High-Flying Troubles - United States Air Force safety record (F-16)

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 



It is a sad fact of military operations that combat aircraft crash, thus it has ever been. The statistic that more F-16's have been lost to accidents than enemy action applies to every major combat aircraft of the last half century so, whilst not untrue, it is more than a little unfair to single out the F-16.


Please NetFlix the HBO special called “Afterburner”, it’s a “limited” budget film, but it does do a good job showing the truth from the other side, the side of the pilots and their families.


Having said that you vitriol against the USAF, or any other air force, in the way these incidents are dealt with is fair enough, just look at the difficulty the UK has had in investigating certain friendly fire incidents recently, not just from the US military, but from our own MoD too. This is a separate issue however and cannot be blamed on the aircraft used in these attacks or any percieved design flaw. I believe in these sort of incidences ranting about the F-16 being inherently unsound is not only wrong, but a red herring too.


Again, don’ take my word for it, in the end credits of the “Afterburner”, information such as families contribution fund and access to court transcripts is openly available, so once again I urge you to take it from the very people that fought the battle all those years ago, and have THOUSAND of document which simply prove that Lockheed knew all well of the problems and did NOTHING but sweep them under the carpet.


The number of fins or engines in an aerodynamically unstable FBW airframe is not questionable, it is completely irrelevant, if you lose your digital control, you are going to crash, even if you have six engines and four fins. This is why all such planes have quadruplex redundancy and in this respect the F-16 is no more dangerous to fly than any other such fighter, be it F-18, Typhoon, Flanker or whatever.


Not the point. Sliding was negatively affecting cannon strafing runs, so test runs with additional from mounted fins were conducted with a great deal of success. Pilots were instantly capable of accurately engaging three targets with out overcompensating while previously they could strafe only one target, and with lesser degree of accuracy.

I’ve seen the gun video and I have to say it really did look like it worked, why it was not implemented I simply didn’t want to know.


In addition, the version you recall had dual de-stabilising fins under the nose, this was an exercise in further destabilising the plane in support of the ATF programme and so served the opposite purpose than you appear to imagine.


As I recall the fins allowed the craft to change direction sideways like a car with all-wheel-steering changing a lane on the freeway.


Finally, confusing Rotary for radial is not a spelling mistake, these are two utterly different forms of aircraft engine and so a correction is justified is it not?


I beg your pardon! I did not say that it was a spelling mistake! Furthermore, I did make a point that lately I’m preoccupied with a ROTARY engine, and that might have been the origin of the slip up, which I admitted with out hesitance.


After all you write Wankel as wenkel and nobody pulls you up on that because that clearly is nothing more than a spelling error and so unimportant to the discussion,


There I indeed made a spelling error, so please do feel free to quote me where I supposedly said that rotary/radial mishap was do to a spelling error!


but when you try to say that an F4U had a rotary engine, that is quite a different sort of error.


Again, the though of a twin 1.3L turbo hydrogen conversion rotary-electro hybrid married to a CVT has been on my mind a lot lately.

Gas turbines are still to big/hungry and slow to spin up, while rotaries are getting better and better with fuel consumption, so a thoroughbred sport tuned hybrid rotary will be just marvelous.


After all if facts are unimportant what is the point of having discussions at all?


OK, off topic, but at least I hope you appreciate the efforts made. My wife is crazy about Scoot 4-rotor Mazda RX-7, and is begging for a custom built one.


Finally regarding your point on the F-5, Northrop themselves changed the F-5 from twin engines to a single F404 in an effort to bring its performance up to scratch for the 1980's,


Specifically because of the Air Force requirements. The word was simple, single engine, end of story.


they then renamed the F-5G into the F-20 to further modernise its image so no, without the F-16 the F-5 would not be a dominant twin jet fighter today, the situation would be no different.


Aerodynamically F-5 is more sound then the F-16, and with further development it would have outperformed the F-16 just like F-18 does to this day.

Even with its own aerodynamic dilemmas, in my opinion F-18 SH is the best asset we currently have in our inventory.




posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
iskander,

OK, you hate everything about F-16, so I'll just engage only a couple of points.

Firstly, do you imagine that those responsible for military aircraft acquisitions are absolute idiots (including the very professional Israelis) ? If the F-16 as flawed as you say, then, pray tell, is it still such a salable item on the international market?

The F-5G / F-20 was NEVER intended to be purchased by American forces, but was developed, using Federal funding for FMS when other nations totally rejected downgraded F-16s (specifically older engines). The F-20 was also rejected by foreign customers on two grounds, firstly that it was not to be in US domestic service (a situation that means there is little likelihood of ongoing upgrades), and secondly that it was inferior to the F-16. They held out for F-16 and got them!

The undernose dual finned F-16 was the first prototype (YF-16 serial 70-1567) modified firstly to further investigate unstable flight characteristics (as F-16/CCV), then used as the F-16/AFTI to investigate the ability to shift an aiming point without changing the attitude of the aircraft - this was achieved but the project was deemed a failure because the pilots were disoriented by these maneuvers, so it was deemed useless to incorporate this ability in service aircraft. The same aircraft was then used by test pilots to replicate the flight characteristics of various different aircraft using various combinations of its flight controls. The key point here is that the AFTI program, while improving the ability to keep 'the pipper on the target' was an abject failure when it came to practical usefulness. But then, as you said, you don't want to know that, do you.

I think you must come to the realization that perfection is as elusive as perpetual motion. That the F-16 has had design or manufacturing faults is no different to any other human construction. And we as humans are not getting any better in that regard, for example the total engine power failure of a certain Boeing 777 the other day - obviously a problem in the computerized control of either the fuel system or engines. The difference, of course, is what the manufacturer does about the situation, and the treatment of 'victims' by the operator. It would be ridiculous, for instance to say that the USAF and Lockmart colluded in hiding any shortcomings, as that would be to say that the USAF colluded against its own interests (unless the collusion was forced upon the USAF from much higher). But even then, Lockmart would be 'forced' to rectify the problem, wouldn't you agree? Like, I cannot imagine the USAF knowing of the problem and then saying to Lockmart - 'hey, I'll have another 200 of those please, don't bother to fix the problem'.

Of course every manufacturer of every product ever produced tells you that their product is 'The Best'. Tell me, my friend, do you go to Walmart and purchase things that are labeled 'The third best ..... in the world' - Of course you don't. It is up to the consumer to decide for themselves how well the product fits their needs and compares similar products, finally making a decision - sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong! The real world!

I might be a little thick, but since YOU started the thread concerning (in part) single v twin engined JETS, how do you explain confusing the radial engined WWII Corsair with the turbofan powered Corsair (with or without the 'II') as a preoccupation with a Wankel engined car. Or am I confusing that with a Wanker powered car? But I do sometimes get 'Wanker and Wankel' mixed!

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 20/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


But as I said previously, the main issue surely would not be what is or is not wrong with the aircraft, but what the manufacturers and operators do about it, this is what I meant about focussing on the faults, real or otherwise, being a red herring. I don't doubt that there are some very angry relatives out there who feel that they have been sold down the river, but does going on about single v twin jet power do anything for them?




Not the point.........I’ve seen the gun video and I have to say it really did look like it worked, why it was not implemented I simply didn’t want to know.


Why not? You made the connection between a FBW unstable fighter with only a single fin and engine, not me.

The exercise you describe was an example of Relaxed Static Stability, allowing the plane to sideslip in a controlled manner. As I said, this was a move to deliberately destabilise the aircraft (in the lateral axis in this case) and the F-16 is one of many aircraft used in these trials (Mitsubishi F-1 in Japan, F-104CCV in Germany, Jaguar ACT in the UK etc etc) and they were not intended to develop an operational technique with the F-16 itself, but were control experiments aimed at the next generation of fighters then in the planning stages and the results of these trials are used today on the F-22 and Typhoon amongst others.




I beg your pardon! I did not say that it was a spelling mistake!


No but you dismissed it as an irrelevance, if something you say leads to a misunderstanding then it is fair enough to correct it, no? Lets go back, in this discussion on single engined *jets*, Jezza mentioned the Corsair. You, for some reason interpreted this as being the F4U but why? were you being a smart arse or was it a genuine error? Having made that error you then compound it with the 'rotary' slip. OK, you have said why that mistake was made, so why do you seem so annoyed about the correction?

Were you trying to make Jezza look small and it backfired? It would appear so the way you have kicked off about it ever since.




Specifically because of the Air Force requirements. The word was simple, single engine, end of story.


No, the F-5G was NOT created because of any USAF requirement, in fact the USAF never had any interest in it at all, which was its biggest problem. it was a private venture design to create a competitive export fighter for the 1980's to try and maintain the previous success of the F-5 family. Nobody told Northrop to make it single engined, their own research took them that way.




Aerodynamically F-5 is more sound then the F-16,


In what way?



and with further development it would have outperformed the F-16



Yes it did, the F-5G/F-20 I mentioned. The trouble was nobody wanted it, no fault of the plane, but there you go.



[edit on 20-1-2008 by waynos]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


waynos,

You've got the right aircraft (F-16/CCV) but the wrong program (F-16/AFTI). AFTI was a 'boresight' program in all three planes, particularly lateral realignment with a target without yaw or roll and vertical realignment without pitch change.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The way I see it, seems that this thread actually makes another point:

If a fighter is successful in selling(numbers) then one can safely say that it is not a failure(read lawn-dart/flying coffin etc). Lives have been lost due to negligence and downright corruption but there's no point blaming the fighter as a whole.

In my perception, and equally compelling thread on the failures of the MiG-21 can be constructed, but it serves no real purpose. The MiG 21 had certain strict flight envelope restrictions that were very very unforgiving if broken. Does that make it inherently safer than an F-16?
(which I presume is accused of popping nasty FBW catastrophic errors quite often?)

IMHO the answer is 'Its impossible to say yes or no!'..

One thing's for sure: Since the MiG21 predates the F-16 by a whole generation;and so it is safe to assume that a lot of effort would have been made to give the pilot a better chance of saving the a/c(and himself) in teh case of the F-16.

That itself shows that a comparision is impossible due to the generational
gap.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by The Winged Wombat
 


Cheers wombat, I had thought that the one programme led into the next one, not that they were separate.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


waynos,

Yeah, they were sequential, but you know the yanks - different program aims, new fin titling! Although unusually the paint scheme remained that of the YF-16 - good old Red, White and Blue, but no radar in the undersized nosecone.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I seem to recal the AFTI titling on a standard F-16 complete with radar plus a 'humpback' and the canards, is my memory playing tricks? I'll have to go and have a rummage



edit, yes, I thought so. Two planes, similar mod.









[edit on 20-1-2008 by waynos]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
To the OP,

May I ask for a few clarifications of this thread?

With all the F 16's worldwide, you would agree that it is(was), if not THE, most widely exported fighter aircraft in the world?? That being said, how could you ever hope to really grasp a total service record of the F 16???

What I am trying to say is this, yes it has has had mechanical plagues...as all aircraft have the ability to do, right!? But, the F 16 is and has been one of the very hardest working workhorses the world over. So, it is in a category in and of itself to be critiqued. I am an ex-Hornet guy and I really have no loyalty to the F 16, but it is and was what it is and was.....a cheap, exportable, single engine fighter.

Henry Ford gave the American people the ability to attain an automobile..yet how many people have died horrible deaths due to automobiles in the world??? Due we blame him, one could if you really wanted to I suppose, but no! Of course not, he gave the people an amazing gift, and unfortunatley that gift does have its drawbacks.. Similarly, the Viper (F 16, of course) does as well. I don't think that it was ever toted as being the world's safest aircraft, then again....statistics can always be skewed.

Just thought I would add, there's some amazing positive things of the F 16 as well, I'd just care to focus on what it has done to protect people the world over.

Peace, Mondo



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


I couldn't get the second image to come up, by yes there was a couple of versions. There is also another similar aircraft known as NF-16D/VISTA, but I can't recall off the top of my head what the project involves.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Hmmm, I don't know what happened there, there are only two images, the modified YF-16 in the air and the F-16A conversion on the ground, the middle one is a phantom (as in nothing there, not a plane) and I don't know how it appeared as a link



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by The Winged Wombat
 



OK, you hate everything about F-16, so I'll just engage only a couple of points.


Hate? It kills its own pilots, I don’t have it, I cal it for what it is, an “unsafe: appliance. When a curling iron short circuits and electrocutes a teenage girl, and that happens over 300 timers, a factory recall is issued and company is sued.

It’s not about “hate”, it’s about REALITY.


Firstly, do you imagine that those responsible for military aircraft acquisitions are absolute idiots (including the very professional Israelis) ? If the F-16 as flawed as you say, then, pray tell, is it still such a salable item on the international market?


I don’t have to image, I just have to pop a DVD in and have another laugh (AND CRY) at how the Pentagon really works.

Neflix “Pentagon Wars” and see for your self. Yes, inferior, unsafe, and down right dangerous equipment is and has been forced upon various NATO nations.

Israelis would not buy the Bradley the way it was configure for US Army, so they DEMANDED changes to be made or they simply could not afford to put their troops inside the damn thing, so when California plant was manufacturing Bradley it had two assembly lines, one with standard “death traps”, and the other for export with the life saving changes forced by the Israelis.


The F-5G / F-20 was NEVER intended to be purchased by American forces, but was developed, using Federal funding for FMS when other nations totally rejected downgraded F-16s (specifically older engines). The F-20 was also rejected by foreign customers on two grounds, firstly that it was not to be in US domestic service (a situation that means there is little likelihood of ongoing upgrades), and secondly that it was inferior to the F-16. They held out for F-16 and got them!


Not really. The fact that F-5 was dumped by USAF under lobbyist pressure which in turn sealed its fate and future upgrades/logistical support is true, but how do you figure that F-16A was superior to F-20?

F-16 was the ONLY choice, that about it.


Why not? You made the connection between a FBW unstable fighter with only a single fin and engine, not me.


I didn’t make the connection, engineers that built it did.


The exercise you describe was an example of Relaxed Static Stability, allowing the plane to sideslip in a controlled manner. As I said, this was a move to deliberately destabilise the aircraft (in the lateral axis in this case)


Does anybody else see a contradiction in that statement?

Relaxed Static Stability in order to “deliberately destabilize”?

In that case, ALL control surfaces on the aircraft are there to “destabilize”, kind of like a steering wheel in the car, it’s there to destabilize.

I see that since I came back to the topic you have edited your post significantly, so I’ll try to keep with it as mch as I can, while keeping what I already wrote in response.


but were control experiments aimed at the next generation of fighters then in the planning stages and the results of these trials are used today on the F-22 and Typhoon amongst others.


How are they used? I’m not aware of any fighter that uses front mounted vertical fins.


Lets go back, in this discussion on single engined *jets*, Jezza mentioned the Corsair. You, for some reason interpreted this as being the F4U but why?


Because Corsair II is usually referred to as A-7, just as the Intruder is an A-6. Corsair is the original F4U, as jezza later clarified.


No but you dismissed it as an irrelevance, if something you say leads to a misunderstanding then it is fair enough to correct it, no?


No, I did not make a spelling error in reference to the rotary/radial engine as you have implied.


'the pipper on the target' was an abject failure when it came to practical usefulness.


That I’m having real hard time believing in, since I’ve seen the side by side gun videos, all of which showed a three fold increase in accuracy and target acquisition/engagement capability increase.

The rest of your post has been completely changed, so I’ll just stick to the point;


I might be a little thick, but since YOU started the thread concerning (in part) single v twin engined JETS, how do you explain confusing the radial engined WWII Corsair with the turbofan powered Corsair (with or without the 'II') as a preoccupation with a Wankel engined car. Or am I confusing that with a Wanker powered car? But I do sometimes get 'Wanker and Wankel' mixed!


If that’s the extent of you attempt for creative humor, keep working on it, it’s not a complete disaster.
As I clearly pointed out before, the Corsair is a “radial” piston powered carrier operated fighter/bomber, while Corsair II (2), which is knows as A-7, is in fact a turbofan powered jet.

Yet again, jezza cleared that one up a few posts before, get with it.

If you enjoy nitpicking at insignificant and non relevant issues, why are you here?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
It looks like since The Winged Wombat edited hid post I’ve mixed up the replies. Oh well.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Mondogiwa
 



Henry Ford gave the American people the ability to attain an automobile..yet how many people have died horrible deaths due to automobiles in the world??? Due we blame him, one could if you really wanted to I suppose, but no! Of course not, he gave the people an amazing gift, and unfortunatley that gift does have its drawbacks.. Similarly, the Viper (F 16, of course) does as well. I don't think that it was ever toted as being the world's safest aircraft, then again....statistics can always be skewed.


Yeah, actually Henry Ford colluded with the oil companies to sabotage, intimidate and flat out burn out the electric car makers, while Mr. Diesel who made the compression engine that originally burned corn oil, was forced into making extensive modifications to his design so it will burn “diesel” petroleum based fuel, and not the organic fuel he originally designed the engine for.

Aint real history fun?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 



In my perception, and equally compelling thread on the failures of the MiG-21 can be constructed, but it serves no real purpose. The MiG 21 had certain strict flight envelope restrictions that were very very unforgiving if broken. Does that make it inherently safer than an F-16?


Sorry, MiG-21 is separated by two whole generations from F-16, so no comparisons here.

While aerodynamically MiG-21 was difficult to fly at certain speeds, being a FLF it was designed to have very high combat stress tolerances, so engine failures were not a problem on properly operated aircraft.


One thing's for sure: Since the MiG21 predates the F-16 by a whole generation;and so it is safe to assume that a lot of effort would have been made to give the pilot a better chance of saving the a/c(and himself) in teh case of the F-16.


MiG-21 is a simple, rugged, tough aircraft. F-16 is not. It’s touchy, delicate, demanding. It’s a fact.

“Walk of shame” is for F-16, not MiG-21.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   
iskander,

Thanks for ascribing other peoples quotes to me in your reply, you're really on the ball, sunshine.

Don't twist the facts about what you don't know. When the F-16 was new (just like F-22 right now) the US did not want to export it to all and sundry. They offered a number of alternatives to many foreign nations instead. Those alternatives included F-20 (and made it single engined to more closely match F-16 capabilities inferring, wouldn't you think that the twin engined F-5 was already inferior to F-16) as well as J79 and F101 engined F-16s (both built and flight tested as FMS alternatives).

The FACT is that customer nations flatly refused to buy any of those options collectively and individually and eventually got the F-16 (including nations such as Pakistan - subsequently embargoed, but recently delivered). A situation where F-16 was the only thing on offer simply DID NOT EXIST - it was quite the opposite! The FACT that every customer nation rejected F-20 in favor of F-16 tells everyone (except possibly you) that the F-16 was superior!

The matter of the AFTI program is well documented and the reasons for not incorporating those capabilities into newer aircraft are well known (apparently by everyone else but you). Yet you off-handedly dismiss the results of the tests as if you were there and actually flew the aircraft. (Show me your logbook and I'll show you mine!) Your other comments tell me otherwise, I'm afraid.

So by all means continue bending all the facts that you want to fit your deluded argument - but you can do it without my further input, that's for sure.

Cheers Wankel Man.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 21/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

MiG-21 is a simple, rugged, tough aircraft. F-16 is not. It’s touchy, delicate, demanding. It’s a fact.

“Walk of shame” is for F-16, not MiG-21.


You really believe an F-16 is more demanding than a MiG-21 to fly? Wow.

The F-16 is one of the best multi-role fighters ever. And has been so for many years now. And they also look great...in the centre of a HUD with the gun cue on top of them...


"Walk of shame" is for those who exploit emotional situations such as a family's loss to forward their agenda...



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Ahem!... I thought this whole topic had been started specifically for my benefit? Push off usurpers it's my turn.


Ok iskander you have commented the following,

Does anybody else see a contradiction in that statement?

Relaxed Static Stability in order to “deliberately destabilize”?

In that case, ALL control surfaces on the aircraft are there to “destabilize”, kind of like a steering wheel in the car, it’s there to destabilize.
I was looking for an easy laymans way to describe the meaning of relaxed static stability but as much as I am loathe to use it I think wikipedia's description is as good as any. And as you are obviously not an aircraft engineer and therefore familiar with much of the terminology this may help understand the concept. But bare in mind that relaxed static stability has nothing to do with the F-16 specifically but is a general term as the idea can be applied to any aircraft design, even a civilian airliner if the need was there.


An aircraft with negative static stability will, in the absence of control input, depart from level and controlled flight. Most aircraft are designed with positive static stability, where an aircraft tends to return to its original attitude following a disturbance. However, positive static stability hampers maneuverability, as the tendency to remain in its current attitude opposes the pilot's effort to maneuver; therefore, an aircraft with negative static stability will be more maneuverable. With a fly-by-wire system, such an aircraft can be kept in stable flight, its instability kept in check by the flight computers.

The YF-16 was the world's first aircraft to be slightly aerodynamically unstable by design. This feature is officially called "relaxed static stability." At subsonic speeds, the fighter is constantly on the verge of going out of control. This tendency is constantly caught and corrected by the FLCC (Flight Control Computer) and later the DFLCC (Digital Flight Control Computer), allowing for stable flight. When supersonic, the aircraft exhibits positive static stability due to aerodynamic forces shifting aft between subsonic and supersonic flight.


Hope this helps clarify things.

LEE.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


Most of the other points have been perfectly well covered so to avoid repetition I will address those that appear to have been missed.




How are they used? I’m not aware of any fighter that uses front mounted vertical fins.


Not the fins themselves, the results of the trials (and similar ones on the other planes I mentioned) and the data gained were incorporated into the designs of the next generation fighters, they don't have to look the same to make use of the knowledge gained, there's more than one way to skin a cat.




I didn’t make the connection, engineers that built it did.


No, you said one of the biggest faults with the F-16 was that it is a FBW controlled unstable fighter with ony one fin and engine, I can see the logic in preferring two engines to one because of failure rates, but what does being an unstable FBW aircraft have to do with it? If FBW is going to make you crash you can have as many engines as you like, it wont save you.




Because Corsair II is usually referred to as A-7, just as the Intruder is an A-6. Corsair is the original F4U, as jezza later clarified.


But if someone is discussing single engined Jets and they refer to a 'Corsair', the aircraft in question is obvious, only someone being deliberately obtuse would play the 'if you don't say 'Corsair II' I don't know what you mean" card, and yet when you say something that is actually far removed from what you meant (rotary) we are all supposed to know instantly what you meant to say, double standards?

If someone is talking about modern jet fighters and they mention the Typhoon, you wouldn't assume they meant the 1941-45 Hawker Typhoon unless you were being deliberately awkward or unusually thick, would you?




As I clearly pointed out before, the Corsair is a “radial” piston powered carrier operated fighter/bomber, while Corsair II (2), which is knows as A-7, is in fact a turbofan powered jet.


And since the discussion is all about *jets* , why wouldn't you realise which one was being referred to? Surely your faculties would allow you to figure it out rather quickly, given the actual subject under discussion.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   

No, you said one of the biggest faults with the F-16 was that it is a FBW controlled unstable fighter with ony one fin and engine


Saab Gripen

unstable - FBW , 1 engine and 1 fin - don`t see them falling out of the sky





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join