Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby WG655 on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 10:34 am

WG655 wrote:FIA was far from a perfect show in 2016, particularly up against the likes of RIAT and Yeovilton. Why, therefore, does the review do nothing but praise? The criticisms offered seem fairly picky in the grand scheme of things.


You mean like UKAR's (F)RIAT review? :whistle:

WG655 wrote:Can the author of the piece confirm whether or not they had a press pass or if they really stick by those views?


Our reporter stands by his views, which he shares with many others; TIF caters both for enthusiasts and also "Joe Public", and has been largely well received by both camps. He also bought a ticket, deeming the show "worth putting a hand in his pocket"

WG655 wrote:A reminder of why UKAR is prepared to go against the grain where necessary rather than pander to the wishes of organisers in return for cheaper/free tickets.


Going against the grain by not providing a report at all? :whistle: In no way does TIF "pander" to the organisers in the hope of free tickets, this was simply our reporter's own judgements. Both our Cosford and Singapore reports were extremely critical.


Yes, it was made clear in our review that in the grand scheme of things the FRIAT issues were the only issues which affected the enjoyment of the show, and Andy was more than allowed to make that critique. My major concern is that your piece makes no mention of clear issues identified both in the run up to and during the event, such as the hugely watered-down weekend lineup and the increasingly restrictive box available for aerobatics. Reference is made to this, but more detail is needed if you're trying to aim these reports (even partly) at enthusiasts. Lots of the points read as rushed and simple - much of this could, hypothetically, have been written by someone who didn't attend given how topics are covered. It also talks about the "impact of the CAA" in very general terms - how did the reviewer feel it affected Farnborough in particular, what effect did this have on the enjoyment of the event?

Only trying to be helpful here as I know its not easy, the report could also do with an in-depth spelling & grammar check - lots of comma splicing in particular which limits the effect of the text that is written.

Has TiF ever utilised press passes for events it has attended, out of interest?
User avatar
WG655
UKAR Staff

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby lucas1860 on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 10:47 am

I did the report on FIA 2016.

I base my reports on a number of factors.

These include actually speaking to the public there to get their views, some are not AV nuts like us but families out for a day with the kids, some attend because they have corporate passes. Some pay to see a show because aviation is a passion.

The flying displays. They have been governed by the CAA this year and face greater restrictions on flying, to through criticism for doing their best would be wrong. There were some lets downs, the BBMF, but overall they flew within the confines of the show that day. So is it fair to down mark them for doing their best on the day? If all were crap then clearly the results would reflect that.

Static, although sparse, were hands on. I asked quite a number of people about this, they enjoyed it, some actually referred to RIAT as a let down.

The venue is good with easy access. You all know when you go how it is to get in and out. Get up early and be prepared for the exit times. It's been this way for years. To mark it down would be wrong. The only way around it would be to build a purpose made airfield in the middle of nowhere with entrance and exit routes on every point of the compass.

Organisation. My experience was sound, no issues in our out. There were many volunteers and guidance boards around for those not familiar with the show. So why would I mark it down for that?

Value for money. I think the crowds said it all. You could pay the same to see a premier side team or a pop concert, one lasts 90 minutes the other around 2 hours. This is an all day event. Those flying need to be paid, the aircraft need fuel. What would you say was fair?

I paid for the entrance ticket, grandstand and parking, £75. I gave my grandstand ticket to a man at the show. I did this is because I wondering around. I could have done what many do and find a secluded spot outside and pay nothing and get a show for free. I did have a pass......but still paid.

As with UKAR, we do this as volunteers, it costs money to attend even if you do get a pass.

What my I see another may not, so I do the report based on that. As I mentioned I also take on the views of others there. Isn't that what a report is about, what I see and what others think.

I look at images on here and could give critique all day long, it's their photograph. They are pleased with it. They took it. Isn't guidance better than moaning and doing nothing to make it better?

The reports are a general view, not all displays are reported on in depth.

Forums are fine, however, live reporting at the time and reports after are still a valuable piece of work. it's not easy and hard work, so to throw criticism at UKAR staff and others is fine, wear the boots then comment.

I'm not a journo, I'm an average Jo who likes to take images and videos.
Last edited by lucas1860 on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lucas1860

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby PeterR on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 11:02 am

Pringles wrote:I'd also like to point out that our Cosford report was written and published within a week of the show yet was still of a high standard, whereas the UKAR's equivalent has only just been published 2 months later.


Tin Hat on...

Google gives the definition of a review as; "a formal assessment of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary. Sometimes seen as a critical appraisal." That;s the difference between the UKAR reviews which are of a constantly high standard and those produced by other, less established websites. UKAR reports often give constructive criticism of the event, pointing out the flaws and highlighting the positives. This then gives organisers the chance to know what visitors enjoyed and what they should work on improving. On the other hand, a "review" which just lists the participants in order that they flew is of little use to anyone, and are boring to read. Even if the report comes 2 months later, which admittedly was an unacceptable delay, it's better for everyone for it to be a of high standard of writing, with a good assortment of images, and provide useful feedback.
PeterR

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby Pringles on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 11:11 am

Peter, we provide "reports" rather than "reviews", specifically because sometimes they sometimes don't meet the criteria you highlighted in your definition.
Last edited by Pringles on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
If life gives you melons then you're probably dyslexic
User avatar
Pringles

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby Pringles on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 11:15 am

Dan O'Hagan wrote:UKAR has never had blanket coverage of every show and piddling little fly-in, it has traditionally discriminated, hand-picking events worth featuring...

Dan I'm struggling to see your point? Are you suggesting it would be better to only report on a few shows every year, rather than cover a broad range of shows from big to small, in the UK as well as overseas? :question:
If life gives you melons then you're probably dyslexic
User avatar
Pringles

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby capercaillie on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 11:26 am

Pringles wrote:
capercaillie wrote:Quite what the photo of a USAF C-17 is doing in the RIAT review as well, I have no idea? :dunno: Quality stuff.

The C17 was part of the arrivals in support for the US aircraft on show, captured during the week; therefore is surely as justified as any photo of the F4s/C130s arriving?


Quote from the first line of the report. I attended the Saturday show, and as such, most of this report will be based upon my experiences that day.

I'm all in favour of featuring aircraft at the show from the arrival days, they are far more interesting pictures than statics. However the C-17 wasn't at the show, in fact it wasn't even present at the airfield during any of the public access days Wednesday to Monday. I maintain its a strange inclusion, particularly when you consider no image of Polish F-16, Omani CASA, Japanese KC-767, Australian Airbus, German special Typhoons, Canadian CP-140, Croatian Mi-171 and countless more relevant aircraft that were present?

As for the reporter's quote regarding the Breitling Wingwalkers, is not only rude and unprofessional, it is surprising how many of the general public you are so quick to include as important viewers when it comes to Farnborough, actually love the act. :dunno:
Fortunately, the following display recaptured the attention of those that hadn’t wandered off during the preceding tedious interlude, with the Polish Mikoyan MiG-29A, from 1 Eskadra Lotnictwa Taktycznego (1st Tactical Squadron) flown by Kapitan Adrian Rojek
"The surrogate voice of st24"
User avatar
capercaillie

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby TKK 140 on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 11:30 am

Dan O'Hagan wrote:
TKK 140 wrote:
Dan O'Hagan wrote:
TKK 140 wrote:I volunteer to report on Lt Gransden.


It doesn't work like that.

UKAR might decide to ask someone for a guest report, and the decision is made with standards of written English and photography firmly in mind. Geoff (st24) has been approached in the past, for example.

The standards UKAR set have been the highest over 20 years for good reason.



It could work like that, if no one from UKAR could attend a show, it could ask members to submit reports for a members report section or similar. That way it might also find some new contributors.


Somewhere where people can submit photographs and a write-up?

You mean, like, er, a forum? :roll:


Is it possible to post an article that is output from a desk top publishing package on the forums? :snack:

Reports on any show that others can't attend might be helpful to others. Lt Gransden is a very worthwhile cause, even if it is outside your bandwidth.
TKK 140

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby Pringles on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 11:42 am

capercaillie wrote:
Pringles wrote:The C17 was part of the arrivals in support for the US aircraft on show, captured during the week; therefore is surely as justified as any photo of the F4s/C130s arriving?


Quote from the first line of the report. I attended the Saturday show, and as such, most of this report will be based upon my experiences that day.

I'm all in favour of featuring aircraft at the show from the arrival days, they are far more interesting pictures than statics. However the C-17 wasn't at the show, in fact it wasn't even present at the airfield during any of the public access days Wednesday to Monday. I maintain its a strange inclusion, particularly when you consider no image of Polish F-16, Omani CASA, Japanese KC-767, Australian Airbus, German special Typhoons, Canadian CP-140, Croatian Mi-171 and countless more relevant aircraft that were present.


I wrote the report, however the inclusion of that photo was the decision of the overall editor. It was an interesting movement but I concede that a photo of a different arrival may be better. We're only human, we can make mistakes. I did however say most so we did include other bits, perhaps it would be worth adding a caption to clarify that the C17 was part of the arrivals/build-up period?

capercaillie wrote: As for the reporter's quote regarding the Breitling Wingwalkers, is not only rude and unprofessional, it is surprising how many of the general public you are so quick to include as important viewers when it comes to Farnborough, actually love the act. :dunno:
Fortunately, the following display recaptured the attention of those that hadn’t wandered off during the preceding tedious interlude, with the Polish Mikoyan MiG-29A, from 1 Eskadra Lotnictwa Taktycznego (1st Tactical Squadron) flown by Kapitan Adrian Rojek

I stand by my comments, I personally didn't find that period very interesting, nor did many of those around me. Have you considered that the demographic of the crowd at RIAT may be slightly different to the crowd at Farnborough?

The fact is, the two reports were written by two different people and we freely admit having differing opinions; I felt that the Wingwalkers were ill-suited to RIAT and I stand by it, but I also concede that their place is virtually assured given Breitling's sponsorship? I think it's important to add that whilst we do make our reports accessible to the general public, that doesn't mean we have to pander to what they like or dislike at an airshow, at the end of the day it is up to the reporter to make their judgement, as Andy did in his UKAR RIAT report and countless others do in theirs.
If life gives you melons then you're probably dyslexic
User avatar
Pringles

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby LN Strike Eagle on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 11:52 am

Pringles wrote:
Dan O'Hagan wrote:UKAR has never had blanket coverage of every show and piddling little fly-in, it has traditionally discriminated, hand-picking events worth featuring...

Dan I'm struggling to see your point? Are you suggesting it would be better to only report on a few shows every year, rather than cover a broad range of shows from big to small, in the UK as well as overseas? :question:

As stated, we'll review shows we're attending - I don't expect my team to be off somewhere every weekend with UKAR in mind. We'll take what's available from the plans people make with their free time and be happy with that. That's the beauty of UKAR - we don't need a formal review to shine a light on an airshow, because we have the forum to do that. Farnborough 2016 has had far more coverage on this forum (both months in advance and extensively post-show) from a range of viewpoints, than a review on UKAR's website or a This is Flight's website could ever manage. That's where our name comes from - it's a community of several thousand members that all have a voice, and an equal opportunity to state their opinion which is catalogued and archived and there for airshow organisers to consult with directly, should they so wish.

That applies to the smallest events too - there's discussion going on at the moment about Headcorn Combined Ops which has very little flying content. It wouldn't be worth a formal review, but it still gets coverage on UKAR because our users generate content. From Fairford and Farnborough to Headcorn and Herne Bay... that's a pretty broad spectrum on UKAR if you ask me.

With regards to overseas shows, they're a minor part of UKAR and its remit. We could function very nicely with no overseas content. Again, the clue is in the name.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"
User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby lucas1860 on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 11:55 am

capercaillie wrote:
Pringles wrote:
capercaillie wrote:Quite what the photo of a USAF C-17 is doing in the RIAT review as well, I have no idea? :dunno: Quality stuff.

The C17 was part of the arrivals in support for the US aircraft on show, captured during the week; therefore is surely as justified as any photo of the F4s/C130s arriving?


Quote from the first line of the report. I attended the Saturday show, and as such, most of this report will be based upon my experiences that day.

I'm all in favour of featuring aircraft at the show from the arrival days, they are far more interesting pictures than statics. However the C-17 wasn't at the show, in fact it wasn't even present at the airfield during any of the public access days Wednesday to Monday. I maintain its a strange inclusion, particularly when you consider no image of Polish F-16, Omani CASA, Japanese KC-767, Australian Airbus, German special Typhoons, Canadian CP-140, Croatian Mi-171 and countless more relevant aircraft that were present?

As for the reporter's quote regarding the Breitling Wingwalkers, is not only rude and unprofessional, it is surprising how many of the general public you are so quick to include as important viewers when it comes to Farnborough, actually love the act. :dunno:
Fortunately, the following display recaptured the attention of those that hadn’t wandered off during the preceding tedious interlude, with the Polish Mikoyan MiG-29A, from 1 Eskadra Lotnictwa Taktycznego (1st Tactical Squadron) flown by Kapitan Adrian Rojek


If you followed Twitter then you will see the the TIF report started on Tuesday with the inclusion of the C-17 and F-22 Aircraft arrivals late that evening. It all forms part of the report. It was an image captured as part of our report. Those not there on the Tuesday would have been unaware of its presence. the report does include the arrivals in the body, arrivals were from the Tuesday.
User avatar
lucas1860

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby Rampvan on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 12:03 pm

LN Strike Eagle wrote:.
With regards to overseas shows, they're a minor part of UKAR and its remit. We could function very nicely with no overseas content. Again the clue is in the name.


Yes thats what I thought too :whistle:
Last edited by Rampvan on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 12:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Rampvan

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby Pringles on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 12:04 pm

Thanks Dan, that's an interesting insight into UKAR's methods, and probably a good place to end this particular debate and return to the matter at hand. If anyone has any more comments about TIF, constructive or otherwise please don't hesitate to Private Message me through this site, or find us on Facebook and message us there. :biggrin:
If life gives you melons then you're probably dyslexic
User avatar
Pringles

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby LN Strike Eagle on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 12:05 pm

Rampvan wrote:I thought

I find that hard to believe.

See, I can quote selectively too.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"
User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby Dan O'Hagan on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 12:07 pm

I see Pringles has avoided Joe's direct question about whether press passes were issued to TIF.

Luckily, "lucas1860" above of TIF freely admits he is "not a journo" yet had a pass for Farnborough (yet claims, somewhat ludicrously, he paid £75 anyway).

High time airshows denied this blagged access to kids with bedroom websites chancing their arm, producing poorly-written "My Day Out" articles basically listing participation with no analysis, no narrative and no critique, which do NOTHING of benefit for the show they feature.
Dan O'Hagan

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby J.C Photography on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 12:12 pm

Dan O'Hagan wrote:I see Pringles has avoided Joe's direct question about whether press passes were issued to TIF.

Luckily, "lucas1860" above of TIF freely admits he is "not a journo" yet had a pass for Farnborough (yet claims, somewhat ludicrously, he paid £75 anyway).

High time airshows denied this blagged access to kids with bedroom websites chancing their arm, producing poorly-written "My Day Out" articles basically listing participation with no analysis, no narrative and no critique, which do NOTHING of benefit for the show they feature.


May I ask Dan, how did you get into journalism? How and where did it all start for you? Because we all have to start somewhere don't we? I assume you didn't join up with UKAR at the age of 16?
Last edited by J.C Photography on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 12:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
J.C Photography

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby Rampvan on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 12:16 pm

LN Strike Eagle wrote:
Rampvan wrote:I thought

I find that hard to believe.

See, I can quote selectively too.


Very adult reply from 'the big cheese' :clap:
User avatar
Rampvan

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby Dan O'Hagan on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 12:19 pm

J.C Photography wrote:
Dan O'Hagan wrote:I see Pringles has avoided Joe's direct question about whether press passes were issued to TIF.

Luckily, "lucas1860" above of TIF freely admits he is "not a journo" yet had a pass for Farnborough (yet claims, somewhat ludicrously, he paid £75 anyway).

High time airshows denied this blagged access to kids with bedroom websites chancing their arm, producing poorly-written "My Day Out" articles basically listing participation with no analysis, no narrative and no critique, which do NOTHING of benefit for the show they feature.


May I ask Dan, how did you get into journalism? How and where did it all start for you? Because we all have to start somewhere? I assume you didn't join up with UKAR at the age of 16?


https://www1.bournemouth.ac.uk/study/courses/ba-hons-multimedia-journalism

If you're serious, drop me a PM.
Dan O'Hagan

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby Pringles on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 12:23 pm

Dan O'Hagan wrote:I see Pringles has avoided Joe's direct question about whether press passes were issued to TIF.

Luckily, "lucas1860" above of TIF freely admits he is "not a journo" yet had a pass for Farnborough (yet claims, somewhat ludicrously, he paid £75 anyway).

High time airshows denied this blagged access to kids with bedroom websites chancing their arm, producing poorly-written "My Day Out" articles basically listing participation with no analysis, no narrative and no critique, which do NOTHING of benefit for the show they feature.

Press passes were issued, however in Jim's case he had already bought a ticket, at a cost of £75. It was up to the organisers to decide whether or not to offer a ticket, and if they felt we were not worthy of a pass they would not have made one available; I'd leave it to them to decide rather than worry yourself with such matters Dan.

For a "bedroom website" it is certainly interesting how much cooperation we have received from attending foreign air arms, in this case from 3 visiting nations to RIAT and one civilian operator.

This is beside the point, if you have any more grievances Dan please message me, so this Farnborough thread does not descend any further into an attack on a new and growing site.
If life gives you melons then you're probably dyslexic
User avatar
Pringles

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby capercaillie on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 12:48 pm

Pringles wrote:[
capercaillie wrote: As for the reporter's quote regarding the Breitling Wingwalkers, is not only rude and unprofessional, it is surprising how many of the general public you are so quick to include as important viewers when it comes to Farnborough, actually love the act. :dunno:
Fortunately, the following display recaptured the attention of those that hadn’t wandered off during the preceding tedious interlude, with the Polish Mikoyan MiG-29A, from 1 Eskadra Lotnictwa Taktycznego (1st Tactical Squadron) flown by Kapitan Adrian Rojek

I stand by my comments, I personally didn't find that period very interesting, nor did many of those around me. Have you considered that the demographic of the crowd at RIAT may be slightly different to the crowd at Farnborough?

I felt that the Wingwalkers were ill-suited to RIAT and I stand by it, but I also concede that their place is virtually assured given Breitling's sponsorship? I think it's important to add that whilst we do make our reports accessible to the general public, that doesn't mean we have to pander to what they like or dislike at an airshow, at the end of the day it is up to the reporter to make their judgement, as Andy did in his UKAR RIAT report and countless others do in theirs.


And there you go, all the article had to say, much more professional. For what its worth I found the Extra 330 that followed them worse as it was so far away, but she was undoubtedly a highly skilled pilot.
"The surrogate voice of st24"
User avatar
capercaillie

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby cg_341 on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 12:59 pm

Dan O'Hagan wrote:
J.C Photography wrote:
Dan O'Hagan wrote:I see Pringles has avoided Joe's direct question about whether press passes were issued to TIF.

Luckily, "lucas1860" above of TIF freely admits he is "not a journo" yet had a pass for Farnborough (yet claims, somewhat ludicrously, he paid £75 anyway).

High time airshows denied this blagged access to kids with bedroom websites chancing their arm, producing poorly-written "My Day Out" articles basically listing participation with no analysis, no narrative and no critique, which do NOTHING of benefit for the show they feature.


May I ask Dan, how did you get into journalism? How and where did it all start for you? Because we all have to start somewhere? I assume you didn't join up with UKAR at the age of 16?


https://www1.bournemouth.ac.uk/study/courses/ba-hons-multimedia-journalism

If you're serious, drop me a PM.

Shock as journalist has actual degree and relevant experience, not just a bedroom website. :clap: :clap:
cg_341

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby Harlequin67 on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 4:27 pm

Just to put some facts straight.

I did attend Farnborough, the shot of the Op Granby Tornado I put up was taken at the show on Thursday.

I attended only on a trade day, a very quiet trade day. I did not attend on a public day. I work very near Farnborough, so it was a walk from an office for me.

I didn't attend the whole day.

It was stated that UKAR was not at the airshow. A UKAR Staffer was there at some point, me.

I didn't offer to write a report on this day of the show for several reasons, it was a trade day, it was a very limited flying display, even for a trade day. No Gripen, no Typhoon, and no F-35B. Other items I can't remember were missing. I knew the static is very difficult to photograph, and I would not get the quality of shot a UKAR report needs. Not there for the whole day. I couldn't comment on any travel issues from a personal point of view.

If the other Staff members had asked for a report I would have provided something, the editing guys would have probably cried. :grin:
User avatar
Harlequin67
UKAR Supporter

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby john001 on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 6:23 pm

LN Strike Eagle wrote:
With regards to overseas shows, they're a minor part of UKAR and its remit. We could function very nicely with no overseas content. Again, the clue is in the name.


With the forum recently discussing the lack of UK shows and the the interest in the posts usually shown in attending the foreign shows maybe this is not the best course to take.... it could even be construed as being slightly arrogant. I for one look at the foreign shows news and the assistance of forum readers in getting to and from and the advice on locations etc as being one of the main reasons I look at this site.
john001

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby LN Strike Eagle on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 6:39 pm

john001 wrote:
LN Strike Eagle wrote:
With regards to overseas shows, they're a minor part of UKAR and its remit. We could function very nicely with no overseas content. Again, the clue is in the name.


With the forum recently discussing the lack of UK shows and the the interest in the posts usually shown in attending the foreign shows maybe this is not the best course to take.... it could even be construed as being slightly arrogant. I for one look at the foreign shows news and the assistance of forum readers in getting to and from and the advice on locations etc as being one of the main reasons I look at this site.

Arrogant? Give over. Foreign shows makes up one sub-section of UKAR's forum, and rarely more than a handful of website reviews per year. That's all I said.

I didn't say we would do away with it - it's obviously very important to some members and long may that continue. But it's not what the bulk of UKAR forum or website is aimed at or focussed on, is it? No.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"
User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby john001 on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 7:33 pm

LN Strike Eagle wrote:
john001 wrote:
LN Strike Eagle wrote:
We could function very nicely with no overseas content.



I didn't say we would do away with it - it's obviously very important to some members and long may that continue. .


Looks pretty contradictory to me.
john001

Re: Farnborough - a shadow of its former self?

Postby LN Strike Eagle on Fri 12 Aug 2016, 8:44 pm

Could and would are two different words with different meanings. English not your strong point?
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"
User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff

PreviousNext

Return to Farnborough International Airshow

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests