Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 05-29-2001, 02:34 AM
Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The Brink
Posts: 11,301
Pardon my posting, but I have a question...

Since the end of the Cold War, I know that some people in the U.S. have been able to buy MiG Fighters from cash-strapped former Soviet client states. Heck, I've even seen a couple of them flying (I'll tell you, It's a somewhat...Erie experience to see two MiG-17's afterburning over the Golden Gate Bridge, towards the city. But I digress). But I was wondering...what legal obstacles would you run into importing a flight-ready MiG into the U.S.? I've heard that they have to be rendered non-combat capable (Like having the cannon and missile launch systems removed), but are there any other restrictions? Are there types of aircraft that one is absolutely forbidden to own, like really new fighter types? And what about old AMERICAN fighter designs, like if you bought an F-4J from Japan, or something?

All, of these questions, of course, are ignoring the fact that one would need truly large amounts of cash to even MAINTAIN a jet aircraft, but hey, my flights of fancy have a pretty generous budget.

Well, thanks for listening, I hope I haven't managed to screw up horribly with this post.



Ranchoth
"Oya closed her eyes, and prepared to burn."
#2
Old 05-29-2001, 03:28 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Outn'a boonies
Posts: 1,015
I recall reading a rather brief article within the past, oh year or so? I referred to a privately-owned Phantom-II. The article said that it was the only totally-civillian-owned mach+ capable jet aircraft in America.

I'm not sure I believe that, or it's possible I misinterpreted the article.

Anyway, I also seem to remember that the Phantom had had it's "hard points" removed- the spots on the wings and belly that ordnance was hung from. As in the internal framework was removed, and presumably the wiring, release mechanisms, bombsights, etc. (The Phantom-II had no internal guns.)

Presumably the aircraft in question would have to be thoroughly "sanitized", with the removal of ordnance racks, gun mounts, etc, to the point where nothing COULD be hung or mounted there, without major reworking.

Not, of course, that you can just trot down to the corner store and pick up a sixpack of AAMRAAMs, a couple of Phoenixes and a GBU-8 in 30mm.
#3
Old 05-29-2001, 03:34 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 220
Good Question Ranchoth. Iíve been wondering about this too since last year when I visited Wright Patterson.
They have a MiG-23 on display in the air park. The plaque in front of the display mentions that it was purchased by someone in the U.S. but they didnít follow proper procedure to bring it in to the states, it was confiscated, and later donated to the museum.

The Wright-Patt web site doesnít go in to any detail about how they got the plane, but I thought it would be interesting to know the rest of the story.

I mean, wouldnít it suck to drop the cash for a MiG, and bring it home just to have it taken from you? I doubt that he was reimbursed in any way for it if it was confiscated as the plaque said.

I donít have an answer for ya, but I hope one of the boards aviation pros can shed some light on this.
#4
Old 05-29-2001, 03:40 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N/W Arkansas
Posts: 8,142
Fire power is not the real issue

Other than $$$$ it is flight safety. Yes, the guns and stuff must go, and the amount of advanced technology that is there is an issue, but the real hard part is that the birds are not always safe enough for the FAA to pass.

As civilians we are so sure that our safety is so important that we forget that the job of military fighting aircraft is to do a job, then and only then do they worry about the man coming back. The $$$$ the fighting platforms cost is also a good incentive now to get the things back for reuse but we are not talking about B-1 bombers here.

Sometimes it is hard to get these planes into an acceptable condition of safety. What usually happens is that they are in the 'experimental' category and that in itself has a lot of restrictions. Need money, time, good mechanics and of course, an available aircraft. It is a rich man's game.
__________________
My problem is I went to Catholic School for 12 years.
#5
Old 05-29-2001, 03:50 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 904
I saw a 60 minutes program once, where they went around looking for state of the art army helicopters. They found a few without weapons, but more worrying was that they also found a lot of people willing to fit them with all kinds of weapons for them.

It seems the US military does a poor job of deciding what is junk and should be thrown away or sold and what can be put to military purposes, I would imagine the Russians don't even try to make that distinction when they have garrage sales.

--- G. Raven
#6
Old 05-29-2001, 03:57 AM
DMC DMC is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,678
AFAIK, Larry Ellison owns one, but has been trying for over a year to import it. It seems the ATF has a bit of a problem with him having it.

There is a company (in Kansas, I believe) that owns an F-16 and an F-18. Both were "demilitarized" by the government, so this company has to actually put them back together. I think one is almost complete and has a deposit on it.
#7
Old 05-29-2001, 04:12 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the IP address space
Posts: 2,782
AFAIK, the "National Test Pilot School" and a company called "Flight Test Dynamics" each bought about half a dozen of Swedish-made "Draken" airplanes (Fighter/bomber, reconnaisance and trainer variants) when the Danish Air Force phased those out.

Presumably some have been cannibalized for parts, still I guess any left flying would qualify as privately owned supersonic fighter jets.

S. Norman
#8
Old 05-29-2001, 04:15 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the IP address space
Posts: 2,782
Yup - a pic from the National Test Pilot School website:

http://ntps.com/draken.jpg

S. Norman
#9
Old 05-29-2001, 06:26 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,664
Here are some pictures of privately owned fighter jets, including MIGs.

http://classicjets.org/fighters.html

I know where I could get a MIG-17, what I want to know is where the guy bought a Harrier!

Read their FAQ, it looks like you could pick up a used MIG for around $50,000, but it would cost more than that to get it airworthy and certified.
#10
Old 05-29-2001, 10:47 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 5,209
- - - Airplane magazines do stories on privately-owned military jets every now and then. A couple conditions I remember:
-Yes, they render all the weapons systems useless, but it isn't impossible to re-arm them.
-You don't have to be a military pilot to fly one, but to fly solo you do need an aircraft rating for that type of aircraft, and the only way to get on is to,,, -go through the military. Many of these rich guys pay military jocks to chauffeur them around, and two-seater jets sell for much more than single-seaters.
-You also need at least one mechanic rated for these types of jets, which means another military guy to pay.
-The planes themselves aren't really all that expensive (esp the old Soviet-bloc stuff), but getting them airworthy for US flight can cost way more than the purchase price. There are lots of cheap old military jets to be had all over the world, but most have (ahem) spotty safety records or no longer have viable parts sources. There were only a few good choices and lots of really bad ones.
-There were additional restrictions on how it could be operated also. - MC
#11
Old 05-29-2001, 03:38 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Northeastern US
Posts: 578
There's a guy at my airport who owns some type of MIG variant. He goes up to fly it about once a year. Not sure what he had to do to get it, but it's pretty damn impressive sitting in the hangar among the Cessnas and Pipers.

I also read somewhere the other day that Michael Dorn (Whorf from Star Trek) is an avid pilot, and that he owns a T-33 trainer, and an F-86 SabreJet. Guess the TV gig payed pretty well...
#12
Old 05-29-2001, 04:17 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 57,686
Actually, I ran into Michael Dorn...

At the Edwards AFB airshow last year. He wasn't performing; just hanging out. He said he sold his T-33 to buy the F-86 (which was very pretty, BTW). I thought I read somewhere that he sold his F-86 and bought a business aircraft, possibly a Mitsubishi.
#13
Old 05-29-2001, 05:53 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: H-Town, TX
Posts: 971
Also as I understand it, all civilian planes aren't allowed to go faster than Mach One in US airspace. Boy what are the fines and penalties of that. Do they scramble fighters to intercept if you do? Do they take you into custody?

I would just like to able to attend one of those surreal military hardware conventions. I would just act a fool. "So... tell me again why this Mig-25 is a better buy than a Saab Grippen?"
#14
Old 05-29-2001, 08:44 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2001
Location: St. Paul, MN U.S.A.
Posts: 429
One other item that needs to be deactivated is the ejection seat. It is illegal to have a functioning ejector in a private plane. The seat itself is a problem for some pilots since military seats are designed with survival gear and a parachute in mind. Without a chute under their bum some pilots are too low so see out the windscreen properly.
#15
Old 05-29-2001, 10:09 PM
Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 26,709
There's no prohibition against owning a mach-capable airplane. And there are lots of them in civilian hands. There is a private flight team that flies F-104's, which are one of the fastest and highest-flying jets in existance. The F-104 can do about Mach 2.5, if I recall correctly.

Jacqueline Cochran set all kinds of civilian records flying her own F-104 in the 1960's, at a time when it was still a front-line fighter. I think she had hers built from pieces of scrapped aircraft.

There are plenty of rules limiting Mach flight. Basically, you have to be over the ocean to do it, as I recall.

If you need a type rating for a military jet, it's a new regulation. I remember lots of talk about that a couple of years ago, because of the high accident rate. But I haven't followed the issue since then.

Anyway, even if you do need a type rating, all you have to do is find someone who owns a two-seat version of that particular aircraft and get typed in it. So you don't have to be military. And most popular military jets have two-seat variants available for private training, including the F-104.

That said, a military jet is a maintenance nightmare. They cost thousands of dollars per hour to fly, so they are definitely for the rich. There are a few cheaper jets around, mainly jets which were used for training like the Fuega, the Cessna T-37, and the Canadair Tutor (the airplane the Snowbirds fly). These trainer jets are much, much easier to fly and maintain, and might 'only' cost a few hundred dollars per hour to fly and maintain.

And to be able to fly one safely, you'd better have a few thousand hours of high-performance aircraft time, including a lot of jet time. And then you should be prepared to fork over tens of thousands of bucks to the guy who owns the two-seat version so you can get trained in it (even if you don't need a type rating, it would still be suicide for a private pilot to strap into something like an F-86 or F-104 without a LOT of training).

The initial purchase price is cheap - I've seen lots of jets sold for $100K or less. But so what? To fly the thing safely, you're going to need a full-time crew chief familiar with jets like that, lots of spare parts, a hangar, and the willingness to spend money when you have to (i.e. you can't get away with leaving repairs until the next annual, etc. If an engine shows signs of dangerous wear or damage, pull out your checkbook and write a cheque for probably more money than what you paid for the plane in the first place...).
#16
Old 05-31-2001, 05:43 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 5,209
Quote:
I saw a 60 minutes program once, where they went around looking for state of the art army helicopters. They found a few without weapons, but more worrying was that they also found a lot of people willing to fit them with all kinds of weapons for them. - Morrison's Lament
- - - I remember that show. The helicopters they found were Cobra helicopters which if I remember right weren't exactly state of the art. Cobras were used in Vietnam so they're hardly state of the art, but you could still do a lot of damage with one at the local shopping mall.
- As I remember, American guys were buying these things as scrap/skeleton airframes and re-assembling them- which was time-consuming but possible, because the military sold off not only the airframes as scrap, but most of the other parts you need to put one together. The military office in charge of this whole process simply saw that the aircraft were physically disassembled into a bunch of parts and then sold them - they didn't suppose that anyone would go to the trouble of sifting through all the piles of junk for sale to find the parts they needed to rebuild a whole aircraft (-To maximize the sale values, the military crews took the aircraft apart "carefully" by undoing bolts and screws: they didn't just cut it apart with a torch,,, -so all you had to do was find all the pieces and somebody who knew where they all went, and that person could put it all back together). After it was finished, the new owners were putting weapons mounts back on them for foreign-made weapons and then selling them to various suspect/terrorist groups who weren't allowed to buy helicopter gunships through normal channels. - MC
#17
Old 05-31-2001, 08:53 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 57,686
The ejection seat thing bugs me. I remember when the rule was passed several years ago, and I wondered about the logic. I mean, were the FAA woried that someone migh punch out and the plane would smash into a school of handicapped kindergarteners? Darryl Greenemeyer [sp] would be dead were it not for the ejection seat he had in his F-104. It seems stupid to remove a piece of safety equipment.

As for the Cobras. That pisses me off too. I mean, it's only an airframe. With a little work any aircraft can be fitted with weapons systems. You could take a door off of a Cessna and put a machine gun there. I think this is an overreaction my the Pentagon and by Congress, who are frightened by things that are "ugly". For example, a Ruger Mini-14 and a Colt AR-15 are funtionally identical; but many people want AR-15-type rifles banned because they are black and ugly, while leaving the Mini-14 alone because it is wood and blue. If a terrorist wants a helicopter that's "loaded for bear", he'll get it. There should be no restrictions on civilians who want to own a Cobra. As long as weapons (which are highly restricted) are not put on, it's just a helicopter. Cobras that already exist in the civilian fleet may still be owned and sold, but the military is not allowed to sell serviveable components any more.

I recall reading a few years ago that imports of ex-Soviet fighters has been restricted. I think the reason was that the government didn't want U.S. airspace flooded with obsolete MiGs.

Hey, if the government would stop chopping up obsolete U.S. aircraft, people who want jets wouldn't have to buy east-bloc equipment. And the government would get more money for intact aircraft than they would by selling the scrap metal. The demand is there. There are any number of pilots who would buy a surplus T-34C. Beechcraft marketed a civilian version of the T-34C several years ago (sans hardpoints), but there were no takers at the asking price of $1.2 million. Surplus T-34Cs would cost a lot less, the government would get a better return on their investment, and pilots would be happy.

I think it is a sin to destroy a perfectly good aircraft.
__________________
'Never say "no" to adventure. Always say "yes". Otherwise you'll lead a very dull life.' -- Commander Caractacus Pott, R.N. (Retired)

'Do not act incautiously when confronting a little bald wrinkly smiling man.' -- Lu-Tze
#18
Old 05-31-2001, 08:48 PM
Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 26,709
I'm with you. I 'own' a WWII era bomber - an Avro Anson. My uncle bought it after WWII. The Canadian airforce cut the spars to make them non-airworthy, and sold them to local farmers for $50 each. The farmers stripped them for parts. All that's left of this particular aircraft is a fuselage with scraps of cloth hanging off it. I put 'own' in quotes because my uncle gave it to me years ago as a joke - it's not worth enough to even pay to have it hauled out of the field it's sitting in.

When I think about the tens of thousands of fighters and bombers destroyed at the end of WWII I have to just shake my head. Many of these airplanes were excellent in civilian roles - the A-26 has become a workhorse water bomber, and I remember a few B-24's and B-25's being used years ago in commercial operations, before they became worth millions of dollars. For example, Tallmantz Aviation used a B-24 for years as a camera platform

So why didn't the military just remove the weapons and give the aircraft to local governments, or sell them at auction in flying condition?

A particularly egregious example of this type of thinking - years ago, Canada built a world-class fighter called the Avro Arrow. It was years ahead of its time, and full of radical new technology. But the Canadian government cancelled it (actually, they cancelled it for a good reason - it was designed as a high-altitude bomber interceptor, and became obsolete when missiles became pre-eminent). Anyway, the tragedy wasn't that they cancelled it, but that they ordered the Avro company to destroy both prototypes, all spare sparts, all dies and jigs for making more, AND all the engineering documents. This destroyed not only years of engineering knowledge that Canada could have used, but it also destroyed the morale of the engineers, who left the company and went mostly to the states, where they contributed tremendous innovations for U.S. companies. One of them helped develop the LEM for Apollo, others went to Grumman, or Lockheed, or other aerospace companies and gave them all the engineering knowledge Canada paid for.

This seems to be a purely governmental folly. Private companies don't readily destroy their own property. GM, for instance, still has every concept car it ever built, housed in a secure facility on the GM campus.

In the case of the Avro Arrow, the government probably had it destroyed for political reasons. If the prototypes and engineering knowledge had remained intact, there would have been constant political pressure to re-start production on what was Canada's flagship aircraft.
#19
Old 06-01-2001, 09:23 AM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Va
Posts: 2,187
Quote:
Originally posted by Chas.E
Here are some pictures of privately owned fighter jets, including MIGs.

http://classicjets.org/fighters.html

I know where I could get a MIG-17, what I want to know is where the guy bought a Harrier!

That's easy


He collected enough Pepsi Points.

*D&R*
#20
Old 06-01-2001, 11:25 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2001
Location: St. Paul, MN U.S.A.
Posts: 429
The U.S. government briefly allowed relatively current military aircraft to be sold to the general population. At the end of World War II there were around 7,500 aircraft (many brand new off the factory floor but with no war to fight) flown to the Kingman, Arizona, air base to be sold off. New Lockheed P-38 Lightnings were sold for $1,250.00. Other aircraft were available but I can only find the reference for the P-38 in "Pilot" by Tony LeVier (with John Guenther). Tony LeVier bought the P-38 to fly in air races and air show performances.
#21
Old 06-02-2001, 01:44 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Gallatin, TN
Posts: 21,676
Bob Lutz, former president of Chrysler has a Chinese built MiG that he flies for fun, as I recall. If you want to know where these guys get the planes, look on eBay! I've seen several military jets, both US and foreign for sale there. None come cheap, I might add. According to a program I saw on the Discovery Channel back in '93, it was possible to buy top of the line MiG's on the black market in Russia for $70! Don't know if its true or not, but it'd be real tempting to buy one and fly her home.
__________________
***Don't ask me, I don't post here any more, and I'm probably not even reading this now.***
#22
Old 06-02-2001, 01:14 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,847
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny L.A.
The ejection seat thing bugs me ... It seems stupid to remove a piece of safety equipment.
IS an ejection seat "safety equipment" if you don't have the training and carefulness to use it right? They do have explosives and rocket engines in them, after all, and people have been killed by monkeying with them. A kid who was foolishly allowed to sit in a fighter cockpit at an airshow in Pennsylvania in the 80's died accidentally punching out, for instance. Agreed that simply banning them instead of requiring proper training and maintenance is too ham-handed an approach, but the FAA has too-limited field inspection and enforcement capability as it is. Banning them outright may actually save more lives.

Quote:
With a little work any aircraft can be fitted with weapons systems.
True, but who in Washington wants to have to explain why they were willing to allow taxpayer-funded military technology to be sold to terrorists, druglords, and (that new bugbear) "rogue nations"? Logic and reason don't have much to do with it.

Quote:
I recall reading a few years ago that imports of ex-Soviet fighters has been restricted. I think the reason was that the government didn't want U.S. airspace flooded with obsolete MiGs.
Or perhaps that was to protect people with more money and ego than training or sense from killing themselves in airplanes that they couldn't possibly have hours or training in, or find people who did to take care of it for them.

Quote:
Hey, if the government would stop chopping up obsolete U.S. aircraft, people who want jets wouldn't have to buy east-bloc equipment.
It would still be a lot cheaper, though - there is a much larger supply, exchange rates are better, and sellers are desperate.

Quote:
There are any number of pilots who would buy a surplus T-34C.
Being trainers, they've taken a lot of beatings at the hands of student pilots. If you bought one, wouldn't you have to worry about how many hard landings it had taken and how much fatigue life was really left in the airframe?

Quote:
I think it is a sin to destroy a perfectly good aircraft.
Agreed, but one has to be cautious about calling any aircraft "perfectly good".
#23
Old 06-02-2001, 03:12 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 57,686
Quote:
IS an ejection seat "safety equipment" if you don't have the training and carefulness to use it right?
Yes, it is a piece of safety equipment. Most pilots tend to be very serious about flying. If you have the desire (and the money) to own an aircraft equipped with an ejection seat, you probably are going to find the training. As far as inspection goes, a lot of people use parachutes that have to be inspected and repacked from time to time. I think the FAA has plenty of resources to handle ejection seats. Furthermore, more people have been saved by ejection seats than have been killed by them. In my opinion, they would not be used very much even if a crash is a foregone conclusion. If someone spends a couple million dollars on a jet, he's likely going to do everything he can to "save the airplane" because is't his money and not the taxpayers'.
Quote:
True, but who in Washington wants to have to explain why they were willing to allow taxpayer-funded military technology to be sold to terrorists, druglords, and (that new bugbear) "rogue nations"? Logic and reason don't have much to do with it.
Most "dangerous" technology has export restrictions on it, so I don't think we need to worry about "rogue nations". They're likely to go for the cheaper east-bloc equipment anyway. If I were a terrorist, I would not use an aircraft that would attract attention. I'd use a Cessna or a Piper. But then, airborne attacks by terrorists would probably not be as effective as a truck full of explosives.
Quote:
Or perhaps that was to protect people with more money and ego than training or sense from killing themselves in airplanes that they couldn't possibly have hours or training in, or find people who did to take care of it for them.
A lot of pilots are killed by their egos every year. I maintain that a person who owns a jet is more likely to get advanced training and to maintain his aircraft better than someone who goes out and buys a Bonanza (aka "Doctor Killer").
Quote:
Being trainers, they've taken a lot of beatings at the hands of student pilots. If you bought one, wouldn't you have to worry about how many hard landings it had taken and how much fatigue life was really left in the airframe?
Aircraft are subject to periodic inspections. Do you think a Cessna 152 or 172 doesn't take abuse? T-34s were prohibited from aerobatic maneuvers after wing spars failed in a couple of them. (Remember, these are 50-year-old aircraft.) I don't know if the restriction has been lifted, but with proper repairs/maintenance there should be no problem. There are thousands of aircraft flying that have suffered fatigue and have been fixed. There are thousands of Cessnas and Pipers that have been abused by ham-fisted students, and they are still airworthy. Fatigue and abuse are not restricted to ex-military aircraft.

Also, look at all of the SNJ/T-6s that are flying around. Those were trainers that took a lot of abuse in their lives, and they are still flying.

Assuming I had the means to own, say, a TA-4J, you can bet that I would get the training and recurrent training to operate it safely. But I'd sure like to have an ejection seat just in case something catastrophic happens. I'd get the training, I'd learn to skydive, and I'd lose my hefty investment in the aircraft to save my life. I'd much rather have my legs and arms broken on ejection than I'd like to be ground to a pulp under tons of aluminum and steel.
#24
Old 06-02-2001, 03:30 PM
Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 26,709
Well, I'm firmly against blanket restrictions on aircraft ownership, but at the same time I have to admit that the accident rate in former military jets is apallingly high. In my opinion, the only thing that has allowed them to keep flying is that none of the crashes have been spectacularly public. But as soon as a private F-104 goes down in a city, or a big celeb like John Travolta or Cliff Robertson dies in an accident (Travolta flies a De-Havilland Vampire, and Robertson has a number of aircraft, including a Spitfire), then there will be a renewed clamor for more restrictions.
#25
Old 06-02-2001, 03:37 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 57,686
Sam Stone: Back in the early 1970s a civilian-owned jet (an F-86, IIRC) crashed into a Farrel's Ice Cream Parlour with some loss of life. My sister never did go to Farrell's again because she was afraid a jet might crash into it. (My sister is weird sometimes.)

The most recent ex-military crash I've heard of that damaged property on the ground took place several years ago at Santa Monica Airport. A P-51 lost power on takeoff and crashed into a house. Of course there were calls to close the airport. IMO if you're afraid of an airplane crashing into your house, you should not buy a house at the end of a runway.
#26
Old 06-03-2001, 07:35 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
If any of you guys run into an exmilitary plane owner let me know.
I'm buying a used aircraft carrier from Navy surplus for an import business in the Gulf of Mexico and I need air support.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: johnson vp mexican coke walmart spooks black private lingerie models sonare flutes trace beaulieu married learning bagpipe funeral rosary bagpipe rock song oven safe cups bartenders ring merovingian matrix akvavit glasses local dnd svu reddit alum cartoons stars pussys toddler chopsticks ungrounded light switch lassie well usc vs cfr hypnotic rape poontang means westminister chime sudden misaligned jaw bump in forearm lyndsey marshall coinmach reload patton slap polly gas history prevident 5000 reviews incall outcall escort peter frampton vocoder increase exponentially why is aluminum foil a good insulator stairway to heaven galadriel pixie pit scrabble game bela lugosi's dead meaning how many numbers in amex card west coast ball drop where to buy coal for heating is a steam washer worth it why do hummingbirds fight velvet worm for sale do chipmunks eat worms good lord willing and the creek don't rise origin nyc speeding ticket plea bargain charmed, i'm sure do you have to graduate to be considered alumni executive summary before or after table of contents en suite vs master bath ez pass didn't read what is japan movement watch do cats need a lot of space how do you shave in prison metal strip with holes is killing yourself illegal one windshield wiper works the other doesn't rush limbaugh xm sirius radio what race are italian you may pass another vehicle on the right if it is waiting to how to take a toilet seat off heaviest thing in the world lights turning on sound effect