proper documentation. Every airplane I've owned lacked a "current" Equipment List, and as the OWNER., it was my responsibility under 91.417 to update it, and as the PILOT, it was my responsibility to be sure it was available under 91.103.

    Now, the OP is concerned with an S-LSA airplane, and that gets even more sticky as that airplane can't have any alterations unless the manufacturer authorizes those alterations. I hate S-LSA airplanes, even as a mechanic, our hands are tied to only being able to do functions listed in the aircraft manual. I think the concept of S-LSA is the worst thing to happen to general aviation!
    Likes Hardtailjohn, Cardiff Kook liked this post

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Plus 1 on the first paragraph. No experience with S-LSA except flying a Legend, so cannot comment. Dave is an asset here.
    Thanks mixer thanked for this post

  12. #12
    RVBottomly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Asotin County Washington (KLWS)
    Posts
    1,254
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm glad this thread came up. It caused me to look hard at my old logbooks and documents from the the disc I ordered from the FAA.

    Learned a lot: Like, the manufacturer of my Commonwealth in 1946 calculated the initial cg wrong. The weight and balance sheet shows he subtracted the distance from the datum (leading edge) to the mains instead of adding. That left a cg that was 1"+ ahead of the Operation Limitations sheet.

    Then he happily used that wrong cg moment arm to calculate everything else. It was driving me batty to see all the cgs for different loadings forward of the 10.3" to 18.2" range specified.

    So I ran the numbers myself using the reported scale weights and moment arms of the mains and tailwheel, and everything was fine.

    Then I went back and added (instead of subtracting) the distance between the leading edge and the mains, and got the same numbers from his chart.

    There is no operating handbook or envelope diagram. Instead there are 4 scenarios of weight and balance calculated for reference. The funny thing is that they all have the right numbers.

    Additions and removal of equipment was haphazardly logged, but I have the benefit of a 2007 weighing entry with current equipment. Unfortunately, my bird has gained almost 80 pounds from when it was built. Now I have a useful load of my wife, me, and maybe two sandwiches at full fuel.

    Which is OK. At least we are in the proper cg range.
    Likes DENNY, supercrow, BC12D-4-85, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  13. #13
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    21,313
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have seen quite a few logs where mechanic swapped equipment, tires, pods etc. and didn't revise the W&B or equipment list. I find and correct. One was from the manufacturer from the start. They used one arm from the actual measurement and another from the datum. It had been modified from wheels, amphib floats and back, 3-4 different props, fuel pod and several other mods over the previous 15 or so years including some flight testing.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes Hardtailjohn liked this post

  14. #14
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    3,700
    Post Thanks / Like
    If / when you end up buying an airplane,
    if you have any doubts about the W&B being accurate (or even if you don't),
    I'd suggest you re-weigh it and make up a new W&B report.
    Be sure & level the airplane correctly, as per the TCDS,
    and also use a plumb bob & tape measure to measure the arm of the wheels & the datum (also per the TCDS).
    The W&B on my 180 was right on the money when I got it,
    but that wasn't the case with the two airplanes that I owned before that.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
    Likes Hardtailjohn, Brandsman liked this post

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have always suspected the old factory scales. As Dave says above, weigh a Cub or an old Aeronca, and gain 100#. That is a lot on a 725 lb airplane!

    Weigh a 180 or a 7ECA, and you come within five pounds of factory/computed weight. Whatever it is, it isn't just dirt in the belly that adds 100 lb to a stock J3.
    Thanks JeffP thanked for this post
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  16. #16
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    3,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    Last time I weighed a PA-11's complete fabric covering it was close to 80# when removed. Randolph-Ceconite I believe but may be wrong. I wonder how much the original cotton-linen-nitrate-whatever covering in the 1940-50's weighed? More or less?

    Gary
    Likes Hardtailjohn liked this post

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Probably less because they were skimping on dope and labor. But not 100 pounds less! Modern, glossy finishes probably add 30 lbs. That's a guess - I have heard that 65 lbs is a good number for fabric and dope.
    Thanks BC12D-4-85 thanked for this post

  18. #18
    TurboBeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Maine
    Posts
    932
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have the original factory W&B booklet that came with our Super Cruiser. It is amazing what is listed as options! Pretty much everything! Rumor has it when they were weighing Cubs that was done "in the silver" before finishes. I expect very few of these 1947 factory booklets
    Have ever survived the decades.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20211007_204633543.jpg 
Views:	47 
Size:	118.8 KB 
ID:	57794Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20211007_204529795.jpg 
Views:	58 
Size:	95.0 KB 
ID:	57795Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20211007_090148857_BURST000_COVER.jpg 
Views:	47 
Size:	120.7 KB 
ID:	57796
    Last edited by TurboBeaver; 10-07-2021 at 07:53 PM.

  19. #19
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    3,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    Local friend had one of those "As Weighed 951" PA-12's. Never gained a pound despite the full electric, O-320 with metal 74" prop. Plus some gauges and radios during a few recover jobs since new. "Weight added negligible" has different meaning to different folks.

    Gary
    Likes RVBottomly, TurboBeaver liked this post

  20. #20
    RVBottomly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Asotin County Washington (KLWS)
    Posts
    1,254
    Post Thanks / Like
    Interesting. 951. My Commonwealth has the exact same empty weight when it left the factory. Hmmm.....

  21. #21
    Hardtailjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Marion, MT
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    A lot of what I've found over the years, especially with somewhat larger aircraft than Cubs, such as 206, and even more so in twins... Entries that will say something to the effect of "removed ADF" or removed Autopilot, or some other older tube type radio, and then you get to looking and they basically cut the wires and took the head out of the panel and called it removed....leaving the heavy part or servo's and almost always the old wiring still in the aircraft....then they look in the manual and it'll say "weight 4#", so they use that on their weight and balance paperwork. I've more than once seen a 10+ pound pile of wiring and old tube trays, etc, laying on the floor, after the complete removal of a few of these old installations.
    As far as who's responsibility...I was always told ultimately it's the PIC, but if I just signed the inspection, and it's obviously in error, I'm going to be on the hot seat as well... just like an AD.
    John
    Likes BC12D-4-85, supercrow liked this post

  22. #22
    TurboBeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Maine
    Posts
    932
    Post Thanks / Like
    Gary,
    This one has gained lots of weight over the years, however it was completely restored in 2000 and a new W/B was done on digital scales and like all the rest of em it too has
    Gained nearly 100 lbs.......
    E
    Last edited by TurboBeaver; 10-08-2021 at 05:49 AM.

  23. #23
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    21,313
    Post Thanks / Like
    Another mechanic on the field is doing an annual on a freshly painted aircraft and says it should have been reweighed. I have never heard that before. Strip, prime and paint. We will see where he goes with it.

    I did a bunch of weight saving mods on a Super Cub years ago and then weighed it and it weighed more than the W&B said. Customer wasn't happy.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes DENNY, Cardiff Kook liked this post

  24. #24
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    6,596
    Post Thanks / Like
    My Cessna’s factory reported weight was a fantasy. No way it weighed as little as they said.

    About 15 years ago my mechanic insisted on having it weighed and a new equipment list made. The reported weight did go up. Not a big deal, it is what it is. I’ve weighed it a couple of times since, primarily after I changed the interior and panel. Scales don’t lie. Pilots do.
    Likes hotrod180 liked this post

  25. #25
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    3,700
    Post Thanks / Like
    The factory paperwork on my first airplane (1969 C150) showed the weight of the paint job--
    I don't recall the exact number, but it wasn't insignificant.
    Early C180's came from the factory polished with minimal trim.
    Again, I don't know the exact numbers, but the full paint job on most of them (including my 53 model) adds a lot of weight.
    Most mods do also, take mine for example:
    K engine, 88" prop, 185 gear legs, 850's with double-pucks, 10" tailwheel, steps & handles, extended baggage, pull handles.
    Unfortunately about the only mods that reduce weight are the Odyssey battery, the BAS jumpseats,
    and the Garmin G5 instead of a vacuum system & gyros.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
    Thanks mixer thanked for this post

  26. #26
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    11,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just for fun look at these two Type Certificates. Particularly TC #639 Look at the added weight of the different paint colors. It varies from no weight change with aluminum to +51 pounds with French Grey.
    https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/92ae1915586208dc8525673f005d1a56/$FILE/ATC597.pdf
    https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/bf98e6d0fae5df048525673f005d1696/$FILE/ATC639.pdf
    N1PA
    Likes BC12D-4-85 liked this post

  27. #27
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    3,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    Recall that Don Sheldon reportedly stripped his Cessna's for performance; that included the paint. It was significant enough to do apparently. If repainted a new W&B might be in order.

    Gary

  28. #28
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    21,313
    Post Thanks / Like
    My reference was taking a painted aircraft into a paint shop where the old paint was completely stripped and the aircraft was repainted. Sure there could be a change in weight but in reality paint off, paint on. I see no reason to reweigh.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  29. #29
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    3,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    Same paint likely no need. Change product or coating then maybe. I'm not adverse to reality - the cost of weighing is how much? Last one I did was $200 but that changes.

    Gary
    Likes Hardtailjohn liked this post

  30. #30
    Hardtailjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Marion, MT
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    When I worked in a paint shop we always weighed after as well as balanced surfaces as applicable. I'd definitely expect it if I had an aircraft painted.
    John

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes, but:
    If it is a Cub, you really don't have to worry about unbalancing controls. What you are worrying about is losing 100 lbs of useful load. If that is ok, then by all means weigh it.

    But then, I would think that, having done that, you would be reluctant to load above the legal max, for the same reason that drove you to weigh it. You want to be 100% legal.
    Likes Cardiff Kook, BC12D-4-85 liked this post

  32. #32
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    6,596
    Post Thanks / Like
    Don’t 135 and 121 regs require airplanes to weighed every 36 months? That’s not far off of what I’ve done with my planes.

    Bob talks a good story about falsifying your actual weight but here’s the truth. My planes fly just as bad at gross with a bogus W&B as 100# over gross with an accurate W&B. The difference is that I know where the performance threshold is. Old AK pilots advise every new pilot that the first thing you do after an accident in a heavy plane is to drain the fuel before the feds get there. If the situation is egregious enough? Toss a match. I prefer to have equipment worthy of the task.
    Last edited by stewartb; 10-08-2021 at 10:03 PM.
    Likes BC12D-4-85, hotrod180, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like
    All very helpful.

    Here is a follow-up.

    You own plane w what you think is accurate w&b. Load up. Have some sort of accident. Does FAA look at paperwork or weigh your plane? If paperwork was off and EW was 100+ pounds low and that put you over gross- does that paperwork that reduce potential liability to you as pic/owner?

    If liability is still there shouldn't everyone weigh a plane prior to purchase?

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
    Thanks mixer thanked for this post

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dgapilot View Post

    I think the concept of S-LSA is the worst thing to happen to general aviation!
    This is good to know as someone who was considering one.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

  35. #35
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    6,596
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can’t you convert it to E-LSA? All the benefits of Exp but with a gross weight limit.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dgapilot View Post
    There is no empty weight limitation for a Light Sport aircraft (unless specifically identified by the manufacturer). The only limitation is gross weight. Of course, when the empty weight goes up, the useful load goes down. That's what often makes a single place airplane out of a two place airplane.
    I thought all s-lsa had to have a minimum of 430 lbs useful load? This would mean an 890 limit or they must go e-lsa I believe.


    https://bydanjohnson.com/pilotreport...d-requirement/



    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

  37. #37
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    21,313
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardtailjohn View Post
    When I worked in a paint shop we always weighed after as well as balanced surfaces as applicable. I'd definitely expect it if I had an aircraft painted.
    John
    So you balanced the control surfaces and reweighed the entire airplane after repaint? Would be curious how different they would be between the two paint jobs.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  38. #38

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardiff Kook View Post
    I thought all s-lsa had to have a minimum of 430 lbs useful load? This would mean an 890 limit or they must go e-lsa I believe.


    https://bydanjohnson.com/pilotreport...d-requirement/



    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
    That requirement does not show in the definition of Light Sport in 14 CFR 1.1. It may be in the ASTM standard, but not in the regulation.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  39. #39

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    So you balanced the control surfaces and reweighed the entire airplane after repaint? Would be curious how different they would be between the two paint jobs.
    The shop I ran also balanced controls and reweighed following paint.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Likes mixer, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  40. #40
    kase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Billings MT
    Posts
    1,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    I bought an original 90hp Super Cub with 800X4 tires and 1 wing tank a couple months ago. Its never been reweighed. Was recovered once in the 90s. When I get caught up with my other projects I'll weigh it and see how far its off.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20211009_103118.jpg 
Views:	36 
Size:	146.3 KB 
ID:	57805

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20211009_103141.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	63.6 KB 
ID:	57806
    Likes Steve Pierce, jrussl liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Airspeed accuracy?
    By NimpoCub in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-10-2012, 11:15 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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