PDA

View Full Version : P51B with 4 .50 cals put out more rounds than a P51D with 6



tagert
01-25-2004, 12:02 AM
True

Some here would have us belive... or actually belive that the P51B with it's 4 .50 cals DID NOT have the same punch (pounds down range) as the P51 with it's 6 .50 cals...

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=309100761

But it did! See the P51B with 4 .50 cals initally had a ammo jamming problem. But the jamming problems was fixed with the introduction of small electric motors in the ammo feed tracks that assisted in feeding ammo to the guns. There was a side effect of this fix, it caused the ROF of the .50 cal to increase.. it went from the 600rpm range up to about 950rpm range. Therefore...

4 Ӕ 950rpm = 3800rpm
6 Ӕ 600rpm = 3600rpm

Funny how something can intially seem to be a negative, and later turn out to be a postive! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif So, with that said, bring on the B http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

tagert
01-25-2004, 12:02 AM
True

Some here would have us belive... or actually belive that the P51B with it's 4 .50 cals DID NOT have the same punch (pounds down range) as the P51 with it's 6 .50 cals...

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=309100761

But it did! See the P51B with 4 .50 cals initally had a ammo jamming problem. But the jamming problems was fixed with the introduction of small electric motors in the ammo feed tracks that assisted in feeding ammo to the guns. There was a side effect of this fix, it caused the ROF of the .50 cal to increase.. it went from the 600rpm range up to about 950rpm range. Therefore...

4 Ӕ 950rpm = 3800rpm
6 Ӕ 600rpm = 3600rpm

Funny how something can intially seem to be a negative, and later turn out to be a postive! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif So, with that said, bring on the B http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

resev
01-25-2004, 12:10 AM
Interesting, you should post this on ORR.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

arcadeace
01-25-2004, 12:24 AM
I agree it is interesting. I rarely participate in a/c particulars discussions, but the P51B is my favorite; I'm really looking forward to flying it.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1074803366.jpg

tenmmike
01-25-2004, 12:40 AM
perhaps iv missed somthing in this thread.... ...the feeding of the m-2 .50 cal with a "feeder booster motors".(taken from the b-26 bomber turrets)..would not increase rof just the reliabilaty...the m-2 was the was the same in the B/C/D and the instalation was altered in the D and much increased reliabilaty due to the way it was mounted but not ROF .......so in conclusion .i cant figure out were this rof increase yall are speeking of comes from.........i for one am not buying it

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-25-2004, 12:53 AM
Will it be modeled if your statment is correct? Thats the question. Quick everyone send Oleg an email http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/98027.jpg

tagert
01-25-2004, 01:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
perhaps iv missed somthing in this thread.... ...the feeding of the m-2 .50 cal with a "feeder booster motors".(taken from the b-26 bomber turrets)..would not increase rof just the reliabilaty. The m-2 was the was the same in the B/C/D and the instalation was altered in the D and much increased reliabilaty due to the way it was mounted but not ROF<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope! it did increase the ROF

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
.......so in conclusion .i cant figure out were this rof increase yall are speeking of comes from.........i for one am not buying it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>read the book called The Mighty Eighth War Manual pg 230

TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Sun January 25 2004 at 12:33 AM.]

Korolov
01-25-2004, 01:19 AM
Or the P-51B 50 cals could of had lighter barrels than those used on the D.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

tenmmike
01-25-2004, 01:34 AM
iv got the mighty eigth war manual it does not state the above..what it does say is that a muzzel booster was able to obtain 949 rpm for a short burst and it also stated that as much as 200rpm differencc was observed between guns in the same plane ...now i find that odd and have fired the m2 a hell of a lot ......i wonder if improper head space and timing adjustments were made..by changing timing in a m2..it is possable to change rof away from the correct rof ..this is done if a armourer (or weapons operator )(or any competent infantry man or tanker) is lazy and does not pull hard enough up on the trigger mechinisem while moving the timing adjustent into proper battery position ....while setting headspace and timing prior to it being placed in use ...the m2 must be properly headspaced and timed for it to function at designed levels...

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

tagert
01-25-2004, 01:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
iv got the mighty eigth war manual it does not state the above..what it does say is that a muzzel booster was able to obtain 949 rpm for a short burst<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually it says:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The MIGHTY EIGHT WAR MANUAL pg 230:
When the booster was fitted 857 rpm was obtained but after firing 600 rounds in short bursts the rate rose to 949 rpm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In short bursts, not for short bursts.. it was/is good pratice to shoot in short bursts anyways.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
and it also stated that as much as 200rpm differencc was observed between guns in the same plane<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>true, but the paragrah just before that notes

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The MIGHTY EIGHT WAR MANUAL pg 230:
These figures were USAAF specimen stated figures (750rpm), there being considerabel variation in battle performance through factors such as the condition of individual weapons, temperatrue adn ammunition feed. In ONE test as much as 200 rounds per minute difference was recorded etween guns in the same fighter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But sense IL2 does not model ware n tear.. ie just fresh out of the box aircraft... the differences due to conditions of individual weapons is not modeld.. And that is true for any and all weapons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
...now i find that odd and have fired the m2 a hell of a lot...... i wonder if improper head space and timing adjustments were made.. by changing timing in a m2.. it is possable to change rof away from the correct rof.. this is done if a armourer (or weapons operator )(or any competent infantry man or tanker) is lazy and does not pull hard enough up on the trigger mechinisem while moving the timing adjustent into proper battery position.... while setting headspace and timing prior to it being placed in use... the m2 must be properly headspaced and timed for it to function at designed levels...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The book makes no mention of that with regards to the 950rpm, just the booster. But Im sure things like that did play into the 200 rpm differnces they observed... But again, IL2 does not model such things as ware n tear.. or improper settings

TAGERT

tagert
01-25-2004, 01:56 AM
My memory did fail me on this topic... I though the .50 figure was 650rpm, but it is actually 750rpm.. I got it mixed up with the MK108.. So

4 Ӕ 750rpm = 3000rpm P51B
4 Ӕ 950rpm = 3800rpm P51B (boosted)
6 Ӕ 750rpm = 4500rpm P51D

So, the D still wins.. but the instead of a 1500rpm difference it is only 700rpm difference. And that 200rpm difference applys to all, but IL2 does not model ware n tear differences. But, IL2 should model the RPM increase do to the mod/fix... just like it models the fillets on the tails of the P51Ds

TAGERT

tenmmike
01-25-2004, 01:58 AM
ahh my man tagert is a sharp man ....S!!

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

Aaron_GT
01-25-2004, 03:17 AM
It might be interesting to have the feed boost
as an option, but from the reading I've done
it seems that not many P51Bs actually had
boosted feed. There would need to be a way to exclude the boosted feed versions for historical
scenarios representing units or points in time
for when the boost was not available.

tenmmike
01-25-2004, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It might be interesting to have the feed boost
as an option, but from the reading I've done
it seems that not many P51Bs actually had
boosted feed. There would need to be a way to exclude the boosted feed versions for historical
scenarios representing units or points in time
for when the boost was not available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> boosted feed did not increase ROF!! it just kept the weapon from jamming do to poor placement in the wing

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

ElfunkoI
01-25-2004, 05:15 AM
Read about the jamming in Mustang Ace by Robert Goebel. I forget the exact cause (he was really specific) and I could look it up later, but off the top of my head I think jamming was caused when manuevering at 4G's or more and firing. I'm just guessing right now...

tagert
01-25-2004, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
boosted feed did not increase ROF!! it just kept the weapon from jamming do to poor placement in the wing<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to differ! But I'm willing to try and understand what it is you don't belive about the *boosted* rates listed in the the mighty eighth war manual. You don't seem to belive that referance to BOOST is about the BOOST due to the addition of the electric motors... how about a second page?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR MANUAL with regards to the B26 problems pg 180:
Jamming of the guns was also common due to adjustment of the switches on the electric motors that BOOSTED the trace along.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is the second time the book uses the word BOOST with regards to the electric motors and the other with regards to the increase ROF of the .50 cal

Still not convinced,, how about a third page?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR MANUAL with regards to the P-51B problems pg 195:
Perhaps the most critical situation with the P-51B arose over persistent gun stoppages. The armament layout was different from that in earlier Mustangs, the feed to the four .50 guns - two per wing -proving highly unsatisfactory. The failures were chiefly through jammed or displaced rounds; in some instances aircraft returned from combat with only one gun operative. In early March 1944 the 354th Group at Boxted (9th Air Force) had successfully overcome the feeding stoppages by the addition to the gun feed chute of a Martin electric ammunition BOOSTER from the B-26. It had been discovered that the traced rounds passing from the ammunition compartment to the feedway of the gun were improperly aligned in that they were slightly cocked in relation to the axis of the breech bore. This happened when the pull on the trace exceeded 17lb (7.7kg). With the BOOSTED motor set to come in automatically when the pull exceeded 15lb (6.8kg), feeding stoppages were largely eliminated. It took two mechanics four hours to assemble and install this modification, which was advised for VIII FC groups early in April.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the third, and fourth time the book uses the word BOOST with regards to the electric motors and the other with regards to the increase ROF of the .50 cal.

So.. I think it is safe to assume that when they say BOOSTED with regards to the incressed ROF, they were talking about the BOOST due to the electric motors

TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Sun January 25 2004 at 11:55 AM.]

tagert
01-25-2004, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It might be interesting to have the feed boost
as an option, but from the reading I've done
it seems that not many P51Bs actually had
boosted feed. There would need to be a way to exclude the boosted feed versions for historical
scenarios representing units or points in time
for when the boost was not available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. I have no numbers that say how many recived the retro fit.. but

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR MANUAL with regards to the P-51B problems pg 195:
It took two mechanics four hours to assemble and install this modification, which was advised for VIII FC groups early in April.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typically when a fix to a problem comes along, people tend to go with it.. and four hours is not a big deal to fix such a big problem.. So, I think it is safe to assume it was done to most of the 51B's

Funny.. awhile back it didnt stop some from demanding the 109K get flettner tabs on the ailerons.. even with less suporting info.

TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Sun January 25 2004 at 10:07 AM.]

tagert
01-25-2004, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElfunkoI:
Read about the jamming in Mustang Ace by Robert Goebel. I forget the exact cause (he was really specific) and I could look it up later, but off the top of my head I think jamming was caused when manuevering at 4G's or more and firing. I'm just guessing right now...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think the two were related.. the P51B wing was redesigned for the D version to provide more room for the .50s and re-work the ammo feed trys.. the B's ammo feed trys had a nasty BUMP in them that the ammo had to be drug over.. some wing strut/support... I know I had a picture of that.. the .50 cals were also mounted in there kind of cockeyed.. ie not sitting straigth up and down but rotated a bit to make them lower profile.

TAGERT

HarryVoyager
01-25-2004, 01:17 PM
Well, from what I understand, the M2 Browning .50 machine gun is a mechanically driven machine gun, in that energy from the fired round is used to eject the casing, **** the gun, and feed a new round into the chamber.

In order for it to feed rounds into the chamber from a belt, it has to pull a belt of 0.50 rounds towards it, as well as the next round to be loaded. The heavier the belt, the more energy that must be expended to cycle the gun in a given period of time.

With the electric boosters providing extra energy into the system, and taking most of the energy required to move the belt themselves, that leaves more energy for accelerating the internal parts of the gun, hence increasing the rate of fire of the gun.

The implications, is the shorter the pulled belt, the faster the gun fired, and the longer the pulled belt, the slower it fired.

A way to test this would be to set a 0.50 in a fixed mount, with a long table or bench to lay out its ammo belt on, and test its rate of fire with various mass belts. If there is a significant rate of fire difference between a 5 round belt, and, say, a 100 round belt, then the gun's rate of fire is affected by the force on the belt.

Harry Voyager

A.K.Davis
01-25-2004, 01:26 PM
Keep in mind also that RoF and practical RoF are not the same thing. Fortunately for many I've seen shooting .50s online, Oleg chose not to model barrel overheating. This has given us the idea, however, that RoF is the holy grail of MG performance and does not come at any expense. Because of the potential for overheating, a 950rpm .50 cal would likely have a much lower practical RoF.

Given a pilot with excellent gunnery skills, a short burst from 4 X .50s at a high RoF was probably sufficient. However, a pilot with mediocre gunnery skills would likely do better with a longer, sustained burst from 6 x .50s with a lower RoF.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

tagert
01-25-2004, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HarryVoyager:
Well, from what I understand, the M2 Browning .50 machine gun is a mechanically driven machine gun, in that energy from the fired round is used to eject the casing, **** the gun, and feed a new round into the chamber.

In order for it to feed rounds into the chamber from a belt, it has to pull a belt of 0.50 rounds towards it, as well as the next round to be loaded. The heavier the belt, the more energy that must be expended to cycle the gun in a given period of time.

With the electric boosters providing extra energy into the system, and taking most of the energy required to move the belt themselves, that leaves more energy for accelerating the internal parts of the gun, hence increasing the rate of fire of the gun.

The implications, is the shorter the pulled belt, the faster the gun fired, and the longer the pulled belt, the slower it fired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HarryVoyager:
A way to test this would be to set a 0.50 in a fixed mount, with a long table or bench to lay out its ammo belt on, and test its rate of fire with various mass belts. If there is a significant rate of fire difference between a 5 round belt, and, say, a 100 round belt, then the gun's rate of fire is affected by the force on the belt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As a mater of FACT a static test carried out in March 1944 by the 4th Group on a P-51B found the following

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>THE MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR MANUAL on pg 230:
When the BOOSTER was fitted 857 rpm was obtained but after firing 600 rounds in short bursts the rate rose to 949 rpm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In light of that, I dont know what it is that tenmike disagrees with.. but maybe he will expand on it more than to just say NO?

TAGERT

tagert
01-25-2004, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Keep in mind also that RoF and practical RoF are not the same thing. Fortunately for many I've seen shooting .50s online, Oleg chose not to model barrel overheating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. but also true for all the guns in IL2.. And I have seen my share of Lw pilots taking adv of that fact too! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
This has given us the idea, however, that RoF is the holy grail of MG performance and does not come at any expense. Because of the potential for overheating, a 950rpm .50 cal would likely have a much lower practical RoF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, they were clear that the 950 rpm was obtained by applying short bursts.. that is to say the 950rpm was not due to holding the triger for extended periods of time... ie only happens when barrel is overheated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Given a pilot with excellent gunnery skills, a short burst from 4 X .50s at a high RoF was probably sufficient. However, a pilot with mediocre gunnery skills would likely do better with a longer, sustained burst from 6 x .50s with a lower RoF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In either case the 4 or 6 config are putting nearly the same pounds down range... So I disagree.

TAGERT

tenmmike
01-25-2004, 03:04 PM
what we have here is i believe a missinterpitation or miss utilisation of the bord boos..perhaps 'FEED ASSIST

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

tagert
01-25-2004, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
what we have here is i believe a missinterpitation or miss utilisation of the bord boos..perhaps 'FEED ASSIST<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ahhhh.. ok, so you agree the BOOST in ROF was due to the electric motor BOOST.. or not? If not, what do you *feel* explans the increase in ROF noted in the book?

TAGERT

LeadSpitter_
01-25-2004, 03:11 PM
Not true, sounds like someone was misinformed and read armor piercing explosive or incideary vs the p51bs standard .50 steel tip which were alot light making it have a quicker ROF compaired the heavier armor piercing explosive rounds

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

tagert
01-25-2004, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Not true, sounds like someone was misinformed and read armor piercing explosive or incideary vs the p51bs standard .50 steel tip which were alot light making it have a quicker ROF compaired the heavier armor piercing explosive rounds<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, it was a clear test and with the same ammo the ROF increase when the BOOST from the electric motors was used.

TAGERT

tenmmike
01-25-2004, 03:26 PM
what we have here is i believe a missinterpitation or miss utilisation of the word boost..perhaps 'FEED ASSIST" would be better let me make easier to understand.. you cannot force feed a m-2 or any other belt feed weapon that i know of , you can only make it so the weapon does not have to overcome the the drag and weight of the ammo belt, another example is this if the feed assisted weapon were fired and me with the same m-2 on a table with a assistant gunner to help support the belt the results will be the same ..i also believe your confusing belt boost with a muzzel booster device mentioned on pg230 of the war manual.muzzel booster and feed booster are different!!!!the heigher rof was obtained by the muzzell booster atachments.for some reason while reading your responce it seems as you think i dont beleve the belt feed booster exsits that is not true i know it does, my argument is RATE OF FIRE

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

tagert
01-25-2004, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>by tenmmike:
what we have here is i believe a missinterpitation or miss utilisation of the word boost..perhaps 'FEED ASSIST" would be better<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed! BUT the good thing is, even though it is not the best word to describe it, they were CONSISTENT in it' use.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>by tenmmike:
let me make easier to understand.. you cannot force feed a m-2 or any other belt feed weapon that i know of , you can only make it so the weapon does not have to overcome the the drag and weight of the ammo belt, another example is this if the feed assisted weapon were fired and me with the same m-2 on a table with a assistant gunner to help support the belt the results will be the same..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No need to make it easier to understand, Harry Voyager and I understood that from the get go.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>by tenmmike:
i also believe your confusing belt boost with a muzzel booster device mentioned on pg230 of the war manual. muzzel booster and feed booster are different!!!! the heigher rof was obtained by the muzzell booster atachments. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I gave four examples of how the word was used in consistently... In the actual discription they even drop the muzzel portion i.e.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Mighty Eigtht War Manual:
When the booster was fitted<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not muzzel booster, just booster.. as it was in the discriptions of the B26 guns. The book even went as far as to note that variations were do to such thing as ammunitin feed. But, if you think the muzzel booster is NOT the electric motors.. please show me something that even begins to sugest otherwise. A picture of or a discription of how a muzzel booster is attached and used would be great!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>by tenmmike:
for some reason while reading your responce it seems as you think i dont beleve the belt feed booster exsits that is not true i know it does, my argument is RATE OF FIRE<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My argument is ROF too... and you started off in this post ADMITTING that overcoming drag.. implying you agree it would effect the ROF.. though you never really say it.. but why bother overcoming the drag.. if it has no benefit in doing so.

In a nut shell, Ill have to take the book over you.. unless you can show me a muzzel booster. I think I did a fine job showing how the book is consistent in referring to the BOOSTERS.

TAGERT

tagert
01-25-2004, 03:50 PM
Well crud! Looks like you right tenmmike and I be wrong!

http://www.biggerhammer.net/anm2/pictorial/

Sorry, I wont doubt you again! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

tenmmike
01-25-2004, 04:02 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

LeadSpitter_
01-25-2004, 05:02 PM
interesting,

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)