F-16E vs J-10B
- Banned
- Posts: 85
- Joined: 05 Feb 2013, 14:53
J-10B. An upgraded variant of the J-10, also known as the "Super-10".The existence of the J-10B is not confirmed by official Chinese sources, but numerous images of a new J-10 variant have surfaced, showing a prototype J-10 modified with increased RAM, MAW, a diverterless supersonic inlet, an infra-red search and track (IRST) sensor, modified vertical stabiliser, ventral fins, housings fitted under the wings, and a modified nose that could indicate an AESA radar.
Specifications
Type
Multirole fighter aircraft
Country user
China, Pakistan
Country producer
China
Crew
1 or 2
Engine
1 × Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN or WS-10A Taihang turbofan
Speed
Maximum speed: 2,200 km/h
Range
3,200 km maximum
Weight
19,277 kg maximum takeoff
Avionic
Unnamed AESA radar ?!, NRIET KLJ-10 multi-mode fire-control radar.
Externally-mounted avionics pods:
Type Hongguang-I infra-red search and track pod, BM/KG300G self-protection jamming pod, KZ900 electronic reconnaissance pod, Blue Sky navigation/attack pod, FILAT (Forward-looking Infra-red Laser Attack Targeting) pod
Dimensions
Length: 16.4 m; Wingspan: 9.75 m; Height: 4.78 m
F-16 E/F: The F-16E (single seat) and F-16F (two seat) are newer F-16 variants. The Block 60 version is based on the F-16C/D Block 50/52 and has been developed especially for the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It features improved AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, avionics, conformal fuel tanks (CFTs), and the more powerful GE F110-132 engine
Type
Multi-role fighter aircraft
Crew
1
Engine
1 Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 afterburning turbofan
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2 , 2,410 km/h
Armament
The Block 60 F-16 retains the full armament capability of the Block 50's and adds several new capabilities. The Block 60's basic design and weapon interfaces are compatible with projected future weapons including new air-to-air missiles such as the AIM-132 Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM). The aircraft will also support all-weather standoff weapons, such as the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), and AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM).
The Block 60 F-16 has been developed with planned growth improvements and technology advances in virtually all major areas, including engines, avionics, and weapons.
Weight
8,570 kg
Avionic
AN/APG-80, AN/ALQ-178 internal ECM or ALQ-165 ECM pod
Dimension / Weight
Length: 15.06 m; Wingspan: 9.96 m; Height: 4.88 m
J-10B is more economical.
J-10B is faster.
F-16 E/F Fighting Falcon is better armed.
Both aircraft are better dogfighter. both planes are equally good in dogfight, but I appreciate the F-16E is capable of better because NATO pilots qualified pilots are better than the Chinese, the AIM-9X missile is better than PL-8/9 (even AIM-120C-7 is also better than PL-12). In BVR F-16 will win even though the J-10 is equipped with DSI (copy F-35) and AESA radar (the F-16E AESA radar but also make sure it will be better technology China), I believe in America's RCS reduction technology than China, F-16E with ECM within internal, can be equipped with stealth pod of F/A-18E/F (Enclosed Weapons pod EWP), J-10B AESA radar is still one unknown
Specifications
Type
Multirole fighter aircraft
Country user
China, Pakistan
Country producer
China
Crew
1 or 2
Engine
1 × Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN or WS-10A Taihang turbofan
Speed
Maximum speed: 2,200 km/h
Range
3,200 km maximum
Weight
19,277 kg maximum takeoff
Avionic
Unnamed AESA radar ?!, NRIET KLJ-10 multi-mode fire-control radar.
Externally-mounted avionics pods:
Type Hongguang-I infra-red search and track pod, BM/KG300G self-protection jamming pod, KZ900 electronic reconnaissance pod, Blue Sky navigation/attack pod, FILAT (Forward-looking Infra-red Laser Attack Targeting) pod
Dimensions
Length: 16.4 m; Wingspan: 9.75 m; Height: 4.78 m
F-16 E/F: The F-16E (single seat) and F-16F (two seat) are newer F-16 variants. The Block 60 version is based on the F-16C/D Block 50/52 and has been developed especially for the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It features improved AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, avionics, conformal fuel tanks (CFTs), and the more powerful GE F110-132 engine
Type
Multi-role fighter aircraft
Crew
1
Engine
1 Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 afterburning turbofan
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2 , 2,410 km/h
Armament
The Block 60 F-16 retains the full armament capability of the Block 50's and adds several new capabilities. The Block 60's basic design and weapon interfaces are compatible with projected future weapons including new air-to-air missiles such as the AIM-132 Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM). The aircraft will also support all-weather standoff weapons, such as the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), and AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM).
The Block 60 F-16 has been developed with planned growth improvements and technology advances in virtually all major areas, including engines, avionics, and weapons.
Weight
8,570 kg
Avionic
AN/APG-80, AN/ALQ-178 internal ECM or ALQ-165 ECM pod
Dimension / Weight
Length: 15.06 m; Wingspan: 9.96 m; Height: 4.88 m
J-10B is more economical.
J-10B is faster.
F-16 E/F Fighting Falcon is better armed.
Both aircraft are better dogfighter. both planes are equally good in dogfight, but I appreciate the F-16E is capable of better because NATO pilots qualified pilots are better than the Chinese, the AIM-9X missile is better than PL-8/9 (even AIM-120C-7 is also better than PL-12). In BVR F-16 will win even though the J-10 is equipped with DSI (copy F-35) and AESA radar (the F-16E AESA radar but also make sure it will be better technology China), I believe in America's RCS reduction technology than China, F-16E with ECM within internal, can be equipped with stealth pod of F/A-18E/F (Enclosed Weapons pod EWP), J-10B AESA radar is still one unknown
- Banned
- Posts: 2848
- Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
- Location: New Jersey
Well, more economical in what terms?
The J-10B's fly away cost maybe cheaper, but what about its maintenance cost?
TBO or time before overhaul
availability of parts?
I expect them to be cheap but how cheap?
Also, absolute top speed is of little use in combat, whats important is acceleration,
how fast can an aircraft regain lost energy.
The Mig-25 is faster than most western fighters but is certainly not a feared dog fighter, slower fighters like the F-15,16 and even the Hornet which has the poorest acceleration numbers (mid-high altitude) of all the American war birds will out accelerate a Fox bat in ACM
I'm not bashing the J-10B, it is a worthy adversary for the F-16E, but I just think we need more details before we start comparing the 2.
Looking at Wikipedia (one of the few sites that offer an English translation of the J-10's performance)
a lot of the glorious praises of the aircraft's performance has the note"[citation needed"]
One of the claims is that Delta canard designs offer a tighter turn radius than conventional layout, is totally un true,
According to one of the Typhoon's info sites
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.php
So no, Canard deltas are not necesarily superior to "Conventional designs"
The J-10B's fly away cost maybe cheaper, but what about its maintenance cost?
TBO or time before overhaul
availability of parts?
I expect them to be cheap but how cheap?
Also, absolute top speed is of little use in combat, whats important is acceleration,
how fast can an aircraft regain lost energy.
The Mig-25 is faster than most western fighters but is certainly not a feared dog fighter, slower fighters like the F-15,16 and even the Hornet which has the poorest acceleration numbers (mid-high altitude) of all the American war birds will out accelerate a Fox bat in ACM
I'm not bashing the J-10B, it is a worthy adversary for the F-16E, but I just think we need more details before we start comparing the 2.
Looking at Wikipedia (one of the few sites that offer an English translation of the J-10's performance)
a lot of the glorious praises of the aircraft's performance has the note"[citation needed"]
One of the claims is that Delta canard designs offer a tighter turn radius than conventional layout, is totally un true,
According to one of the Typhoon's info sites
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.php
Britain's DERA, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) wrote:
the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22
So no, Canard deltas are not necesarily superior to "Conventional designs"
- Active Member
- Posts: 159
- Joined: 04 Jul 2015, 01:58
In the case of the delta-canard, the F-22 has OVT which the Eurofighter lacks. The J-10B and F-16 comparison isn't very apt, however. The F-16 is a heavily-upgraded version of a 4th generation fighter; its engines might be better, as are its avionics, but it's hobbled by its outdated aerial design; it's a product of the 70s being compared to a product of the 1990s.
Yet even in this case, its advanced avionics give it as advantage. While the J-10B has a slightly larger radar aperture, it has a PESA radar compared to the AESA radar on the F-16E.
Yet even in this case, its advanced avionics give it as advantage. While the J-10B has a slightly larger radar aperture, it has a PESA radar compared to the AESA radar on the F-16E.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3067
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
The PLAAF does not issue official data and even if official data, as some people on the board point out, is not really reliable. Nevertheless for discussion purposes, the following are the main points China posters have adopted as consensus (which could still be wrong).
Engine: J-10B also has iterations e.g. early versions are powered by AL-31FN Russki engines. Later batches by WS-10a – easily identifiable by the engine nozzle designs. WS-10a had and probably still has reliability issues, probably more so than Russian engines. Hence MTBF is likely to suck. Having said that, its produced in-country so they can do maintenance locally.
The WS-10A is claimed to be higher thrust. It is unclear what is the exact weight of a J-10B so TW is difficult to measure and hence difficult to compare. What is known from the AL-31FN is that it is a fuel guzzling engine whose SFC is greater than the PW or GE engines so the WS-10A is likely to be similar.
Data bus: There are claims that the J-10A uses the ARINC 429 which is a MIL-STD 1553 data bus. MIL-STD 1553 is standard across the PLAAF so it is likely the J-10B would at least be using a 1553. There are also claims that the J-20 now uses MIL-STD-1773 fiber optic version. There are no claims as to whether the J-10B uses the FO version.
Radar: A lot of literature citing that the J-10B is using a AESA radar with ~1,200 TR modules. A pic of the radar was seen on an uncovered nose of a J-10B hence lending weight to such speculation. However J-10As were still using pulse Doppler radars.
Avionics: Many claims of J-10 early versions already using FBW. Multi-function displays are standard. HMS has not been sighted. However there are claims that these are under development. Standard communication receivers are also noted. No data on IFF capabilities
EW: AVIC has cited the KG600 digital jamming pod as a pod used for the J-10A. This pod is claimed to be a radar jammer and has been seen carried on the J-10. AVIC has also claimed that the KZ900 SIGINT pod is also used on the J-10A. The SIGINT is a passive system that collects radar signals. RWRs are standard.
Munitions (A2G): Norinco has also claimed that the J-10 can use LGBs, paired with the OC5 lasing pod. There is no data on the capabilities of the pod. Imho, it is highly unlikely this is a 40k pod. The standard suite of JDAM-type munitions (including wing-kits) can also be carried. With Beidou GPS, J-10B is capable of GPS targeting (GB-2A, 3, 3A). Multiple ejector racks have been noted but there is no indication that the MERs are compatible with multiple targeted JDAM-type bombs (just dumb bombs).
The heaviest munition noted is the FT1500 which is a 3000lb JDAM-type bomb and the lightest are 90mm rocket pods.
Missiles seen include YJ-91 ARM, CM-704, CM-705s
Munitions (A2A): PL-10, -11 and -12 + PL-8 is claimed to be standard for J-10s. Dual missile racks have been noted as standard carriage (4 medium range AAMs + 2 short range). There are no claims of HMS coupled for use with AAMs.
Performance and range: There is no data on how much fuel the J-10 actually carries though estimates appear to place it with a 500-600km combat radius. Not sure how estimates can be validated without fuel carriage estimates. Nevertheless, most of the time J-10s are seen with centerline or 2 external drop-tanks (similar to F-16s) so most estimates suggest similar range performance.
Parachute noted for shorter assisted landing distance.
Aerial refuel: Later version J-10s are AAR equipped and have been video-d for aerial refuel with H-6 tankers.
Situation awareness: J-10s are now noted to operate with AEW aircraft and appear to play aggressors against PLAAF sukhois.
Numbers: There are estimated 400+ J-10s in service with an estimated rate of production of ~30-40 units per year. This is based on number of units, engine procurement data.
Engine: J-10B also has iterations e.g. early versions are powered by AL-31FN Russki engines. Later batches by WS-10a – easily identifiable by the engine nozzle designs. WS-10a had and probably still has reliability issues, probably more so than Russian engines. Hence MTBF is likely to suck. Having said that, its produced in-country so they can do maintenance locally.
The WS-10A is claimed to be higher thrust. It is unclear what is the exact weight of a J-10B so TW is difficult to measure and hence difficult to compare. What is known from the AL-31FN is that it is a fuel guzzling engine whose SFC is greater than the PW or GE engines so the WS-10A is likely to be similar.
Data bus: There are claims that the J-10A uses the ARINC 429 which is a MIL-STD 1553 data bus. MIL-STD 1553 is standard across the PLAAF so it is likely the J-10B would at least be using a 1553. There are also claims that the J-20 now uses MIL-STD-1773 fiber optic version. There are no claims as to whether the J-10B uses the FO version.
Radar: A lot of literature citing that the J-10B is using a AESA radar with ~1,200 TR modules. A pic of the radar was seen on an uncovered nose of a J-10B hence lending weight to such speculation. However J-10As were still using pulse Doppler radars.
Avionics: Many claims of J-10 early versions already using FBW. Multi-function displays are standard. HMS has not been sighted. However there are claims that these are under development. Standard communication receivers are also noted. No data on IFF capabilities
EW: AVIC has cited the KG600 digital jamming pod as a pod used for the J-10A. This pod is claimed to be a radar jammer and has been seen carried on the J-10. AVIC has also claimed that the KZ900 SIGINT pod is also used on the J-10A. The SIGINT is a passive system that collects radar signals. RWRs are standard.
Munitions (A2G): Norinco has also claimed that the J-10 can use LGBs, paired with the OC5 lasing pod. There is no data on the capabilities of the pod. Imho, it is highly unlikely this is a 40k pod. The standard suite of JDAM-type munitions (including wing-kits) can also be carried. With Beidou GPS, J-10B is capable of GPS targeting (GB-2A, 3, 3A). Multiple ejector racks have been noted but there is no indication that the MERs are compatible with multiple targeted JDAM-type bombs (just dumb bombs).
The heaviest munition noted is the FT1500 which is a 3000lb JDAM-type bomb and the lightest are 90mm rocket pods.
Missiles seen include YJ-91 ARM, CM-704, CM-705s
Munitions (A2A): PL-10, -11 and -12 + PL-8 is claimed to be standard for J-10s. Dual missile racks have been noted as standard carriage (4 medium range AAMs + 2 short range). There are no claims of HMS coupled for use with AAMs.
Performance and range: There is no data on how much fuel the J-10 actually carries though estimates appear to place it with a 500-600km combat radius. Not sure how estimates can be validated without fuel carriage estimates. Nevertheless, most of the time J-10s are seen with centerline or 2 external drop-tanks (similar to F-16s) so most estimates suggest similar range performance.
Parachute noted for shorter assisted landing distance.
Aerial refuel: Later version J-10s are AAR equipped and have been video-d for aerial refuel with H-6 tankers.
Situation awareness: J-10s are now noted to operate with AEW aircraft and appear to play aggressors against PLAAF sukhois.
Numbers: There are estimated 400+ J-10s in service with an estimated rate of production of ~30-40 units per year. This is based on number of units, engine procurement data.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5332
- Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
- Location: Parts Unknown
I disagree with the F-16 being hobbled with a 1970's design.
That design was the most futuristic dogfighter ever IMO. It's well known to be difficult to see, have excellent acceleration, thrust to weight ratio and capable of pulling a sustained 9g's. The upgrades over the years have really improved its BVR capabilities as well. It's "swing role" capability is unmatched IMO.
The J-10B may have been designed more recently, but I don't see it pulling more than 9g's sustained, as that's a limitation of the human body. And remember, the F-16's seat is reclined, allowing the pilot to more easily pull them. It's real advantage over the J-10B is the engine, with late model Pratt's and especially the GE engine delivering almost 30,000lbs of thrust in re-heat.
We're not talking about an F-4 here, or Mig-23 or even a Mig-29. The F-16 is vastly superior to all of those, and marginally superior to the J-10B. We have roughly 1,000 of them in service, with many more being flown by our allies. Thus, the F-16 enjoys numerical superiority as well.
I suppose you can knock the F-16 somewhere, but overall it's a competitive design even with today's 4th and 4++ designs. Put it this way: I'd rather be jumped by a J-10B than and F-16!!!
That design was the most futuristic dogfighter ever IMO. It's well known to be difficult to see, have excellent acceleration, thrust to weight ratio and capable of pulling a sustained 9g's. The upgrades over the years have really improved its BVR capabilities as well. It's "swing role" capability is unmatched IMO.
The J-10B may have been designed more recently, but I don't see it pulling more than 9g's sustained, as that's a limitation of the human body. And remember, the F-16's seat is reclined, allowing the pilot to more easily pull them. It's real advantage over the J-10B is the engine, with late model Pratt's and especially the GE engine delivering almost 30,000lbs of thrust in re-heat.
We're not talking about an F-4 here, or Mig-23 or even a Mig-29. The F-16 is vastly superior to all of those, and marginally superior to the J-10B. We have roughly 1,000 of them in service, with many more being flown by our allies. Thus, the F-16 enjoys numerical superiority as well.
I suppose you can knock the F-16 somewhere, but overall it's a competitive design even with today's 4th and 4++ designs. Put it this way: I'd rather be jumped by a J-10B than and F-16!!!
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
A canard delta design is not always better than a tailed design. And the F-16E or F-16C Block 50/52 is a full tactical aircraft.
Is the J-10B able to sport 3 fuel tanks + 2 2,000lb PGM as the Viper? I have yet to see it in that load out. And as the J-10 grows, it most certainly will gain weight.
The J-10B has an aspect ratio of 2.76, and a wing sweep angle of 50-52 degrees. And I believe that as the aspect ratio goes down, so does the lift slope. And that means a higher angle of attack is needed for a given lift.
The 2 countries with the most experience with deltas: 1.France (Mirage III, 2000, 4000) and 2. Sweden (Draken, Viggen) opted against deltas with overtly high wing sweep angles. Hence, the Rafale and Gripen have rather moderate sweep angles in the mid to upper forties. And they didn't need a "mini" redesign as the Eurofighter.
Just mating a 52 plus degree delta to a set of canards is not always going to make a superior aircraft.
Is the J-10B able to sport 3 fuel tanks + 2 2,000lb PGM as the Viper? I have yet to see it in that load out. And as the J-10 grows, it most certainly will gain weight.
The J-10B has an aspect ratio of 2.76, and a wing sweep angle of 50-52 degrees. And I believe that as the aspect ratio goes down, so does the lift slope. And that means a higher angle of attack is needed for a given lift.
The 2 countries with the most experience with deltas: 1.France (Mirage III, 2000, 4000) and 2. Sweden (Draken, Viggen) opted against deltas with overtly high wing sweep angles. Hence, the Rafale and Gripen have rather moderate sweep angles in the mid to upper forties. And they didn't need a "mini" redesign as the Eurofighter.
Just mating a 52 plus degree delta to a set of canards is not always going to make a superior aircraft.
Last edited by F-16ADF on 18 Apr 2017, 22:52, edited 1 time in total.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kvIBDObC4dI/U ... 0_bomb.jpg
Is the J-10B even able to load a 2,000lb munition on its intermediate pylon station? The F-16 certainly is able-
Is the J-10B even able to load a 2,000lb munition on its intermediate pylon station? The F-16 certainly is able-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PLzF_iIZ0_k/U ... -10+(J-10B)+Active+Electronically+Scanned+Array+(AESA)+RADAR+fc-20++People%27s+Liberation+Army+Air+Force+(PLAAF)++Pakistan+Air+Force+(PAF)+AL-31FSD-10+PL-12+BVRAAM+PL-8+10+ASR+HMS+IFR+(5).jpg
http://plarealtalk.com/wp-content/uploa ... nd-pod.jpg
Still don't think you can put a 2,000lb munition on that pylon (that looks like a 500 or 1000lb store); also that pylon is right in front of the elevon jack.
http://plarealtalk.com/wp-content/uploa ... nd-pod.jpg
Still don't think you can put a 2,000lb munition on that pylon (that looks like a 500 or 1000lb store); also that pylon is right in front of the elevon jack.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3067
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
If the 6 wing pylons are stations 1,2,3,9,10, 11, 3+9 should be rated at least 3000lbs since they carry 450gal drop tanks. 2+10 should be at least 1100lbs since 500kg lgbs have been sighted. 3+11 should be ~300lbs.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
The pylon next to the fuel tank pylon is what I'm talking about (it would be the middle wing station). The F-16 (even the A model) could still load a 2,000lb Mk 84 or similar. I highly doubt the J-10B is able to do that.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-adSJXKy4sI8/U ... ighter.jpg
That pylon-station is very tiny and is right in front of the outer elevon jack. I just don't think structure strength is there.
The F-16C Block 40/50/52/60 is a full tactical aircraft. It can carry 2 370 gallon fuel tanks, 2 2,000lb pmgs, 2 Aim-9, and 2 Aim-120, and I 300 gallon fuel tank. Other jets such as the Mig-29, Mirage 2000, and even J-10B are unable to exhibit a similar heavy load. The Mirage 2000 and Mig-29 have a very limited air to ground capability. And the Mirage is structurally pylon limited, meaning it is unable to carry 2 heavy fuel tanks and 2 2000lb bombs at the same time. The Mig-29's intermediate pylon can only carry a lightweight AAM.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-adSJXKy4sI8/U ... ighter.jpg
That pylon-station is very tiny and is right in front of the outer elevon jack. I just don't think structure strength is there.
The F-16C Block 40/50/52/60 is a full tactical aircraft. It can carry 2 370 gallon fuel tanks, 2 2,000lb pmgs, 2 Aim-9, and 2 Aim-120, and I 300 gallon fuel tank. Other jets such as the Mig-29, Mirage 2000, and even J-10B are unable to exhibit a similar heavy load. The Mirage 2000 and Mig-29 have a very limited air to ground capability. And the Mirage is structurally pylon limited, meaning it is unable to carry 2 heavy fuel tanks and 2 2000lb bombs at the same time. The Mig-29's intermediate pylon can only carry a lightweight AAM.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3067
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
The chinese don't normally use 2000lb munitions in any case so the issue is moot.
- Active Member
- Posts: 166
- Joined: 22 Jul 2015, 18:12
You can move the F-16 CG back further and get into a situation where the wings are the canards and the tail is functioning like a small wing, and the turn rates are much more advantageous then than canard configuration. It only is a matter of tuning and optimizing the aircraft weight and balance with a sophisticated control system
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 826
- Joined: 15 May 2011, 18:54
https://www.defenceview.in/chinese-j-10 ... -problems/
The J-10B and C use a different radar. This is apparently from brochure info
Compared with this info on the APG-80. It seems like the block 60 would have an advantage.
The J-10b radar is the one with IFF probes on it
https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/ ... 20.en.html
The J-10B and C use a different radar. This is apparently from brochure info
Compared with this info on the APG-80. It seems like the block 60 would have an advantage.
The J-10b radar is the one with IFF probes on it
https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/ ... 20.en.html
- Attachments
-
-
-
- CFC1118C-FE6F-49D4-8AF4-05A5E2698F09.jpeg (12.15 KiB) Viewed 1692 times
-
13 posts
|Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests