What should a new Air Force One be?

"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove) 07/13/2018 at 13:45 • Filed to: friday flights of fancy

1

100

Today’s unofficial theme seems to be a new Air Force One livery. But I want to speculate on the plane itself . The current Boeing 747-200's commissioned in the 90s are due to be replaced. The Trump administration is set to take delivery of !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! that were never delivered to their airline customer at a discount.

The 747 is all but out of production. Airlines are migrating away from these old wide-body designs to newer aircraft. This got me thinking. What type of plane should Air Force One be in the future? How long should they stick with 747s? Are any of the newer designs more promising, or is there a need for a wide-body, four-engined plane in this application that only something like an 747 or A380 can properly fill?

Discuss.

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 13:50

1

Whatever the next generation of SST will be (possibly Vaporware)

For Sweden > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 07/13/2018 at 13:52

0

Not nearly large enough

CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 13:52

9

It should be a Tupolov or Ilyushin

For Sweden > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 13:52

3

It will be a 777X

AestheticsInMotion > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 13:54

0

It’s already gold

and 100 more > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 13:54

3

A glider, that we tow up to 30k ft and cut loose over the A tlantic...

Spanfeller is a twat > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 13:55

1

As far as safety goes, it’s becoming increasingly clear that twin engine jets aren’t necessarily more unsafe. Maybe they could cramp in most of the equipment inside a 777x without having issues when it comes to the amount of staffers they can fit.

Also, no need for folding wings since Air Force One doesn’t need to dock.

The dock comes to it.

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 13:57

1

Although the 747 is almost out of production, the line will soldier on for years pumping out the occasional freighter. G iven the amount of custom work necessary to make AF1, converting a freighter into a specialty pax aircraft wouldn’t be a big deal. But the next AF1 fleet isn’t due for replacement until the early 2050s at best, so the next one will be whatever succeeds the 777-9 in Boeing’s future fleet plans.

There has been talk of Boeing developing some speedy transonic aircraft, and that’ll be as good as things get for years. If that is built, expect it (or its successor) to be the next AF1.

Thomas Donohue > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 13:57

0

I’d like to think they’d be able to move to a customized 737-xx? for the President/senior staff, and a second standard delivery 737 for the rest of the entourage.

And use a Gulfstream for any short/quick trips that don’t require all the personnel to take along.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > and 100 more 07/13/2018 at 13:57

1

How about 2k ft

Aremmes > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 13:57

2

A proper AF1 should be based on the 777 or 787 as a showcase of American engineering. Trump's AF1 should be a Piper Cub with an engine 2,000 hours past its scheduled overhaul.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 13:58

2

Trump:

You: “That’s not what I asked”

Trump: *stares blankly*

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 13:59

2

ranwhenparked > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 14:01

1

The current planes were ordered under Reagan and built in 1987, but not accepted by the Air Force until 1990 due to problems with their electrical and communications systems discovered on the trial flights. They’ll be in service until at least 2024 (likely later, since government contracts are rarely completed on schedule, especially when its aircraft). That will be a 3 4 year service life, with the airframes being actually 37 years old.

If that sort of thing holds, the new 747-8s won’t be up for replacement until the 2050s or 2060s, at which point, who knows? There likely won’t be any double deck or 4 engine airliners around by then, and 747s and A380s will have been out of production long enough that there won’t be any unused “dead stock” examples laid up anywhere.

My bet is that they would switch to the 787 Dreamliner at that point. It will almost certainly still be in production several decades from now, and is still a wide body. Boeing actually already prepared a proposal to use the 787 this time around, as a more economical alternative to the 747, but the availability of the unused second hand -8Is made that unnecessary.  

WilliamsSW > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 14:01

2

This would be perfect - it’s fast, it’s sleek, and everyone will know you’re coming from a long way away:

Future next gen S2000 owner > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 14:06

2

Modified Dreamliner with quad engines for ............reasons.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 14:20

1

This. It should be this

Chariotoflove > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 07/13/2018 at 14:31

0

I’d enlist just to be the nose turret gunner.

Chariotoflove > CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever 07/13/2018 at 14:31

1

Smart ass.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 14:32

0

He wouldn’t hire you for that job . He’ll say American Jobs First but hire someone on a work visa from a Third World Country for $2 an hour.

Chariotoflove > ranwhenparked 07/13/2018 at 14:39

0

That makes sense. But the 787 is smaller. Would the Air Force need a custom built lengthened fuselage? Also, it is a 2 engined aircraft. Does that even matter in this modern age, or is four ringing redundancy still important in this application?

Things I think about instead of working.

Chariotoflove > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 07/13/2018 at 14:42

0

I think you bring up a good point. With large hub and spoke planes becoming economically unfeasible, the freighter market might be the salvation of this application when it comes time. If things continue the way they are, the available  commercial jets may just not be big enough.

Chariotoflove > Spanfeller is a twat 07/13/2018 at 14:44

0

That’s a real question I was pondering. Is engine redundancy a thing in this application or is it at least perceived to still be important? For commercial airlines, no, but for Air Force One? I don’t know.

Chariotoflove > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 07/13/2018 at 14:45

0

Needs moar eagles.

Also, jokes aside, remember that  we’re talking about an aircraft that would be purchased long after Donald Trump is gone.

Spanfeller is a twat > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 14:46

0

I mean, if they really worried about engine redundancy, I don’t think they’d be very comfortable using Marine One for so many trips . Plus, I’m sure there’s a way a military aircraft could tow AF1 in the very unlikely event there’s a double engine failure.

Chariotoflove > Thomas Donohue 07/13/2018 at 14:47

0

I think it’s not just personnel.  It’s all the stuff.  Communications, countermeasures, etc.  But that’s an interesting idea.  I suspect the 737 will be out of service by then though, but I could be wrong.  That frame has had amazing longevity.

Chariotoflove > WilliamsSW 07/13/2018 at 14:48

1

I really like this, jokes aside.

Chariotoflove > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 07/13/2018 at 14:48

0

Remember, we’re talking about an aircraft that would be ordered long after Donald Trump is gone.

Chariotoflove > For Sweden 07/13/2018 at 14:50

0

So, you’re in the two engines if just fine camp. You think even an X version will be big  enough for all the stuff?

Chariotoflove > Future next gen S2000 owner 07/13/2018 at 14:50

1

Thomas Donohue > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 14:53

1

Agreed, but I think they’d be able to do  it with narrow- body.  If not, at least go for something newer like the 787.

President T rump flies to NJ all the time in the 757, aka Air Force 2 when he’s not on it.  

Cé hé sin > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 14:56

0

A320 because Make Airbus Great Again.

jasmits > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 14:57

1

Thinking about it two 787s makes more sense than one 747(So, for redundancy maybe a fleet of 3 787s instead of 2 747s) . Or a 787 and keep one 747. Quick trips without the entire staff and less or no press could be done with one plane, big trips where the whole entourage is along could be done with both 787s or a retained 747.

A modern twin engine plane is completely flyable on a single engine and it’s so rare to lose even one engine that chances are if there was an event that caused both engines on a twin engine plane to fail, all four would fail on a four engine(I dunno, a huge flock of birds or ash or some future tech that knocks out jets).  

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 15:00

2

I think it would be a good move to downsize to something 757-s ized. It would go a long way toward lessening the perceived exc ess that plagues government.

Chariotoflove > Aremmes 07/13/2018 at 15:01

0

I agree with the showcase of American engineering thing. Those newer designs will be faster and more efficient than what we use now. I am wondering about the size differences and how that would change the way they pack what they need into the plane. I also wonder if engine redundancy will be seen as important for something like Air Force One or if it will become a moot point by then. I think it’s a given these days that the two engined planes they make are just as safe. I just wonder if the Air Force worries about things like operability after  damage from attack, etc.  Their job is to worry about these things, after all.

Chariotoflove > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 07/13/2018 at 15:04

0

Remember, unless you’re advocating changing the Constitution and existing laws so we can have Trump for Life, the person in office by then will be someone else.  Someone who I hope will allow me to nap under the nose of a jumbo jet for a few years and then retire with a nice military pension.

Chariotoflove > Spanfeller is a twat 07/13/2018 at 15:06

0

I was thinking more about attack damage, etc.  Seems far fetched, but military guys have to worry about this stuff.  That’s why the plane has countermeasures.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 15:07

0

unless you’re advocating changing the Constitution and existing laws so we can have Trump for Life

Shhh! Don’t be givin them people ideas

For Sweden > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 15:07

1

Sure.  Let the journalists fly on another plane.

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 15:15

0

That raises the question - what is ‘big enough’? They really don’t need all the space available on the 747, and it’s just that this aircraft had the range and redundancy called for by this mission when the current versions were built. That was in the ‘80s, the decade where ETOPS was just coming into its own. We have seen over the last 30 years that a 4 engine aircraft is less reliable than a twin since there’s less to go wrong with the twin, and that engines are not the real worry. If anything, the next AF1 should be something like a 787, showing that we’re not extravagant and actually concerned about fuel consumption and emissions. But in a global dick-waving contest such an approach would never fly, as it were...

Chariotoflove > Thomas Donohue 07/13/2018 at 15:20

0

Fair enough.  It would probably present some packaging challenges, but that’s what they pay those guys for.

Spanfeller is a twat > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 15:21

1

I mean, if they blew up an outboard engine it could cause very dangerous flutter (the engine is a very important counterweight) so in reality since there are more engines, there are more targets . Since the outboard engines are further away from the fuselage, damaging those could prove more dangerous for the plane.

Chariotoflove > Cé hé sin 07/13/2018 at 15:21

1

I would be shocked if they didn’t go with an American company.

Chariotoflove > jasmits 07/13/2018 at 15:25

0

I don’t know, maybe there is no issue. I’ m not the one payed to worry about these things. I was just wondering.

I like the idea of cutting out a lot of the press.  In this modern age, I don’t see why we can’t eliminate a lot of the hangers-on and conduct some of that business remotely.

Chariotoflove > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 07/13/2018 at 15:26

1

I sure don’t have a problem with that in principle.

Chariotoflove > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 07/13/2018 at 15:29

0

I don’t think there are enough of whoever them people are to pull it off. That debacle with Cliff Robertson is still too fresh.

Chariotoflove > For Sweden 07/13/2018 at 15:29

0

I’m good with this.

Chariotoflove > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 07/13/2018 at 15:32

1

I think that’s a good argument.  I wasn’t thinking of the engine number as a reliability issue, but more of a damage issue in the same paranoid vein that gives the plane countermeasures against attack.  But that’s why I posed the question, to get thought going.  I too don’t think keeping 4 engines is enough reason on its own to hold on to aging tech.  Nor is presenting a huge and bombastic face to the world.

Chariotoflove > Spanfeller is a twat 07/13/2018 at 15:34

0

I’d be surprised if there was not a way to account for that, but you bring up a challenge I hadn’t thought of.

ranwhenparked > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 15:41

1

Probably not on the size, I mean they used 707s before the 747 (and kept one of them into the 2000s as a backup and for smaller airports). The 787 is still a big plane - they might have to make a larger portion of the press corps fly in another aircraft or something.

The Air Force actually dropped the 4 engine requirement this time around. In the 80s, they absolutely wanted at least 3, this time around, 2 was acceptable, but the preference was still 4. If there are no longer any 3 or 4 engined airliners around by 2055, they'll take a twin engine. 

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 15:41

0

Given the nature of the current administration, I’d say they should go with the Sukhoi KR-680:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_KR-860

.

.

.

.

.

Or the Tupolev Tu-204:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-204

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Aremmes 07/13/2018 at 15:43

0

Your Aircraft recommendations don’t have enough Russian in them for Crooked Trump and his buddy Putin.

ranwhenparked > jasmits 07/13/2018 at 15:44

1

This time around, the Air Force originally wanted to order 4 planes, possibly 4 747s (or 4 A380s), but that was eventually cut back to 2 as direct replacements for the current fleet. Presumably, the circumstances that led them to conclude they needed additional aircraft will still exist by the 2050s, so it would make sense that they’d try for 3 or 4 again.

Spanfeller is a twat > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 15:44

1

Personally I think the army regulations for AF1 are a bit of a stretch. There are very few situations where an engine failure wouldn’t mean AF1 would be grounded anyway, and there are so many security measures that would need to fail for a threat to even approach AF1 that needing such redundancies seem like cold war holdovers.

Aremmes > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 07/13/2018 at 15:46

1

Trump has enough Russian up his arse to make Kermit The Frog feel superior.

jasmits > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 15:47

2

I looked at the floor plan and if the guest/press space was eliminated it would be very doable on a 787 if the President could do with a smaller or combined office and cabin and a smaller conference room. I bet most of the communication area is a waste of space too with modern tech

ranwhenparked > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 15:49

0

I actually would be OK with amending the Constitution to allow a nonconsecutive 3rd term once a f ormer president has been out of office at least 4 years. Clinton suggested that in the '90s, and it probably is closer to the Framers' original intent.

jasmits > ranwhenparked 07/13/2018 at 15:51

0

I just think that more smaller planes makes the most sense because a lot of the time when the president is just making a quick appearance somewhere or something most of the staff just stays doing their job in Washington and they don’t cart the press around everywhere. A 747 for the president with his security detail and a few staffers seems like a waste of space, instead they could just use two 787s when they’re dragging the whole entourage along for major stuff

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 16:00

1

There is much that we will be dealing with long after Donald Trump is gone.

Chariotoflove > ranwhenparked 07/13/2018 at 16:00

0

Framer’s intent aside, I liked the tradition Washington started, and I kinda like the 22nd Amendment the way it is.

Chariotoflove > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 07/13/2018 at 16:06

1

That’s true o f any president.

Look, I kne w there were  bound to be Trump jokes on this thread, and I can role with that, but I really would like to not have the ubiquitous “let’s bitch about Trump” show take over here. I want this to be about a unique and really cool plane, not a political circus over the person currently holding the office .

Chariotoflove > ranwhenparked 07/13/2018 at 16:09

0

Okay, cool.

Chariotoflove > jasmits 07/13/2018 at 16:11

0

I was thinking the same about the tech.  I’m okay with less opulence.  However, I do see a valid need for comfort, because I want my executive to arrive where he is as rested and at his best as possible to represent my interests to the best of his ability.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 16:17

0

Am I hereby reproved?

Aero > Aremmes 07/13/2018 at 16:18

3

Don't be cruel to a Cub.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 16:36

2

787. Obviously.

But the B version.

P owered by rotaries.

With a green and orange argyle livery.

Chariotoflove > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 07/13/2018 at 16:40

0

Just asking for a little help here.

Chariotoflove > AMGtech - now with more recalls! 07/13/2018 at 16:42

0

Argyle?  Ugh.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 16:43

0

I’m sorry. Air Force One is my aeroplane also and it’s the last straw for me. I’ll just stay away from this one.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 16:49

1

Would you prefer I call it diagonal checkers?

Chariotoflove > AMGtech - now with more recalls! 07/13/2018 at 16:54

0

Yes.

WilliamsSW > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 17:04

1

It’s a pretty airplane, and a pretty cool one, too.  Very sleek - I love the wing sweep, the counterrotating propellors, and that slim fuselage.

Chariotoflove > WilliamsSW 07/13/2018 at 17:06

1

Those props are pure porn.

WilliamsSW > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 07/13/2018 at 17:11

0

I hope so...

WilliamsSW > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 17:14

2

And on a more serious note, the 747, 787 and 777 are the only aircraft with the range necessary to become AF1 - the narrow bodies are non-starters, period. For Sweden is correct- based on what we know of now, it would pretty much be the 777X, since the 747-8 will be long gone by then. 

Chariotoflove > WilliamsSW 07/13/2018 at 17:17

1

That’s where the discussion seems to be heading.  Then, it became more about the implications of downsizing and repackaging, which has pros and cons.

WilliamsSW > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 17:26

1

The single aisle aircraft can’t reach Asia/ Brazil/Argentina , and can’t get very far into Europe ei ther.  The Air Force already has some smaller aircraft (G IV and 757, IIRC) for shorter trips that can get into smaller airports, too - and if the President is on board, those aircraft are Air Force One, as well, they just don’t get the publicity that the VC-25 does.  

imadick > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 17:39

0

Space Force One

Chariotoflove > imadick 07/13/2018 at 17:49

0

Yuck yuck.

The next AF-1, beyond the 747-82 the Air Force is currently procuring, will likely enter service after the current president has died of old age.  What that aircraft might be is what we’re discussing.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 19:19

2

ranwhenparked > jasmits 07/13/2018 at 19:41

0

I suspect the Air Force recognized that in the 1980s when they placed the orders for the 747s; hence why the 707s were kept around until 1998 and 2001, when they were retired after 36 and 29 years of service, respectively.

Presumably, they just felt it wasn’t feasible to request funding for two new smaller jets at the time, and decided to not replace them when their service lives were up. 

ranwhenparked > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 19:48

1

And Air Force one as it stands now does prioritize comfort over opulence. The President’s private quarters are comfortable and functional, but not terribly luxurious.

Compare the combination sitting room/bedroom on Air Force One with the interior of, say, a typical private Bombardier Global Express and you see the contrast. Air Force One is quite plain by private jet standards.

And that’s before you consider some of  the other private 747s that are out there.

ranwhenparked > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 19:51

1

I just don’t like the idea of further idiot proofing things for the electorate, we’re too lazy and uninformed as it is. It should be on us to vote out someone we don’t feel represents us properly, if we keep reelecting someone we hate, that’s our problem. 

Chariotoflove > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 07/13/2018 at 19:56

0

Thanks.

Chariotoflove > ranwhenparked 07/13/2018 at 20:03

0

I see your point. I guess I was implicitly calling extra space a sort of luxury. However, you do need a certain amount of space to be comfortable and not cramped. That was where my comment came from. I’m cool with downsizing, as long as it stays  a comfortable environment.

Chariotoflove > ranwhenparked 07/13/2018 at 20:08

1

I see what you’re saying, but you have to remember that, while we prize universal education and (at least in theory) believe in being informed as part of our civic duty, we nevertheless have to realize that our electorate encompasses people of varying intellectual ability and educational advancement. All of them regardless have the right to the same one vote per person. So, we do kind of have to idiot proof things.

My worry if we allowed past office holders to run again is that we might get nostalgia voting and end up with the kind of yo-yoing of administrations that other democracies see. I prefer our brand of move  forward and don’t look back.

ranwhenparked > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 20:22

1

Oh, we probably would. As it stands right now, there are exactly four Presidents that the 22nd amendment has actually applied to - in that, they served 2 full terms and were still popular enough at the end of the second one that a third was a realistic possibility if they could have and wanted to run.

Basically, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. Of those, Clinton absolutely would have run in 2004, and I’d bet Reagan might have tried in ‘92. He and Clinton were very similar in that they both genuinely loved being president and didn’t seem to get at all burned out by the stress of the job. Eisenhower had a lot of health problems and likely would have gone for retirement, and I think Obama had pretty much had enough of the whole thing by the end. So, we might possibly have had 8 more years of Bill Clinton, and maybe 1 more year of Reagan before an Alzheimer’s- forced resignation.

wafflesnfalafel > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 20:23

0

new 797

boxrocket > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 20:28

0

So, what, an A-10, but instead of the gun going BRAAAAAAAP it’s the sound of the PotUS’ thumbs tapping out another unneeded twitter post?

wafflesnfalafel > Cé hé sin 07/13/2018 at 20:37

0

Tupolev TU-214

Chariotoflove > wafflesnfalafel 07/13/2018 at 20:42

0

Cool if they make it.  Would be a significant downsizing, I should think.

Chariotoflove > boxrocket 07/13/2018 at 20:44

1

Remember, jokes aside, we’re talking about an airplane that would be procured long after Donald Trump is gone, and most likely dead.

Chariotoflove > boxrocket 07/13/2018 at 20:46

2

Also, now I’m daydreaming of an AF-1 that has an A-10 canon on it.

and 100 more > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 07/13/2018 at 21:42

1

I think that’s fair, as long as it lands safely  on a runway 30,000 leagues under the sea.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 07/13/2018 at 22:13

1

Th ough etops have been reduced for the civilian market, I believe it is still a core requirement for the airforce for a multi engine aircraft.

Like the current AF1, the next AF1 was supposed to have aerial refueling to keep it airborne as long as possible, in any situation. , so the 3 hour etops still isn’t enough.

“ the next AF1 should be something like a 787, showing that we’re not extravagant and actually concerned about fuel consumption and emissions.” given the current administraion that’s just crazy talk.  

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 22:24

1

the point of bringing a bunch of reporters was to thumb the nose of the russians and chinese, as with state news corps they had no explination why a country would need more than one reporter and cameraman, except that the us had a varied free press

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Chariotoflove 07/13/2018 at 22:28

2

don’t knock it

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 07/14/2018 at 01:05

1

Well, I am thinking of AF1 after the one being developed right now that is based on the 747-8 . By that time, say 2050-2055, it’s extremely unlikely that there will be any four-engined airliners in production, so the Air Force will need to adapt to a changing world and either use twins or develop their own aircraft from scratch, something not likely to happen considering the massive expense of custom building a tiny handful of airframes . By that time most of the members of this administration will be dead and buried and we, as a country, will hopefully   be back on a more environmentally- friendly path.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 07/14/2018 at 01:14

0

by 2050 yeah, it will most likely be a twin. I was thinking in terms of the 2025 plan. 

pip bip - choose Corrour > Chariotoflove 07/14/2018 at 09:30

1

777