Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand 'Ol Osprey
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Osprey OK'd

It took twenty years and $19 billion. But at 4pm today, I'm told, the Pentagon's Defense Acquisition Board will announce its recommendation to go ahead with "full rate production" of the once star-crossed, accident-prone Osprey V-22 tiltrotor craft.

osprey_white.jpgThe fate of the hybrid aircraft has been very much in question, ever since a pair of Ospreys crashed in 2000, killing 23. This decision "gets the program off probation. It can't be summarily cancelled now," a source close to the program says.

It's not exactly clear how many of the hybrid aircraft will eventually be manufactured. The President proposed budget calls for 458 Ospreys to be built into the next decade, starting with 13 next fiscal year. The Marines are ultimately scheduled to get 360 aircraft, Special Operations Command are supposed to have 50, and the Navy is slated to have 48. "Pentagon budget documents show the cost of V-22s at about $100 million each," the Star-Telegram notes. Osprey makers Bell Helicopter say the figure is more like "$72 million and headed down."

Those prices and those plans could change in the years to come, of course. But this much is set: A squadron of pilots starts training on the V-22 next week. And an operational squadron of nine Ospreys will be ready to fly out of North Carolina's Marine Corps Air Station New River by 2007.

THERE'S MORE: Inside Defense has the report from the Pentagon's testing office, which gave the thumbs-up to the V-22.

AND MORE: The watchdogs at the Project on Government Oversight still aren't convinced. "It can’t autorotate to a safe landing, has no defensive gun, lacks the ability to perform quick evasive combat maneuvers under fire, and can’t descend too quickly or it will go into a dangerous roll," they say.

AND MORE: The Osprey's final two crashes were due to a mysterious aeronautical phenomenon known as "vortex ring state." after re-reading Wired's Osprey story, I can't say I feel too good about how that's been dealt with.

Lead test pilot Tom MacDonald of Boeing was assigned the VRS problem. "It was this mystery area," he says. "So little research had been done on it. People wondered: Would it swallow planes alive?"

MacDonald and the engineers worked out a system. He'd take the plane to 10,000 feet, putting enough air between him and the ground so he'd be able to recover if he got into trouble. Then he'd pull the nacelles back until they were almost vertical, in helicopter conformation, slow his forward airspeed, and try to induce VRS.

"We'd fly all day long," says Gross, copilot on a few of the test runs. "We'd fall 2,000 or 3,000 feet and recover. We'd fly back up to 10,000 feet, repeat the exercise at 1,000 feet per minute, then 1,500, then 2,000, all the way up to 5,000 feet per minute. Then we'd do it again, this time changing our airspeed." (A typical rate of descent for a 747 passenger jet on runway approach is 700 to 800 feet per minute.) In the process MacDonald, a former Marine pilot, quadrupled the published knowledge base on VRS.

What he found was that vortex ring state is surprisingly hard to induce. He had to fly slower than 40 knots while keeping the plane in a steady position for at least five seconds, and then descend at a hot 2,200 feet per minute. He also found that in an Osprey, he could recover from the condition relatively easily, provided he had 2,000 feet of altitude to play with. In the end, the team didn't alter the aircraft. Solution: Install a simple warning system. When a pilot pushes an Osprey toward VRS, a light flashes in the cockpit and a voice cautions, "Sink rate." And Osprey pilots now know to pay attention to those warnings.

Comments

I always wondered about the survivability of this aircraft when I thought about the number of shafts, gearboxes and other systems required just to make the wings pivot. It seems to me that given it's record in testing alone, it would only take maybe one small hit in a vital area to render it a smoking hole in the ground.

Posted by: J. McDonald at June 25, 2008 07:39 AM


IT HAS BEEN 20 YEARS AND $40 BILLION AND THIS JUNKER
IS STILL SUCKING MONEY FROM THE TAXPAYERS!!NO MATTER
HOW MANY THEY BUILD THEY WILL ALWAYS NEED HELICOPTER
SUPPORT,ALSO IT WILL NEVER FLY THE PRESIDENT!THEY
SHOULD REQUIRE A GENERAL AND THE SECRETARY OF DEFEN-
SE ON EVERY FLIGHT.I WANT TO SEE IT DO AUTOROTATIONS
1THOUS,2,3OR 5 THOUS.FT WITH CHOPPED THROTTLE,BETTER
HOW ABOUT ENGINE FAILURE ON LIFTOFF OR AT 1000 FT.
ASK COL.HARRY P.DUNN,USAF(RET) ABOUT THE V22 OSPREY,
MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T ASK HIM,HE WOULD MAKE YOU MAD!!!

Posted by: Allen Christian at December 22, 2007 01:20 AM


This is an exelent idea, but it should have been redone twenty years ago. The aircraft can't land in airplane mode. The props are so big that if the try it will cause the blade to strike the ground. Why are we trying to make a tiltrotor aircraft. Short landing. We already have an aircraft that can land in an extremely short distance. If you don't belive me follow the links to a video of a C130 Hercules landing unassisted, without the assistance of the stopping cable or the catapult, on the flightdeck of an aircraft carrior.

http://www.youtube.com/watchv=BjNyQvhsQE8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sa3OGnFGlA

Imagine that we are paying millions for a tiltroter with problems when we have an aircraft that has proven itself for well over fifty years.

Posted by: bob at November 28, 2007 03:32 AM


Waste of money? Well the cost is inflated that is for sure but let's be honest here. The thing is a peice of aviation genius! Helicopters have been around for over sixty years. This project was only waiting to happen.
As for the lack of weaponry on this thing - I think that will get sorted out. They should strap mini guns and cannons to it. They could even attach a few hellfires to the belly if they wanted to. It is possible place guards for angle of fire so that the proprotors won't get hit.

Posted by: james at January 30, 2007 10:39 AM


There are good reasons to cancel the V22: The main reason, it's too costly. Additionally, the concept is OK, but it's not airworthy or safe enough to haul our troops. It's a big target for enemy ground forces & missions could be accomplished with smaller/cheaper helicopters.

Posted by: Alberto at January 25, 2007 05:21 PM


re; my last posting had an incorrect e-mail address, stupid keyboard! this is it
chaqman@hotmail.co.uk

or

J_Colton@hotmail.com

Posted by: matt at November 7, 2006 09:51 AM


Can't agree with you more. that fact is that they're trying to teach an aircraft to hover and not a hovercraft to fly. You stated that they should stop the program and buy something that works. i own a very small company in england, we have a design that i started working on 2 years ago, funding is a major problem but we have enough to build a scale model that has started production last month. anyones comments on the project, exspecially though of professionals with aviation experience will be greatly valued please e-mail me at chaqman'hotmail.co.uk

Posted by: Matt at November 7, 2006 09:38 AM


"How is possible to build for military purpose machine with exposed vital and sophisticated parts - engines?"

Like every helicopter - but the entire point of the Osprey is to deliver more troops quicker and from a longer distance in order to reduce the risk.

"Even Guderian`s tanks lost the battle of Kursk, and Russian`s helicopters lost war of Afghanistan."

!

Posted by: John Kantor at August 26, 2006 06:53 AM


"It is basically unsafe. It should never be built. A complete waste of money. If they still want to, the designers and company bigwigs whold be required to ride in it in every test!"

All said while humming loudly with his fingers in his ears.

Posted by: John Kantor at August 26, 2006 06:47 AM


It is basically unsafe. It should never be built. A complete waste of money. If they still want to, the designers and company bigwigs whold be required to ride in it in every test!

Posted by: Uncle Jim at July 10, 2006 12:47 PM


People really don't know what this aircraft is really capable of. The media has given it a really bad name. Like any other concept aircraft this one has given just as many if not more problems then them. Still this aircraft has been developed for a reason. It is to take place of the CH46 and the CH53D. These are vietnam era aircraft and many CH46's that are in the fleet are the exact airframes that flew missions there. This aircraft was developed because these aircraft are old and we need to modernize. The V22 is a triple redundant aircraft. The engines are super powerful and this aircraft flys higher and faster than any helicopter could. It has the potential to get into the LZ faster and leave much faster than your CH46. When this aircraft hits Iraq, people are going to be surprised. It is going to open the medias minds about tiltrotor aircraft. They are the future. People say why change a good thing. We are Americans we make good things better.

oorah V22 avionics, no one can do it better

Posted by: BMK at June 18, 2006 02:49 AM


Since this thing isn't tested for brownouts how is it going to handle iraq or afgan climates and conditions since it seems we are going to be there for quite some time? Its supposed to have avionic update for jamming and such but one automatic weapons strafe or rpg as our other helicopters do when they have attempted to land and guess we have a 100+ million dollar pile of scrap and a bunch of dead americans.

What happens like in iraq or afgan if they use the old rpg ie point and shoot no jamming can be done but since you have nice targets ie cockpit, fuel tanks, engines, blades (oops it can't auto down oh yea the vortec issue oh well their insured and get nice boxes and flags coming home.)

Maybe they should try to sell it to other nations first let them try it out.

ICE ICE but what about sand sand and more sand that does nasty things to turbine engines, sort of like with ice they fail.

Almost forgot since it has a weight lift issue guess no armored plating so anyone can strafe the crew but what can a few bullets hurt. No evasive changes in flight since a rpg can blow this thing up by hitting a fuel tank, blade, hit anywhere important actually since there is no armor plating and darn the luck it kills the crew and passengers better luck next time if there is one.

Someone might want to also check as this flying death trap goes back to the xv-3, oh yes that would be Bell once again only been working on these things since the 1940's. Guys if you can't get it right in 60+ years (most people would have given up and most commercial companies making products for commercial or private use would have thrown in the towel as you would be responsible for anything that goes wrong including the ones that have already died ie product liability lawsuits.)

You know Textron, its like the engines in the cessna you had you had to recall the entire lot. And got sued its a shame the soldiers that already died in these things can't do the same for your mistakes it would change your way of thinking.

Just accept its wrong and save us the unneeded deaths of our troups and waste of our tax dollars.

http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/bell_xv-3-r.html

Someone needs to stop the program and buy something that works.

BTW there is nothing minor or trivial about a nearly 60 year old concept that hasn't worked doesn't work and should have any more money wasted on it attempting to allow the v-22 (golden goose if your bell) kill anyone else.

Posted by: Really Annoyed Tax Payer at February 3, 2006 04:52 AM


So....When we are invading china... Am i gonna die in this thing?

Posted by: egosbro at January 23, 2006 04:53 PM


>>>
As for emergency landings the aircraft lands like an airplane if in airplane mode and lands like a helicopter in helo mode. Landing in airplane monde the nacelles are brought up approximately two-thirds, toward upright position to prevent the proprotors from contacting the ground.
<<<

Re: Airplane Mode: Unfortunately, the V22 has a very poor glide ratio (I'm told by IPs that its about 2/1, like the space shuttle). This is due to its relatively small wing area.

Re: Helecopter Mode: The V22 cannot autorotate to a safe landing in this mode -- it's airplane or nothing.

Posted by: Brett Blatchley at October 23, 2005 07:19 PM


>>>
Lose one engine and you become a top. It's an extremely capable design, but the reason we started putting two engines was for redundency / safety. This is an aircraft where both engines are critical and losing either is a catastrophe
<<<

Wrong. The V22 can operate on a single engine. Each 6khp turboshaft is coupled to a common gearbox in the midwing. When an engine drops offline, the gearbox automatically diverts power to both proprotors. Likewise, the fuel system reconfigures for this mode. A single engine is powerful enough for the craft to remain at altitude.

Posted by: Brett Blatchley at October 23, 2005 07:05 PM


I was a flightline guy from HMH-461. When I went to HMX-1 For V-22 OT&E I had just come off my second overseas deployment to Somalia and Bosnia. At HMX we were tasked with writing up reports for airframe changes that would make the aircraft flight and maintenance procedures more in line with NATOPS. We were the ones who actually wrote up the report to have the Ramp split like the 53 and 46 ramps. It would eliminate tip back and save weight. We ourselves were not given full access to the aircraft for maintenance purposes because of Bell's worry over insurance claims if someone was injured or some such nonsense. I left the program in 1996 and moved into Presidential lift.

Posted by: Joseph at October 14, 2005 12:42 PM


Hey Joseph....we probably knew each other....I was there too. You are correct about the tipback from the aft retracting LG, but it was from loading cargo on the ramp....some engineer was brilliant for that lol. There are dipsticks or bullseye sight gauges in every gearbox and hyd fluid is check by the use of a monitor. I am a 53 guy also and even when in v-22 I checked dipsticks....not the electronic Ground Refuel Defual Panel for idiot lights. Agree the windows are too small....they have enlarged them somewhat bur when coming into a zone, the upper door gets raised....quickly lol. So who were you an airframes guy??

Posted by: KDN at October 10, 2005 09:46 AM


Having worked on this aircraft during the early OT&E phase I feel comfortable insaying that I never wanted to fly in it. I was a crew chief that had come from the CH-53E community. I had over 500 flight hours in type with nearly a third of that being at night on NVGs. What I and my fellow marines from other helicopter communities discovered was the V-22 was an amazing FIXED WING airfraft. It is not a helicopter and yet they were throwing helicopter crewman into a program they should have been putting C-130 crewman into. The plane has no windows for a crewman to look out of except for small 5 or 6 inch portholes. None of the fluid levels in the gear boxes were visually checked by means of a dipstick. The crewman, who was given the title of 'select passenger', would go to a small electronic box in the back of the plane and the computer would tell him how much oil the gear boxes had, how much hydraulic fluid each system had. At the time there was no real way to verify what the machine told you. We had to write up the reports to move the main landing gear to the rear of the wheel well in the down position rather than the front. With the main wheels down at the front of the well the aircraft was pretty well teetering on its CG so if one person walked out to the end of the ramp he alone could cause the plane to come off its nose wheel and settle back on tis tail.
I don't say these things to say that the aircraft is a peice of junk that should be abandoned but to show you that the the people who are closest to the situation are the ones who should decide if its a good aircraft or not. At the time I was in the program it still had a number of faults but with us informing Bell of these problems we were able to get them taken care of in several months. People talk about how well an aircraft perform in combat but no one really knows that until it occurs for real and pilots are yanking on controls as bullets are in the air. Regardless of what we may think of it, the government has decided to buy it. Give it a chance to prove its worth, whether good or bad.

Posted by: Joseph at October 9, 2005 01:27 PM


Hey Faust, your right. I guess we should also use people to live fire test flak jackets! Actually, they have found where Vortex Ring State can be induced. Just like power settling in other helicopters, as long as you know the limits of an aircraft, it can be easily avoided even in combat! By the way, there isnt a power settling warning on other helicopters.

Posted by: KDN at October 8, 2005 11:32 AM


why can't the software engineers on the project just adjust the fly-by-wire code to not allow the pilot to create the conditions necessary for the Vortex Ring State? That's one of the beautiful capabilities of digital fly-by-wire. There must be a piece of it I don't get, because I'd expect them to be able to include that with relatively little work. Then they could come out to congress and the public and say, "Look everyone, we fixed the problem! No more crazy crashes or dead Marines!" Maybe someone like RJ can answer this for me.

Posted by: faust at October 7, 2005 12:44 AM


How much is freedom worth to you? I'll spend you'll pay taxe's anyway. The KC-135 has been flying for 50 years, 50 years! Aircraft are very durable cruse missiles are not men on the ground. Thats the only way you win a war.

Posted by: hal at October 6, 2005 04:44 PM


very expensive and very complicated..
do we really need this?
'fly's faster and farther'... yeah and with air refeuling a big ass chopper going 175knots is that big a problem. yes military types always want faster.
Now a supersonic cruise missile. that might be worth spending some dollars on.

Posted by: Aaron at October 5, 2005 07:53 PM


Im not going to pretend to know a lot about this subject, but from what I have managed to gather the V-22 concept is a good one. Many seem to be owrried about its survivability- but look at the helicopters you are comparing it to, when slowing down for the LZ/ taking off from it they are no less vulnerable, and if they are hit in the engine they are in no less trouble. Yes, it is new technology (sort of), but people were openly distrustful of the jet engine when Rolls Royce first started serious testing of thier first jets, saying that it was "unreliable" "would never replace propellers" and so on.
R.J is a bloke with his head screwed on right I think, this aircraft has vast potential and we should admit that our biggest worry is that we dont like change and the fact that such a radically different aircraft might just work is something we dont like to think about

Posted by: D.Stirwell at October 5, 2005 02:26 AM


The V-22 Osprey is a testimonial evidence of American know how and ingenuity in aeronautical engineering. Although, a British name L.E. Baynes submitted a design similar to the V-22 Osprey to the British government during WW II as a bomber. But, the British decided they needed an aircraft that can actually fly and fight the Germans and the rest of the Axis power. It is what we needed right now to replace some of our old Helicopters like the CH-46 and CH-47 that are Vietnam era Helos with a hybrid aero vehicle. Now, if I'm not mistaken there is a design proposal by the same company (Bell Texron/Boeing)that built the V-22 Osprey, a bigger version with a quad tilt-rotor engines to replace the CH-53 or probably the C-130. I wonder if anybody ever thought of pursuing the LTV design of a Tandem-Fans of the early 70's and the Russians probably got one right now on their drawing board or CAD.

Posted by: V.Colcol (Lambada) at October 1, 2005 08:33 AM


Way to go Brad. Semper Fi from a retired Navy Chief. You answered Jonah so I'll try to answer Richard, Stephen and the "Army Aviator".
To Richard: You have my respect for being a Heuy pilot in '66-'67. My hat is off to you for serving your country and for the missions you flew. I know you do not hear it enough but "Thank You". The V-22 Osprey was not designed to replace the H-1 or the Blackhawk. It was designed to replace the aging H-46, even though it can do the same missions they can do. It is an excellent candidate to fly into a hot LZ to rescue wounded personnel and troops. The fuselage is made out of Kevlar, fiberglass and composite materials that will take a 50 cal bullet thru it without affecting the flight characteristics of the aircraft. The fuel cells have self-sealing bladders inside them that seal after being shot. The prop-rotors are made from a composite material that can be shot with a 50 cal and still maintain its flight integrity. Don't count the Army out. They were originally scheduled to receive some of the Ospreys configured for their use. After production starts they will probably come back again.
To Stephen: We don't need the Osprey in New Orleans or Mississippi. As for the rest of your ideas, they have already been thought of and will be put on select models of Ospreys. Remember "Puff the Magic Dragon", the C-130 gunship that can put a bullet in every square inch of a football field and the "SR-71" Blackbird Spy Plane that no one knew about for 30 years. These aircraft do exist today.
To the "Army Aviator": The Army only "temporarily" exited the program again. One minute they are in, the next minute they are out. The will get on the bandwagon after the other braches get them. As for emergency landings the aircraft lands like an airplane if in airplane mode and lands like a helicopter in helo mode. Landing in airplane monde the nacelles are brought up approximately two-thirds, toward upright position to prevent the proprotors from contacting the ground. Most larger aircraft have multiple engines. You are obviously not familiar with the Osprey engine installation. It has two Allison T-406-AD-400 engines. Each engine has 6150 shaft horsepower. The engines are connected thru gearboxes and a main shaft to a combining gearbox in the center of the wing/fuselage area and not directly to the proprotor on each nacelle as most people think. The two proprotors are connected the combining gearbox directly by a main rotor drive shaft, (sort of like a tailrotor on a regular helo). Either engine will drive the combining gearbox on its own resulting in both proprotors operating on one engine alone. This aircraft is designed to fly into a hot LZ. The only people that will be killed are the enemy.

I was not trying to criticize anyone but just to set the record straight about some misconceptions of this aircraft. The info I gave was from material I acquired while stationed at the Bell Helicopter's Flight Test Center in Arlington, TX 1988-1992 on the Test and Evaluation Team. This aircraft has many more features that you may be interested in. If you would like more info about the V22 contact Bell Helicopter Public Relations in Hurst, TX. They will be glad to send you info.

Posted by: R J at September 30, 2005 11:40 PM


I am glad the Army exited this program. This aircraft has no satisfactory emergency landing method in either mode of flight. Lose one engine and you become a top. It's an extremely capable design, but the reason we started putting two engines was for redundency / safety. This is an aircraft where both engines are critical and losing either is a catastrophe. Only a fool would believe we can predict where we can land behind lines without enemy presence and this thing is vulnerable as hell to ground fire. This thing will kill a lot of folks going into hot (or supposedly cold) LZs.

Posted by: Army Aviator at September 30, 2005 11:30 AM


Great, now we can use it for the New Orleans effort & MS area alone for a Viable Civil Test & add Guns for Iraq role.
IE CH53 Gunship mode.
Fwd rockets & rear Minigun module & side guns.
Very doable.
& armorize the cockpit some too.

Posted by: stephen russell at September 29, 2005 09:00 PM


Well, it seems conceivable to me that if this aircraft works as advertised (the peculiar envelope required to induce VRS excluded), then landing in a hot LZ wouldn't be an issue: "hit em' where they ain't", right?

Posted by: Josh at September 29, 2005 08:36 PM


The Osprey's ability to deliver troops much farther and faster will change the way we fight.

Nothing is perfect and the Osprey is no exception but it's worth it's rocky start.

Posted by: Joel at September 29, 2005 12:12 PM


As a former helicopter pilot in Vietnam ('66-67) and reviewing what the Osprey can and can not do, it is obvious to me that it will not replace the UH-1 of those days or the Blackhawk of today. It is not an aircraft which could survive landing in a contested landing zone (called a "hot" LZ). Luckily, the Army is not scheduled receive any, but think of the poor Marines!!

Whizzer

Posted by: Richard White at September 29, 2005 12:03 PM


The V-22 has had it's share of problems but it's really a technology that we have needed for a long time. Now we have something to do it, cost to much money to dev it but we have something to fill this bill.

Posted by: The Cenobyte at September 29, 2005 11:17 AM


A reply for the negative feedback on the V-22 Osprey. It is an excellent ship for the military especially the Marines since they help develop it and test it for the last 15 years. There is a civilian V-22 its called the Bell 609 and it is currently in flight test and doing very well. And as for you Jonah with your sarcastic remark about the Marines apparently you don't have a clue about the brotherhood. If it wasn't for the Marines you would'nt be free to make any comment at all.

SEMPER FI

Posted by: Brad at September 29, 2005 07:59 AM


I keep hoping the Carter copter concept finally proves itself so they can make the large c130 version already.
Much simpler idea...

Posted by: Aaron at September 29, 2005 02:06 AM


I am clearly sceptical. If it wil be for quasi civilian purpose that`s okay, for emergency civilian transportation.

But if it is for pure military purpose than it`s a big mistake. How is possible to build for military purpose machine with exposed vital and sophisticated parts - engines ? This is victory of technical thinking over reasonable thinking. Technology wins fundamentals of military tactics. Very bad.

Even "Guderian`s" tanks lost the battle of Kursk, and Russian`s helicopters lost war of Afghanistan.

So it should be very carefull study for real purpose of osprey.

Ofcource it was just my opinion. I am not english speaking person, so forgive me my style.

Posted by: Slawomir at September 28, 2005 08:26 PM


yay. i cant wait to bea marine now :D

Posted by: jonah at September 28, 2005 07:12 PM


Gosh, what a surprise this is.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at September 28, 2005 03:15 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.