Irs Aircraft

Irs Aircraft - Under Section 274(e)(2)(A), a taxpayer may deduct entertainment expenses if the taxpayer treats the expense as compensation to its employee (e.g., a taxpayer spends $1,000 flying an employee to a sporting event but reports the $1,000 as wages

to the employee). Under Section 274(e)(9), a taxpayer can deduct entertainment expenses if the recipient is not an employee and the entertainment expense is treated as compensation for services rendered or as a prize or award (e.g., in exchange for painting his office,

Irs Aircraft

the taxpayer flies the painter on his plane but treats the value of the flight as compensation to the painter). Treas. Reg. § 1.274-10(e) provides the permitted methodologies for allocating expenses between the various individuals present on flights and creates a disallowance methodology that accounts for mixed use flights provided by an employer to its employees and independent contractors.

Federal Excise Taxes Fet

The 2023 NBAA Business Aviation Convention & Exhibition (NBAA-BACE) will return to Las Vegas, NV from October 17-19. Save the date and make plans to attend the biggest and most productive event of the year for business aviation.

Both private and commercial business aircraft operators pay Federal excise taxes (FET) either on fuel or on the transportation of persons or property. Learn about FET applicability, current tax rates, and best practices for collecting and remitting the tax.

Commercial aircraft navigation systems consist of processes which provide a positioning system to the aircraft. These positioning systems communicate with the onboard navigation systems. This communication allows the exact location of the aircraft to be identified.

In the memo, the IRS states that entertainment compensation exceptions in Section 274(e)(2) and (9) do not apply to sole proprietors because a sole proprietor is not an employee of the sole proprietorship and does not receive compensation and wages from

Can Irs Be Aligned In The Air?

the sole proprietorship. Instead, the IRS said a sole proprietor should use Section 162's primary purpose test to determine whether its aircraft related expenses are deductible. Accordingly, if the sole proprietor's primary purpose for the trip is business, the aircraft expense is deductible under Section 162 even if there are passengers on the aircraft who are traveling for personal reasons.

IRS systems require gravity to fully align. This means the aircraft must be on the ground and stationary in order for the IRS to align completely. This can be verified via the Weight on Wheels (WOW) system.

While a full IRS alignment cannot be completed in the air, limited components can be aligned utilizing a separate mode known as ATT. © 2023 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee.

All rights reserved. The IRS Large Business and International (LB&I) division publicly released a “practice unit”—part of a series of IRS examiner “job aides” and training materials intended to describe for IRS agents leading practices about tax concepts in general and specific types of transactions

Tax Cuts And Jobs Act

. For example, assuming that a spouse accompanies an executive on a business trip, the company may not deduct one half of the cost of that business trip (assuming only the two passengers are aboard), except to the extent that the amount attributable to the spouse's

travel is included in the executive's income. Generally, a corporation's actual cost of a flight will significantly exceed the IRS's standard industry fare level or fair market valuation amount that is includible in an executive's taxable wages for that flight.

Passed into law in December 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) has implications for business aircraft owners and operators. In addition to lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, the TCJA provides for immediate expensing of capital investments, repeals like-kind exchanges and makes a host of other changes that impact business aviation.

One key issue for business aircraft owners and operators is the income tax treatment of expenses relating to flights on board aircraft operated for both business and personal reasons. Under Treas. Reg. § 1.162-2(b)(1), a taxpayer can deduct the expense of such trips only if the trip is related primarily to the taxpayer's trade or business (the “primary purpose test”).

Irs Memo Sole Proprietors And Aircraft Related Expenses

If the trip is primarily personal, the traveling expenses are not deductible. Of course, the taxpayer can still deduct the expenses at the destination that are properly allocable to the taxpayer's business (i.e., the taxpayer cannot deduct the cost of flying to a family wedding but he can deduct the business meal he had with a client the night

before). The position of the aircraft in co-ordinates will affect the alignment time. This is due to the system determining the aircraft's position relative to the earth's rotation. The further from the equator, the longer the alignment time will be.

This is due to the difference in the earth's rotation at different locations around the globe. The earth's rotation is faster the closer the equator is and therefore alignment time will be shorter. The final regulations define a "specified individual" as any individual who is subject to the requirements of Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to the corporation or any subsidiaries of the corporation as well as any individual who would be

subject to the Section 16 reporting rules if the corporation (or any of its subsidiaries) were subject to these reporting rules. This would generally include officers (as defined for Section 16 purposes), directors, and 10% shareholders of corporations.

Overview Of Relevant Code Sections Section And Section

The IRS recently issued a legal memorandum addressing how a sole proprietorship determines whether it may deduct aircraft related expenses it incurs. In the memorandum, the IRS took the position that a sole proprietor should apply Code Section 162’s primary purpose test instead of using the expense allocation rules set forth in Treas.

Reg. 1.274-10 to determine whether such expenses are deductible. However, in a likely to be disputed move, the IRS also said that taxpayers still need to use a reasonable method other than the primary purpose test for allocating expenses for flights containing passengers being flown for entertainment purposes.

However, the IRS also noted that Section 274's general disallowance on deducting entertainment expenses may still apply even if the primary purpose for the trip is related to the sole proprietor's business. The IRS explicitly states that taxpayers cannot use the primary purpose test to allocate expenses between entertainment and non-entertainment passengers and that the use of such a method is not reasonable.

Instead, the IRS states that the sole proprietor must use a reasonable method other than the primary purpose test to allocate expenses relating to each flight between business and entertainment uses when entertainment passengers are on board the aircraft.

Irs Alignment

On IRS systems, there is navigational capability for the “Reference” component of the system to communicate with the navigation systems onboard. This communication includes providing speed, position and heading of the aircraft to the navigation portion of the Flight Management System (FMS).

Another critical issue for aircraft owners involves travel expenses of family members accompanying a sole proprietor on a trip. Under Section 274(m), a taxpayer generally cannot deduct the expenses of a spouse, dependent, or other individual accompanying the taxpayer (or an officer or employee of the taxpayer) on business travel.

Such expenses are deductible only if (1) the spouse, dependent, or other individual is an employee of the taxpayer or (2) their travel is for a bona fide business purpose and such expense would otherwise be deductible by the spouse, dependent, or

other individuals. Another key issue is the income tax treatment of entertainment related expenses incurred by a taxpayer. The Code generally bars taxpayers from deducting expenses related to entertainment activities. This restriction also prohibits deduction of costs pertaining to the use of an entertainment facility, including aircraft.

Note that the regulations permit a taxpayer to elect to calculate depreciation expenses on a straight line basis for all of the taxpayer's aircrafts for all taxable years for purposes of calculating disallowed expenses, even if the taxpayer uses another method to compute depreciation for other purposes.

In order to ensure that the sum of allowable and disallowed depreciation will not exceed 100 percent of an aircraft's tax basis, the regulations provide that the amount of the depreciation disallowance in any given year may not exceed the amount of the allowable depreciation for that taxable year

. Special transition rules apply for aircraft placed in service before this election was made. Despite commentator requests that the disallowance only extend to direct variable costs of operating the aircraft such as fuel and landing fees, or costs paid or incurred for aircraft leased or chartered to the taxpayer, the final regulations provide that expenses subject to disallowance also include fixed costs

such as hangar fees, pilot salaries, management fees, maintenance, insurance, registration, certificate of title, depreciation, interest on debt secured by or properly allocable to an aircraft and other items not related to any specific, individual flight.

The final regulations also rejected commentator requests for a charter rate safe harbor method for determining costs. Expenses of aircrafts of similar cost profiles may be aggregated to calculate expenses subject to the disallowance. Generally, Internal Revenue Code ("Code") Section 162(a) allows a corporation to deduct all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during a taxable year in carrying on a trade or business.

This generally would include the costs of operating company property, such as aircraft, used for business purposes. However, under Code Section 274, when executives or directors and other "specified individuals" travel on company aircraft for entertainment, amusement, or recreation purposes, a company's deduction is limited to the amount includible as compensation in such individual's income.

In the final regulations, the IRS rejected a proposed "primary purpose test" for determining whether a flight is for "entertainment, amusement, or recreation purposes." The primary purpose test would have disallowed only the additional or incidental costs associated with specified individuals traveling for entertainment purposes, if the primary purpose of the flight was for business purposes.

Under the final regulations, even if the primary purpose of a flight is for business reasons, the company may not deduct the portion of the cost of the flight allocable to specified individuals traveling aboard the flight for entertainment purposes.

The 2024 NBAA Maintenance Conference provides vital education and networking opportunities for anyone involved in business aircraft maintenance – from technicians to directors of maintenance. Stay up-to-date on the latest operational information critical to your job and connect with over 900 fellow peers.

Founded in 1947 and based in Washington, DC, the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) is the leading organization for companies that rely on general aviation aircraft to help make their businesses more efficient, productive and successful.

If you're interested in elevating your career to the next level, look no further than SDC2025. You’ll learn current best practices and trends from industry experts and fellow attendees through top-level education sessions and critical peer-to-peer networking to help you work smarter, not harder in the year ahead.

The 2024 NBAA Maintenance Conference provides vital education and networking opportunities for anyone involved in business aircraft maintenance – from technicians to directors of maintenance. Stay up-to-date on the latest operational information critical to your job and connect with over 900 fellow peers.

With an INS system, the above reference functionality is maintained along with the capability for data to be utilized for navigation purposes on a position to position basis. This system can provide lateral guidance independent of the FMS navigation system.

If you're interested in elevating your career to the next level, look no further than SDC2025. You’ll learn current best practices and trends from industry experts and fellow attendees through top-level education sessions and critical peer-to-peer networking to help you work smarter, not harder in the year ahead.

The IRS memo addresses how a sole proprietor determines the deductibility of expenses relating to the sole proprietor's ownership and operation of aircraft. The memorandum addresses sole proprietors who report their business activity on Schedule C to an IRS Form 1040 and who wholly own and operate a business in either (1) their own capacity or (2) through a single-member LLC which is disregarded as an entity

separate from its owner for federal income tax purposes. For partnership purposes, a specified individual includes any partner that holds more than a 10% equity interest in the partnership and any general partner, officer, or managing partner of the partnership.

Specified individuals of other partnerships that are under common ownership with the partnership will also be treated as specified individuals of the partnership. Ronald O. Mueller - Washington, D.C. (202-955-8671, rmueller@gibsondunn.com)Amy L. Goodman - Washington, D.C. (202-955-8653, agoodman@gibsondunn.com)Stephen W. Fackler – Palo Alto and New York (650-849-5385 and 212-351-2392, sfackler@gibsondunn.com)Michael J. Collins – Washington, D.C.

(202-887-3551, mcollins@gibsondunn.com) David I. Schiller – Dallas (214-698-3205, dschiller@gibsondunn.com) Elizabeth Ising – Washington, D.C. (202-955-8287, eising@gibsondunn.com) Sean Feller - Los Angeles (213-229-7579, sfeller@gibsondunn.com) Krista Hanvey - Dallas (214-698-3425, khanvey@gibsondunn.com) In addition, a "specified individual" is treated as using company aircraft if such use is provided to another individual because of his or her relationship to the specified individual and such use is a fringe benefit to the specified individual under Code Section 61(a)

(1). The memo is helpful since it confirms that sole proprietors should use the primary purpose test described above when making the threshold determination as to whether aircraft related expenses, including depreciation, are deductible. However, the IRS's statement that the primary purpose test is not a reasonable method for determining the amount of any disallowed expenses without providing another methodology for making such a determination leaves open the question of what methodologies the IRS will accept as reasonable.

Planning for the team's future is one of a leader's most important responsibilities. A solid plan makes it easier to navigate today's uncertain world and when priorities change or a crisis happens, a well-crafted plan will help keep the team on track.

Taxpayers are generally allowed to deduct all the ordinary, necessary and reasonable expenses paid or incurred in carrying on their trade or business. However, the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations contain special rules relating to the deduction of travel and entertainment expenses that are designed, in part, to prevent taxpayers from engaging in potentially abusive transactions that enable the deduction of otherwise personal expenses as business expenses.

aircraft irs systems, irs aircraft depreciation, airplane irs, inertial reference system aircraft, personal use of aircraft irs, airplane expenses deductible, irs airplane tax deductions, airplane tax deduction

J-12 Aircraft

J-12 Aircraft - In short, catapults offer substantially greater safety in launching heavily loaded fighter aircraft under a variety of conditions, and are required to reliably launch other aircraft types. However, the conventional narrative that ski jumps are “unable” to launch heavily loaded fighters is also untrue.

A J-15 (or indeed, a Su-33, or other STOBAR aircraft such as a Mig-29K) would indeed be capable of taking off at operationally relevant loads, including MTOW, but would face more stringent launch conditions than it would on a CATOBAR carrier.

J-12 Aircraft

As the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)'s first ever carrierborne fighter, the J-15 Fei Sha (Flying Shark) has been the focus of substantial English language and foreign media coverage since its maiden flight in August 2009. On cursory review of various Chinese fighter types, perhaps only the J-20 and FC-31 stealth fighters have received more foreign interest (and prompted a greater word count) than the J-15.

One of the most common critiques of launching tactical fighter aircraft from STOBAR are the limitations that a ski jump places on an aircraft’s takeoff weight and payload. CATOBAR, by contrast, enables an aircraft to launch at maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) and full payload.

This oft-cited comparison is not inaccurate, but is somewhat simplified, as will be described below. This piece will review some of the most common claims surrounding the J-15, specifically the payload and take-off weight of the aircraft, as well as consider the accident rate in context of the aircraft’s operational status and design.

I’ll also judge the comparative capability of the aircraft in relation to its PLA and worldwide peers, and review aircraft variants and future prospects of the type in context of PLAN carrier development. Specifically, claims that unreliable engines are the cause of supposed poor aircraft reliability only spark confusion, because all production J-15s thus far are powered by Al-31s, the same engines that power Russian Su-33s, and not China's domestic WS-10 engines.

Claims of irreconcilable mechanical or flight control system faults inherent to the aircraft seem inconsistent with the number of J-15 variants that were already visibly seen at the time when some of these articles were published in 2018 (at that time, the existence of test airframes for the twin seat J-15S, electronic warfare J-15D, and catapult testbed J-15T had all been confirmed), strongly suggesting PLAN confidence in the aircraft's flight performance and viability as an airframe, especially in the context of how risk averse the The PLA approach to weapons development and procurement is.

However, first it is necessary to address one of the most commonly referenced articles about the J-15, which has somehow found substantial circulation over the years. In 2013, a Taiwan-based news outlet called Want China Times (now defunct, though an archive of the original article remains available) claimed the Chinese military watching portal Sina Military Network criticized the J-15 as a “flopping fish,” for a variety of confusing reasons.

As mentioned, the J-15 takes off from carriers using a ski jump assisted STOBAR mechanism rather than catapult assistance (CATOBAR). The Chinese navy's current in-service carriers, CV-16 Liaoning (previously the Varyag) and CV-17 Shandong, both field ski jumps and the PLAN will not have a CATOBAR carrier in service until 003 is projected to enter service around 2025 or afterwards .

The procurement of the ex-Varyag from Ukraine to be China's first carrier, combined with the projected development time to achieve a mature catapult system (whether steam or electromagnetic, EM), effectively placed the PLAN on a path to adopt STOBAR aircraft carriers from the outset if it sought a carrier in the 2010s.

As an aircraft derived from a Ukrainian T-10K prototype, which formed the basis of the Soviet Su-33, the J-15 inherits the same airframe and aerodynamic configuration as the Su-33, though the original T-10K prototype was so fatigued that many key subsystems required development from scratch.

The J-15 in its current production form retains the same ski jump assisted short take off (STOBAR) mechanism to enable carrier launch. The current variant of the J-15 has seen a relatively small production by Chinese standards, with only 24 airframes produced between 2014 and 2018. Production of the same baseline variant restarted in late 2019, with a minimum of 10 further airframes confirmed at this point in time.

In the context of such intensive flying, the lack of dedicated trainer aircraft, and the J-15's status as an industry-first example of a fixed wing carrierborne aircraft for China, four accidents relating to the aircraft appears reasonable if not surprisingly low – especially as one of those accidents was a bird strike bearing no reflection on the aircraft itself.

Certainly, assertions of the J-15 aircraft itself being somehow inherently flawed and in need of imminent replacement seem incredulous at present as of early 2021, given the variety of aforementioned J-15 test variants, as well as the restart of standard J-15 Production from late 2019, and the expected production of a new CATOBAR compatible J-15 variant.

Four supposed accidents make up this record, of which two included airframe losses, with one or two of the accidents being fatal. While the disclosure of these accidents is open knowledge, the rationale and cause as reported in some outlets do not make sense.

Returning back to the J-15, the aircraft – again, similar to the Su-33 – enjoys an MTOW of 33 tons and an external payload of 6.5 tons. Statements from credible Chinese insiders with demonstrated track records suggest that contrary to mainstream reporting, the J-15 is actually capable of taking off from the Liaoning or Shandong with full MTOW – but with preconditions.

Recall that the J-15 is the first-ever carrier capable aircraft of the PLA. It first flew in 2009, and first landed on a carrier in 2012, in the context of a navy and nation that prior to that point had no fixed-wing naval aviation experience.

That is to say, not only is the individual aircraft itself new, but it represents an entirely new category of aviation for China in general. Furthermore, the 24 production airframes produced up to that point in 2018 were likely among the most intensively flown aircraft in the entire PLA's combat aircraft fleet in that period, operating as a seed fleet to develop tactics, techniques, and procedures for the burgeoning naval aviation force and carrier doctrine, as well as flying intensively to qualify new naval aviators given the lack of dedicated carrierborne training aircraft.

J-15s may one day be photographed taking off from Liaoning or Shandong with a full weight payload, but given how rare it is for even land-based PLA fighter aircraft to be seen carrying full loadouts, this may or may not eventuate;

Indeed, such loadouts are rare for peacetime exercises. Even if such a visual was captured on film, it is likely that individuals skeptical of STOBAR may question the internal fuel load of an aircraft taking off from a ski jump with a heavy payload regardless.

Therefore this is likely to remain an open question for the long term. Some of the reporting on the J-15 could be described as controversial, or somewhat misinformed. However, this is not unreasonable, given the history and technical characteristics of the aircraft, as well as the J-15’s somewhat unique role in the context of overall PLAN carrier development efforts as the Chinese navy’s first carrierborne fighter in general.

Specifically, the MTOW of the aircraft depends on carrier speeds, which in turn generate headwinds. At an operational speed of 28 knots, the J-15 can take off from the long waist launch position at 33 tons and the two forward launch positions at 28 tons.

At a slower speed of 20 knots, the J-15 can takeoff from the waist position at 31 tons. An inspection of Russian literature regarding the development of the Su-33 further confirms that the aircraft was indeed capable of taking off from a carrier with a full MTOW consistent with descriptions of the J-15’s takeoff profiles.

This should prove unsurprising given production J-15s are powered by the same Al-31 engines fielded on the original Su-33s, but would have been produced some two decades after the first Su-33 airframes, with likely benefits in materials advancement.

As a learning opportunity, for individuals unfamiliar with PLA watching (or indeed, navigating the vast ocean of Chinese language internet portals in general): Sina, and the affiliated Sina Military Network, is a non-state media network whose functions include aggregation of blog posts from any number of user-submitted content.

The unironic citation of a random post on Sina Military Network as a credible source is the rough equivalent of citing a random post on Yahoo Answers, Quora, or Reddit as the basis of a news story.

Online sourcing can be very useful if done correctly, and indeed much leading-edge PLA watching relies on an ability to accurately identify, cross-examine, and track sources and rumors over time. However, a minimum level of discipline and competency in identifying credible sources is necessary to make this work, which does not appear to have been met in this specific instance.

However, the ability to takeoff from a STOBAR carrier with full MTOW does not mean the STOBAR launch mechanism is comparable or preferable to CATOBAR in terms of launch flexibility. Ski jumps require a certain level of carrier headwind for an aircraft to be launched at given requisite loads, while catapults offer substantially more flexibility for the carrier’s own navigation.

Ski jumps also present more risk in the event of an engine failure during launch compared to catapults, and catapults enable the launch of other aircraft types such as airborne early warning aircraft (AEW&C) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), among others.

For some peculiar reason, the article from Want China Times has been replicated in multiple other outlets over the years, including as recently as 2020. The quotations cited by various articles all find their roots in the “Sina Military Network” source, with some outlets describing it as “Beijing based” or “state media,” without any reflection as to the status of Sina, nor any assessment of the veracity (or indeed the basic arithmetic) of the claims.

J 7 Aircraft

J 7 Aircraft - Meanwhile, the jet crash on Thursday was the third aircraft mishap in China since March of this year. A passenger plane carrying 122 people from Tibet Airlines skidded off the runway and caught fire during take-off in China's southwest Chongqing city last month, injuring over 40 people.

Nonetheless, political pressure for China to develop its own supersonic fighter led to mass production by the 1980s — just as the third-generation MiG-21 design was being rendered obsolete by fourth-generation fighters such as the F-16 and MiG-29.

J 7 Aircraft

The J-7 is a single-engine, lightweight fighter aircraft designed and manufactured by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) of China. Its design is based on its predecessor, the MiG-21 aircraft. The export version of J-7 has been designated the F-7.

Performance Of J- Fighter Aircraft

This would be the equivalent of the US military operating F-35 stealth fighters alongside 1960s-vintage F-4 Phantoms. "The retirement of the J-7s would mark the full shift to fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft for the PLAAF," Rod Lee, research director for the US Air Force's China Aerospace Studies Institute, told Insider.

On March 12, an Eastern Airlines plane crashed into a mountainous area in the southern Guangxi Zhuang region. The crash killed all 132 passengers and crew on board, making it the country's biggest flight catastrophe in decades.

Firefighters directed water hoses onto a mound of rubble at the side of what appeared to be a three-story building in one footage released online. Laohekou Airport is used to train new fighter pilots from the Central Theater Command Air Force.

The decommissioning of the J-7, which began in 2018, also marks a transition for Chinese airpower. China has been fielding advanced Chinese-designed aircraft such as the J-16 fighter and the J-20 stealth fighter, as well as newer Russian imports such as the Su-27 and Su-30.

Orders And Deliveries

Interestingly, Global Times described the J-7 as "the first supersonic fighter jet developed by China that can reach Mach 2." The article neglected to mention that the J-7 is a copy of the Soviet MiG-21 (NATO codename: "Fishbed") that China partly reverse-engineered.

The early J-7 (NATO code name: "Fishcan") was a disappointment, according to Rupprecht: "It had a very limited internal fuel capacity and thus limited range. With only one gun, its firepower was less than adequate. It was

troubled by poor reliability, and its ejection seat had severe flaws." “Laohekou Airport is now mainly used as a training site for new fighter pilots from the Guangzhou Military Region Air Force. The airport, which has a 5,960-metre runway, stopped serving civil aviation routes after the Liuji Airport in Xiangyang opened in 1989,” South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported.

The avionics system incorporates a HUDWAC (head-up display and weapon aiming computer) supplied by GEC-Marconi and global positioning system by Garmin and a navigation and bombing system. It also features a multi-mode pulse-Doppler Super Skyranger radar that provides a full look-down/shoot-down capabilities and offers target range, range rate, and line-of-sight data to the avionics system.

The J-7/F-7 is armed with two 30mm cannons, which can fire munitions at the rate of 60 rounds a minute. The aircraft has five hardpoints, four of which are located under the two wings and one beneath the centreline fuselage section.

The J-7 was developed into more than a dozen variations throughout the course of its 48-year production run. After improving the technology of the original versions into the J-7PG and J-7BG series for Pakistani and Bangladeshi air forces, Chengdu created trainer derivatives of the aircraft for domestic Chinese usage, which were provided to both the PLA Air Force and the PLA Naval.

Air Force. Two J-7 fighter jets attached to an aviation brigade of the air force under the PLA Western Theater Command take off simultaneously for a live-fire flight training exercise on March 22, 2018. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Xi

Bobo and Cao Jiang) The J-7 also became prominent as the F-7 (NATO code name: "Airguard"), an export version to nations looking for a cheap, simple fighter without too many strings attached. Pakistan became the biggest non-Chinese user and still operates 66 F-7s, according to The Military Balance.

Other users have included Albania, Egypt, Iraq, Zimbabwe, and Iran. The delivery of technical documents to Shenyang Aircraft Factory was, however, not carried out due to deteriorating relations between Beijing and Moscow. This allowed the company to develop its own version of the MiG-21 through a reverse engineering process.

The Chinese-made MiG-21 was developed in March 1964 and initially known as Type 62. It was later redesignated as the J-7 (Jian-7). Through reverse engineering, the company was able to produce its own version of the MiG-21.

The Chinese-made MiG-21 was first known as Type 62 when it was developed in March 1964. It was later renamed the J-7 (Jian-7). In 2021, China flew four J-7s in exercises near Taiwan. This surprised observers, who questioned why old J-7s — which the Taiwanese have dubbed "grandpa jets" — were flying alongside modern J-16 fighters.

This led to speculation that the J-7s had actually been converted into drones. While the J-7 pilot ejected safely, the crash led to an explosion near the Laohekou airport. Multiple videos shared on Chinese social media Weibo purported to show that some houses near the crash site were substantially damaged and engulfed in fire.

"The cost of converting legacy aircraft into UCAVs is relatively low, but they retain many of their manned-variant characteristics," Daniel Rice, a non-resident fellow at the Mitchell Institute, wrote in a recent paper. "Converted airframes have the same performance, maneuverability, and payload capacity as the original platforms. They also reduce the risk of casualties in combat."

The J-7 can climb at the rate of 155m/s, while the maximum and cruise speeds of the aircraft are 2,120km/h and 1,200km/h respectively. Its combat range is 850km. The ferry range of the J-7 is 2,000km and the aircraft can fly to a maximum altitude of 17,800m.

At the same time, China has about 350 J-7s and J-8s (a J-7 derivative) used by the Chinese air force, plus another 24 J-8s operated by the Chinese navy, according to The Military Balance 2022, published.

by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. (Between its air force and navy, China now has the world's third-largest aviation force, according to the Pentagon.) The Chengdu J-7 is a single-engine, lightweight fighter jet produced by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation and derived on its antecedent, the Soviet Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21.

The export variant of the aircraft is labeled as F-7. The aircraft was primarily built to target the needs of the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). From 1993 to 2013, over 2,400 Chengdu J7s were produced.

In May 2013, aircraft production ended. The aircraft is armed with 2×30 mm Type 30-1 cannons (60 rounds per gun). It has five hardpoints in total, four below the wing, and one below the centerline fuselage.

It is also equipped with a 55mm rocket pod (12 rounds) and a 90mm rocket pod (7 rounds). The aircraft is fitted with various air-to-air missiles and 50kg to 500kg of unguided bombs. In August 2005, the Namibian Air Force ordered 12 F-7NM aircraft.

And the Nigerian Air Force acquired 12 F-7NI fighters and three FT-7NI trainers from CAC in 2008; the first batch of aircraft was delivered in December 2009. Further F-7 orders include those from the Sudanese Air Force (22), Egyptian Air Force (90), Tanzanian Air Force (16), Yemen Air Force (18), Air Force of Zimbabwe (24), Islamic Republic of Iran Air.

Force (24), Myanmar Air Force (64) and the North Korean Air Force (40). It can carry a payload of up to 2,000kg. The J-7 is fitted with PL-2, PL-5, PL-7, PL-8, PL-9, Magic R.550 and AIM-9 air-to-air missiles (AAM), unguided bombs weighing 50kg to

500kg, a 55mm rocket pod and a 90mm rocket pod. The airframe of the J-7 was tested in November 1965 and the aircraft completed its maiden flight in January 1966. The J-7 was certified as an operational aircraft by the Chinese Military in June 1967. J-7s were produced at the rate of

14 aircraft per month during 1989. Despite the termination of production in 2008, the J-7 is currently in operation with a number of air forces worldwide. The Chengdu J-7 is a Chinese license-built version of the Russian supersonic jet Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21.

The aircraft was produced from 1965 to 2013 and remains in service mostly as an interceptor aircraft in various air forces, which includes the People's Liberation Army Air Force. The manufacturing company developed fifty-four versions of the J-7 in order to be suitable for the PLAAF.

Two of the J-7 versions were built by the CAC, which included an indigenous Chinese version and an export version. Around twenty-eight domestic versions and twenty-six export versions are in service around the world. In the last few years, several Chinese fighter planes have crashed during training flights.

For instance, in 2015, a PLAAF pilot safely ejected only minutes before his plane went down a hillside. A military pilot died two years earlier when his fighter aircraft crashed during night training in eastern Zhejiang.

The Chengdu J-7 was an all-weather interceptor built to conduct ground attack missions. The delta wings allow the aircraft to climb to higher altitudes and fly at supersonic speeds. It is designed with a small airframe and robust engines and it is solely good enough for point-defense because of its smaller range capabilities.

j 7 fighter, chengdu f 7, chengdu j 7, chinese j7, list of all airplanes, j 7e, air force rj aircraft, j 7 fighter jet

J&M Aircraft Supply

J&M Aircraft Supply - Please make sure that Javascript and cookies are enabled on your browser and that you are not blocking them from loading.

Prices and descriptions are subject to change, and all current prices are in USD. Please note that all product images in this website are categorized for easy reference only, actual products may differ in appearance to images shown. Aircraft Supply & Repair, Inc. Copyright 2016 All rights reserved.

J&M Aircraft Supply

j&m aircraft supply shreveport, flight instruments for sale, j and m aircraft, j and j aircraft parts, aircraft parts supplier, aircraft parts, aircraft parts catalog, aircraft spruce

Italian Aircraft Carrier Aquila

Italian Aircraft Carrier Aquila - With the end of the war in August 1945, the warship finally stood up in 1946 and was transferred to La Spezia in 1949. There, she was scrapped in 1952, and the story of Italy's first aircraft carrier ended with a rather bland ending.

kts = knots | mph = miles-per-hour | nm = nautical miles | mi = miles | km = kilometers1 kts = 1.15 mph | 1 nm = 1.15 mi | 1 nm = 1.85 km

Italian Aircraft Carrier Aquila

The converted vessel of conventional design and propulsion displaces 24,000 tons under standard load and reaches 28,200 tons under full load. It has a barrel length of 772.7 feet from bow to stern, a beam of 98.4 feet and a draft of 23.10 feet.

The Armor

Self-defense armament consists of 8 x 5.3" (135 mm)/45 caliber main guns and 12 x 2.56" (65 mm)/64 caliber secondary guns. Up to 132 x 20 mm/65 caliber anti-aircraft guns (AA) are planned as the last line of defense.

Initially, Aircraft carriers were a heavily debated topic in the Italian Navy. Mussolini didn’t see much point in building carriers as he was expecting conflicts to mostly happen in the Mediterranean, close enough for land-based aircraft to strike.

However, shortly after Italy entered World War II, plans were made to convert the aging liner into an auxiliary aircraft carrier. After multiple defeats and with the Raid on Taranto to rub salt on the wounds, it was decided to go for a much more ambitious plan.

SS Roma would undergo a full conversion into a fleet carrier and the ship was renamed Aquila as the battleship Roma was under construction at the time. While Aquila might appear as a not particularly appetizing ship due to her planes having the lowest HP pool of all tier VIII aircraft, let me tell you that there is a bit more than meets the eye.

Final Opinion

The armor protection of Aquila is about as tough as lasagna pasta, especially when it comes to the citadel that, on top of that, sits high above the waterline. If you get spotted and there are battleships in range, you can start praying.

The torpedo bombers of Aquila can almost be summarized as the budget version of those on Shokaku. Each attack run is done by two planes at a time and the spread is very tight. The torpedoes also have high damage per hit and one of the highest flooding chances for airborne torpedoes.

While these torpedo bombers lack the squadron size or the survivability of those of Shokaku, they compensate by the size of the reserves, the restoration speed as well as the speed of the planes, allowing you to quickly cycle squadrons.

Another gimmick that they have is their capacity to make full turn while being on attack mode. For those who played Franklin D. Roosevelt, it's the same thing. This is particularly useful when you need to strike a ship by surprise while its hiding behind an island.

Aquila Story

Overall, Aquila ends up being a decent premium. While she suffers from fragile planes that will not forgive you for a poor target selection, her damage output is quite good, may it be by T-posing light cruisers with rockets or getting solid drops with the torpedo bombers.

Like other carrier battleships of the period, the Aquila was built on the frame of an existing ship, in this case the transatlantic passenger liner SS Roma. This has proven to be a sensible and cost-effective measure to bring the vessel into service in the shortest possible time.

In World of Warships, Aquila appears as she would have been completed. She carries fast planes with either torpedoes dealing high damage and with high flooding chances or large numbers of AP rockets with low damage per unit.

Aquila (Italian for "Eagle") was an Italian aircraft carrier converted from the trans-Atlantic passenger liner SS Roma. During World War II, Work on Aquila began in late 1941 at the Ansaldo shipyard in Genoa and continued for the next two years.

With the signing of the Italian armistice on 8 September 1943, however, all work was halted and the vessel remained unfinished. Aquila was eventually scrapped in 1952. To begin with, the ship has high reserves as well as a short restoration time.

It isn't Kaga or Enterprise level of forgiveness but combined with pre-dropping and smart target selection, Aquila will be able to handle even tier X matchmaking. Another thing to keep in mind is that both the Attack aircraft and the Torpedo bombers are some of the fastest planes at this tier.

This not only reduces the time you will spend inside of the AA range of enemy ships but will lead to short downtimes between strikes. No matter what though, managing the reserves carefully and determining what target to go for will be vital and don’t make me start talking about dodging flaks.

There were 1,420 personnel on board, including 107 officers. Armor protection includes 3.1 inches on deck. A maximum of 50 to 60 fighter jets can be carried on board - although 35 to 45 is considered more realistic due to the expected smaller hangar space during the conversion.

The Attack aircraft of Aquila are very unique in terms of behavior. Firstly, compared to other AP rockets, those of Aquila are able to slap destroyers pretty hard thanks to the low arming threshold and short fuse time.

Obviously, due to the attack distance, the destroyer needs to be spotted in advance but when the guy is lit, you can easily get 4 or 5k damage per drop. Both the Kingdom of Italy and Germany neglected aircraft carriers in their respective navies at the time - resulting in a serious lack of firepower at sea.

The Aquila is the first and only aircraft carrier type considered/handled by the Italian government. Sadly, as she was approaching completion, things would meet an abrupt end as Italy surrendered to the Allies on the 8th of September 1943. German forces took control of the ship and she was damaged in June 1944 by Allied bombings on Genoa.

To prevent her from being used as a blockship, a commando frogman unit was sent by the Italians to scuttle the ship on a safe location in April 1945. The ship is also saved from being completely forgettable by the high speed of her planes as well as her strong reserves.

In the end, in my opinion, she is more than fine for random battles but definitely not as your first carrier. The Aquila was never launched, and her construction was not complete enough to be considered worthy of a fight.

Some basic static tests were carried out on her in 1943, but with the surrender of Italy on September 8, 1943, progress came to a complete halt. The Germans then moved into the occupation hull, so the ship became a prime target for Allied aerial bombardment.

It was damaged by aerial bombs when the Allies attacked Genoa on June 16, 1944. To further limit her value, Italian "frogmen" loyal to the new government attacked the ship on April 19, 1945, partially sinking it.

For the Italian Navy in World War II, battleships remained the core of their power projection in the Mediterranean, while major powers such as the United States and Britain relied heavily on aircraft carriers to power it, Fight the enemy wherever it is.

Italy's first aircraft carrier project only took place in 1941, when the war was in full swing. Installed power comes from 8 boiler units feeding 4 stern shafts for 4 geared steam turbines rated at 151,000 hp.

This gives the ship a top speed (under ideal conditions) of 30 knots and a range of up to 6,300 miles. These specs suggest a well-behaved ship for the Mediterranean theater. Generally speaking, the Torpedo bombers will be your main loadout.

Thanks to their tight spread and the agility of the planes, they will be very effective against both battleships and cruisers. If you feel extra confident, you can even go for destroyers with them. The Attack aircraft are rather niche as they are mainly designed to deal with thinly armored cruisers or, if it's possible, destroyers.

Aquila will be available starting from the 22nd of July in the Armory for a minimum of 12,300 doubloons or in the Premium Shop for a minimum of €40.46. Is she worth it? Are her squishy planes able to pull their own weight in battle?

Here is my opinion. Due to the origin of the hull, her armor protection was particularly thin with, at best, 80 mm platings protecting the magazines and fuel tanks. A layer of up to 8 cm of concrete was also added to the bulges to work as splinter protection.

The machinery was completely replaced and went from 36,000 horsepower to 151,000 horsepower. Her old engines were replaced by those of the Capitani Romani class ships Cornelio Silla and Paolo Emilio, both under construction at the time.

The hull was also lengthened to take advantage of the stronger engines. In total, she was planned to be able to carry 51 aircraft. Due to Aquila lacking any sort of long-range AA, she is fairly vulnerable to enemy planes.

If there is a CV that wants you dead, especially with the lack of armor, it will not go well for you. Other than that, they are heavily focused on dealing with thinly protected light cruisers as the penetration is nowhere near sufficient to get citadels on anything bigger.

Thankfully, you aren't completely naked against larger ships. Due to the large number of ordinances that get launched at the target, you will still get big chunks of damage out of pure penetration damage.

aquila class carrier, sparviero aircraft carrier, aquila world of warships, italian aircraft carrier designs, italy aircraft carrier, italian aircraft ww2, italian ww2 aircraft carrier, italian carrier ww2

J Aircraft

J Aircraft - According to some sources the J-18 nomenclature was reportedly the "Snowy Owl" stealthy JSF-type aircraft. Details about the Chinese J-18 project are speculative. Chinese authorities have not formally released information on these developments. The "J-18" might simply be the J-15 Chinese copy of the Su-33 that appeared in a naval paintjob around the same time the J-18 rumors surfaced.

But China might still need some time before a STOVL fighter jet was built, Chinese military observers said in June 2019. If China was to develop such aircraft, it needs to make reliable engines that are capable of not only providing thrust, but also lift,

J Aircraft

together with lift-providing devices in the middle of the aircraft, like lift fans, Wei Dongxu, a Beijing-based military analyst, told the Global Times 16 June 2019, noting that flight control systems could also be very complicated.

J- Red Eagle Vstol Jianjiji- Fighter Aircraft / F-

As China was building more aircraft carriers and its first group of amphibious assault ships, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy might eventually need its own F-35B-like short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) stealth fighter jet to safeguard territorial integrity,

Chinese military analysts said 16 June 2019. Such warplanes could outperform attack helicopters in landing and island defense missions. Therefore, it would be effective in dealing with potential island disputes, analysts said. China is a big country, and has a very energetic and creative aerospace industry that is limited by technology not finances.

Surely somewhere in the bowels of Chinese industry there is a team looking at VSTOL aircraft. But after a decade of speculation and artwork, no "F-35B With Chinese Characteristics Under Modern Conditions" has been forthcoming. There is artwork, but no photographs of wind tunnel models, no displays at trade shows, no full scale mock-ups, or any of the other indicators of a real program.

Under the Snowy Owl nomenclature, China was said to be secretly developing a triplane-canard-configured fighter that has a totally different layout than the J-20, CCTV was quoted by Hong Kong-based Sing Tao Daily as reporting. Some Chinese online military experts believe that the Snowy Owl fighter was being developed by the AVIC Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SIC).

Online information regarding the SIC says that it was manufacturing a new type of aircraft whose design uses triplane canard configuration, Chinese netizens reported. The aircraft has a fixed vertical wing, and the engine has rhomboidal nozzles, according to the CCTV report, adding that the design renders the aircraft lighter than most of the fourth generation fighters.

In April 2011 Phoenix Television, citing a story in the Asahi Shimbun newspaper, reported that the J-18 had completed a test flight at a field base in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. It was reported that the wings of the jet, similar to Russia's Su-33, a carrier-based multi-role fighter, could be folded so it would be deployed on China's future aircraft carrier.

It was unclear why the Chinese navy would need a vertical-landing fighter, given the performance limitations associated with such designs, and considering China's apparent plans to deploy a big-deck carrier that would not need such a "jump jet."

While China has yet to announce any plan, it needs stealth fighter jets for its future aircraft carriers, and has three options: a J-20 variant, an FC-31 variant or a totally new one that might feature STOVL capabilities, Ordnance Industry Science

Technology, a Xi'an-based periodical on the national defense industry, said in a 14 June 2019 article. Flight International reported in early 2013 about poor quality images allegedly depicting a new Chinese STOVL aircraft that had recently appeared in several Chinese websites.

The pictures show a twin engined aircraft (or flying model) with high-mounted canard wings and canted twin tails which may suggest that it was the Shenyang J-18, a new aircraft said to be in the same class as the Lockheed Martin F-

35B Lightning II STOVL aircraft. Shenyang, the manufacturer of J-31 stealth fighter, which resembles the F-35 Lightning II, has reportedly been using RC models to test designs in flight, such as the F-60 model unveiled in September 2011 that preceded the J-31.

The pictures may be a scale representation of an on-going project. Once developed, the STOVL fighter jet could make an amphibious assault ship a light aircraft carrier and play unique roles in protecting islands and safeguarding China's territorial integrity.

Secessionist forces in Taiwan are still taking the chance that the mainland's amphibious combat capabilities could be insufficient to reunify Taiwan by force. But once the mainland has amphibious assault ships with STOVL warplanes, it may become a strong deterrent against Taiwan secessionists and help solve questions involved with Taiwan, analysts said.

China was developing the Type 075 amphibious assault ship, a warship comparable to the US' Wasp and America-class, foreign media reported in May 2019. In a landing mission, STOVL fighter jets from these ships would be a more efficient choice than helicopters to

support amphibious operations, gaining aerial superiority and attacking ground targets, and they could also be deployed on islands that are not large enough to build proper air fields. The US has deployed F-35Bs on its amphibious assault ships.

Japan was also planning to buy F-35Bs for its Izumo-class aircraft carrier-to-be "helicopter destroyers". US "Defense News" published the Taipei office director Wendell Minnick entitled "China is developing short vertical takeoff and landing fighter?". The article said that from the military blog revealed the situation, China is likely to have earlier this month to test the J-18 "Red Eagle" short distance vertical takeoff and landing fighter.

China's defense industry often to the outside world with the mysterious impression, the relevant information on the Internet and therefore difficult to confirm. However, some of the Chinese military blog has revealed the J-20 "Black Hawk" fighter secret test flight situation, so that foreign media was surprised.

One aircraft, many missions ... no aircraft in history or operation today can match the C-130J's 17 certified, diverse, multi-mission capabilities. These capabilities are either built as a production variant or can be provided through a roll-on/roll-off configuration, providing additional resources with a short turn around installation time.

Learn more about our production variants: Richard Fisher, vice president of the Washington-based International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that "In 2005, a Chinese aviation industry source told me the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation was considering an F-35B-like program... Given the PLA's naval power

projection ambitions, it is probable there is VSTOL or STOVL [short takeoff and vertical landing] fighter program. ... There are "many alleged programs in the Chinese blogosphere." The creation of a heavy fighter with short take-off and vertical landing was possible, but the technical feasibility and economic viability of such aircraft remain unclear.

The American F-35B Lightning II with short takeoff and vertical landing fighter aircraft has experienced a lot of technical difficulties, which threatened the program with cancellation. Among the identified problems-overheating engines mode vertical takeoff and landing, excessive weight fighter, problems with some components of vertical landing and failures in the software.

Any such aircraft would require innovative technical solutions, and short takeoff and vertical landing require significantly more fuel than a conventional deck fighter. The design of the chassis and engines of an aircraft of this type are particularly challenging.

The C-130J's performance is proven with more than 2 million flight hours supporting tactical airlift, search and rescues, special operations, commercial, and refueling missions around the globe. The global fleet's operating community has access to Lockheed Martin's unique insights to keep the aircraft mission ready, offered through channels including:

Writing in Defense News, Wendell Minnick reported on 22 April 2011 that "China may have test-flown the J-18 Red Eagle vertical short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) fighter earlier this month, if chatter on Chinese-language military blogs is accurate.

... Tests were supposedly conducted earlier this month and the fighter is similar to the Sukhoi Su-33 carrier-based fighter." The editor of the Chinese magazine Aerospace Knowledge led off a mid-2015 issue with some thoughts on a Chinese STOVL aircraft.

He first discussed the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaonings relatively small fighter complement and suggested that future iterations will not exceed 50 fighters, but those numbers will not afford China the requisite firepower. He brings up the Falklands case, moreover, and notes that Great Britains force of Harriers prevailed even though the US Navy allegedly predicted at the time that Royal Navy airpower was too weak.

While professing no special knowledge about whether the J-18 type [fighter] . . . exists or not, he suggests that the urgency is high for Chinese naval aviation and the outlook bright for a Chinese STOVL fighter, concluding: .

. . perhaps in the near future, we will get some really good news." According to Richard Fisher, a deputy director of the International Assessment and Strategic Center in Washington, DC, he said he was informed by a Chinese aviation industry practitioner in 2005 that Aircraft Industries was planning a project similar to the F-35B stealth fighter.

Taking into account the issue of sea power, China has the possibility of developing vertical short-range landing fighter aircraft. Chinese forums reported on 25 April 2011 that Beijing had probably begun testing new J-18 Red Eagle short takeoff and vertical landing fighter aircraft.

Officially the launch of test planes was not confirmed. Presumably, the J-18 flight tests took place in early April 2011. Flights were performed by an aircraft that was apparently similar to the Russian Su-33 carrier fighter.

Why witnesses felt that the plane was the J-18 was not specified. Another article, in China Defense News, did not mention the J-18 by name, but appeared in this official military newspaper under the headline How Will China Develop a Short Takeoff Fighter? This article made several interesting assertions, including that China had

been working on V/STOL technology since the 1960s and that Beijing apparently acquired a Russian V/STOL Yak-141 prototype fighter to tinker with and study back in 1994. This analysis concluded that V/STOL fighters flying off of amphibious attack ships are the

logical choice for any navy's second line of defense (behind the big decks). The C-130J is faster, goes further and holds more compared to legacy platforms, translating to greater power and enhanced capabilities. The C-130J Super Hercules is the most advanced C-130 ever designed, built, flown and maintained, with a truly integrated digital core that offers:

The J-18 would be the country's third stealth fighter prototype after the Chengdu J-20 Black Eagle and Shenyang J-31 Gyrfalcon. The development of the J-18 was first reported by Tokyo-based Asahi Shimbun in 2011, which revealed that the plane had already completed its test flight at a secret base in Inner Mongolia.

Defense News, based in Washington DC, said this 4.5-generation fighter designed by Chinas Shenyang Aircraft Corporation was nicknamed Red Eagle. According to the Janes International Defense Review magazine, the J-18 has mounted with two vector jet

engines for horizontal thrust, although it was still unknown whether this new fighter adopts the lift style of the US F-35 Lightning II or Russian Yak-141 Freestyle. The claim that the J-18 was 'similar to the Russian Su-33 carrier-based fighter' seems unlikely.

If the plane had been copied from Sukhoi Su-33, for short take-off and vertical landing, Chinese engineers would have a lot of work on their hands. The Su-33 is a very large airplane, weighing 66,000 pounds fully loaded, which is three times larger than the Anglo-American AV-8 Harrier jump jet.

For comparison, other planes with a vertical takeoff and landing capabilities include the Soviet Yakovlev Yak-141, which weighs 19.5 tons, and the American F-35B, which weighs 22.5 tons.

j aircraft forums, super j aircraft, j aircraft main page, j and j aircraft parts, g and j aircraft supply, journal of aircraft, aj model aircraft, list of all airplanes

J32 Aircraft

J32 Aircraft - Jim is responsible for the content on our sister blog, Airlineroute, which offers an indispensable guide to flight schedule updates. Launched in 2007, the site became part of the Routesonline content offering in 2010 and continues to provide breaking news on new routes and schedule changes to the network development community.

Sunrise Airways last week added new domestic route, offering Port-au-Prince – Jeremie route, on board Jetstream J32 aircraft. From 10AUG20, this route is served 3 times weekly. S6022 PAP0835 – 0910JEE J32 135 S6023 JEE0940 – 1015PAP J32 135 The airline currently also operates following service: Port-au-Prince – Cap-Haitien 14 weekly Port-au-Prince – Santo Domingo La Isabela 14 weekly

J32 Aircraft

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

j32 for sale, j32 engine weight, j 32 sailboat specs, j32 lansen, j32 engine for sale, j 32 sailboat, j32 engine, honda j32 engine