What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Van's RV-15 (Next thing coming?)

Yes, but "attention" doesn't always mean sales.

True, but a lack of attention always means a lack of sales. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Twin for safety, not necessarily for performance. I'd love to build a twin.

A valid argument can be made that a single turbine is as safe as a twin recip, from the MTBF and mortality-per-failure standpoint. There is a lot of comfort to be had with the absence of Vse blueline. Turbines tend not to fail catastrophically, and twin pilots without good recurrent single-engine practice are a liability.

To each their own. I won't build or buy a twin - but I'm very interested in a single turboprop.
 
Last edited:
Blue line, VMC, things that you learn when flying a twin comes to mind but so many possible causes. Nevertheless, if twins weren’t safer, then airlines would only fly with one engine. Twins are considered unsafe by pilots who can’t fly them. Twins are unsafe by pilots who refuse to be current. Many stats will show what happens when a pilots isn’t current in their training. Same can be said for the base to final spin in singles, exceeding VNE that causes the tail to depart in a single, and so on. Over the mountains with the family and in the clouds, a twin is my best friend. Single engine performance in my twin Comanche was Good.
No, the engine out does not take you to the crash site.

So, haters gonna hate, but a twin10 should be in my den. The ultimate building experience. Make some mods to fuse of the -10, fab a spar for to handle an assortment of engines, dump the toothpick gear and design a part 23 gear, and let the hair go with the hide.


The video below is graphic and sobering. It shows a recent crash of a Beechcraft Duke. For me it called into question all the "conventional wisdom" about the safety of the second engine. Until the NTSB report is released we won't know probable cause. Whatever it was, two engines did not prove a safer solution.

https://www.instagram.com/skywonders1/p/Bwhf2FGg0jp/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1sh9bduuackcw
 
I think the next kit from Vans will be another of the same - an upgraded RV10, similar in technology to the RV14. Quicker, easier build, and importantly, an excellent Mosaic candidate (like the RV14) for someone setting up a build center.
 
There's only a few options that I can see for a new model.

  1. Motorglider. Anyone not familiar with them, they are basically airplanes with a wing loading of less than .6 lbs/sqft. You need a glider rating -- and an add-on is a very short affair. And NO medical or basicmed is required. Van's himself owns two gliders and is an enthusiast. Supposedly the RV-11 is the motorglider.
  2. Turbine. Did someone say "Total Performance"? Similar to SubSonex. Lots of professional-track pilots would love to have turbine time... I wouldn't mind having a personal toy like that either...
  3. The RV-5 "frankenplane". This thing has been resurrected more times than an ObamaCare repeal bill.. Van's keeps dropping hints about it. And it seems when they re-designed the Van's website, they activated the URL: https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-5/ as a placeholder... similar to https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-15x/

Twin. I don't think the demand is there. Who wants double the maintenance? If you have the money to afford that.. you probably aren't going to want to be building anyway..
 
I would like to see a glider w/optional motor, it would be perfect for aging pilots who can only fly LSA or gliders.
 
....Anyone not familiar with [motorgliders], they are basically airplanes with a wing loading of less than .6 lbs/sqft....

Close but not exactly. It's not wing loading based upon area, as the term customarily means, but weight divided by span squared.

For example, at Van's RV-3B gross weight of 1,100 pounds, it would need a wingspan of at least 42.12 feet to be a motorglider.

FAA's actual criteria is 3.0 kg/m^2, or (their conversion) .62 lb/ft^2. It's in AC 21.17-2A, if you're interested.

Dave
 
speaking of...

Wish I had the reference handy to verify this, but I don't. According to something I read somewhere (doncha love that?), the FAA has that rule for certifying gliders as gliders, but it doesn't apply to experimentals. So...
 
They probably did, but I'm pretty sure they didn't need to. Would the old 'primary glider', the 1st thing Paul Poberezny restored, meet the criteria? I suspect not. If you built one from plans today, would the FAA refuse to license it as an exp. homebuilt glider?
 
What I was trying to say, is that this:
FAA's actual criteria is 3.0 kg/m^2, or (their conversion) .62 lb/ft^2. It's in AC 21.17-2A
wouldn't be applied to your homebuilt model 'xyz' glider when you apply for its exp a/w cert as a glider. Which might mean that, for instance, something that looks a lot like an RV-12 (or RV-9), (with a 'friendly' inspector) might conceivably be licensed as a motor glider.

I'll bet that a -9, with just a bit of wing tip tweaking, will out-glide every one of the 'primary gliders' that many learned to fly in back in the 20s & 30s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_glider
Paul P.'s primary glider type, at 15-1 glide ratio:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WACO_Primary_Glider
WW2 troop/cargo glider, at 12-1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4
 
Last edited:
Actually, that criteria is applied if you're licensing it as a glider. A motorglider is licensed as a glider, I understand. A friend went through this for his Xenos motorglider. The FAA accepted it as the proper criterion.

Dave
 
Well

There are at least 3 all aluminum 'bushplane' kits I can remember at the moment. The Murphy Super Rebel (now known as a flat engine Moose), the Dream Tundra, and the St Just Cyclone (a Cessna 180 clone).

I didn?t state it so my bad, but I was thinking 2 place aircraft. Any 2 place all aluminum bush variants out there?

As stated many times throughout the post, the 2 place bush plane market has a ton of suppliers. With good reason, it?s a decent sized market. And those kits require some big money. Obviously the demand is there.
 
I didn?t state it so my bad, but I was thinking 2 place aircraft. Any 2 place all aluminum bush variants out there?

As stated many times throughout the post, the 2 place bush plane market has a ton of suppliers. With good reason, it?s a decent sized market. And those kits require some big money. Obviously the demand is there.

Yes, the Rans S-21.
 
My guess is that the RV-15x will be a production -10 built to part 23 performance-based standards.

Lets face it, future growth of Vans Aircraft is not likely to be the result of seducing greater numbers of people into buying kits. I read as much between the lines when they brought the RV-12 in house. Think of the RV-12 as a dress rehearsal for the next big thing.

Van's posted a video on social media showing a rather large CNC punch press (?) type thing being installed earlier this year. Seemed to me to be an awful lot of machine (and a long way from the fabled culture of frugality) for these little kits -- likely has an ulterior purpose.
 
Van's posted a video on social media showing a rather large CNC punch press (?) type thing being installed earlier this year. Seemed to me to be an awful lot of machine (and a long way from the fabled culture of frugality) for these little kits -- likely has an ulterior purpose.

Actually, that’s our fourth CNC punch press! It replaced an older one, so we have three on the factory floor now. Those punch machines have been bread-and-butter workhorses in our factory for well more than two decades. The newest one is simply an upgrade in capability and fresh equipment. It enables faster production and allows us to do some punching that the older machines could not do.

Oh, and if we ever got to make a production/certified RV-10 (and I’m not saying that’s going to happen!) we’d probably call it something like the “RV-10.” :D Just like we did with the SLSA RV-12. New model numbers are generally reserved for new models, rather than production variants.

And, our business has been primarily kits for almost 50 years. It’s worked thus far and sales are quite strong. We don’t intend to move away from kits. Of course, we will move with the times and take advantage of the right opportunities as it fits our business model.

We’re excited about all the things we’re working on! If anyone wants to talk shop, find me at the AOPA fly in this week in Tennessee, or at the Petit Jean fly in coming up in Arkansas in October. Always happy to talk about what we’re up to (except for the top-secret stuff of course, hah) and learn about the airplanes people are building/have built!
 
Last edited:
It looks like he's got wood props on that thing. I shudder to think what that will be like when you lose one on take off and can't feather it. :eek:

That's what I always said about the Champion Lancer too. Twin O-200s, fixed pitch props. No feathering. But the FAA certificated it, so I guess it's OK!! :)

champion-lancer-matt-abrams.jpg
 
That's what I always said about the Champion Lancer too. Twin O-200s, fixed pitch props. No feathering. But the FAA certificated it, so I guess it's OK!! :)

champion-lancer-matt-abrams.jpg

Wow. I never would've guessed you could pull off managing a light twin without feathering props. You learn something every day. :)
 
Decades ago, a buddy had built a Volmer Sportsman amphibian. It had an O-200 engine and he felt that it was underpowered. He came across a Lancer whose owner had already sold the engines, but had everything else. My friend bought the wings, complete with cowl and FWF stuff, less engine. He sent me a photo of the Volmer with both cowls on and the existing engine on, too.

Would have been a 3-engine amphib but he never got the engines, just not enough money.

Years later, when he could have paid for it all, he was having too much fun with other airplanes and the Volmer had been retired.

I wish I still had that photo.

Dave
 
RV twin

It looks like he's got wood props on that thing. I shudder to think what that will be like when you lose one on take off and can't feather it. :eek:

I saw it without the cowls on.. it has a prop brake to allow you to stop a prop on the failed engine. Not as good as feathering, but he at least tried to build in something to decrease drag. I don?t know if he tested the brake though..
 
RV-X

A true six seater. Maybe a fixed gear twin. Or a O-540 two seater. Like an -8 with complete dual controls and panel.
 
I'd like to weigh in. I already made my choice (S-21), but the tech has evolved sufficiently so that something like an electric RV-12 would appeal to a whole new generation of buyers. This will increase the market size by appealling to a younger demographic.

By way of evidence, a local float-plane airline (Harbour Air) is converting several DH2 Beavers to electric propulsion for their island-hopping flights, starting next year. This is one of the largest float operators in the world, so this is a serious statement (and one I predicted a few years ago).

I don't do a lot of long x-country flights anymore, but I do many short flights to see family or buy $100 burgers.

The capital cost of an electric RV-12 may not be less, but operating and maintenance costs would be much lower. A lot less stuff in the hangar would be required as well. Oh, there may also be an environmental benefit.

Someone please dust off this post in 5 years and see how close to the mark I was.

An electric RV-12 won't have carb float problems, coolant lines every 5 years, carb synch problems, gearbox wear problems, lead in sump tank problems.

It would also, if battery packs can be changed out, be a great trainer plane if they can get 1.5 to 2 hrs of run time out of a charge. Electricity is much cheaper than Mogas or 100LL.

I own both an electric VW e-Golf and a Passat TDI SEL. 3 cents a mile vs 11 cents a mile, for diesel fuel alone. The operating economics of electric will lower your variable cost per hour of flying to something ridiculously inexpensive. Just need to lower the cost of the battery packs.

Maybe we end up with more sport pilot license card carrying members? Just a thought.
 
The iS solves carb float and sync issues. I believe teflon has solved the hose replacement issue as well.

The prospect of an electric airplane certainly is fascinating. And though I'm sure we're closer than we've ever been, I think is still a lot of work to do before we have batteries with the weight to power ratio necessary to make it practical in the real world.
 
The iS solves carb float and sync issues. I believe teflon has solved the hose replacement issue as well.

The prospect of an electric airplane certainly is fascinating. And though I'm sure we're closer than we've ever been, I think is still a lot of work to do before we have batteries with the weight to power ratio necessary to make it practical in the real world.

You probably meant weight to energy ratio, but for short haul flights this is manageable.

Google "blackfly song nfb". Be amused, very amused.

And the black flies, the little black flies
Always the black fly, no matter where you go
I'll die with the black fly a-picking my bones
In north on-tar-i-o-i-o, in north on-tar-i-o

https://i0.wp.com/evtol.news/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/opener-blackfly-generations.jpg
 
Last edited:
There are so many new batteries on the horizon with energy densities suitable to make the RV?s a 4hr+ machine, but someone just needs to get them across the line. I saw an article on CO2 lithium cells this morning that looks promising.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3SSNw2WvAdQ

Tom
RV-7 With an IO-360 that wants to be electric.
 
RV15

Vans has guaranteed that I will not buy a kit until I know what this new plane is. I?m ready to go, but I don?t want to have buyers remorse and buy let?s say a 10, and then Van?s RV-15 be some kind of new, whiz bang updated version of a four place that no one can live without.
 
Vans has guaranteed that I will not buy a kit until I know what this new plane is. I?m ready to go, but I don?t want to have buyers remorse and buy let?s say a 10, and then Van?s RV-15 be some kind of new, whiz bang updated version of a four place that no one can live without.

Just be prepared for long waits between each kit release while you are building if you choose to go with a new kit release when it happens.
 
Vans has guaranteed that I will not buy a kit until I know what this new plane is. I?m ready to go, but I don?t want to have buyers remorse and buy let?s say a 10, and then Van?s RV-15 be some kind of new, whiz bang updated version of a four place that no one can live without.
Yep.




Extra words to make it postable.
 
Vans has guaranteed that I will not buy a kit until I know what this new plane is. I?m ready to go, but I don?t want to have buyers remorse and buy let?s say a 10, and then Van?s RV-15 be some kind of new, whiz bang updated version of a four place that no one can live without.

Be careful playing the waiting game. There will always be a next aircraft right around the corner.
 
Vans has stated multiple times that RV-10 is their second best selling plane kit at the moment, I doubt they are going to announce an updated version of it after the sunk cost of all their new production equipment and cause such a popular kit to be slowed down in orders for a few years while people wait for the kit to start production.
 
Vans has stated multiple times that RV-10 is their second best selling plane kit at the moment, I doubt they are going to announce an updated version of it after the sunk cost of all their new production equipment and cause such a popular kit to be slowed down in orders for a few years while people wait for the kit to start production.

Really? Didn't work that way for the 3/4, or the 6/8, or the 7/9/14...
 
Vans has stated multiple times that RV-10 is their second best selling plane kit at the moment, I doubt they are going to announce an updated version of it after the sunk cost of all their new production equipment and cause such a popular kit to be slowed down in orders for a few years while people wait for the kit to start production.

The -10 is fine overall, but could use some tweaks. What they should do is update the kit with a cabin top and doors that are a drop in fit and don't need a huge amount of finishing work. Oh, and update the doors to front hinged. In addition, they should offer "canned" avionics packages at a great price so they get some $$ on those sales, as opposed to all of the custom shops raking in the dough on that stuff. The canned avionics and wiring packages would probably be good for 75% of builders, who'd prefer to install a known-good scheme as opposed to having to design, spec, purchase, and install their unique system.

I think these things would increase kit sales significantly - the doors, cabin top, and avionics are daunting to a lot of folks and dissuade some from starting a build. The avionics packages would be a path to additional profitability for Vans, which is good for the longevity of the business and support of our aircraft.
 
Vans does do this with the RV-12 right now with pre-made and wired panels.. The more I think about it, the more I am in the camp that they will do a pop rivet, easier to build RV-9 with a bigger cabin. It would not be as fast, but getting a under 1000 hour realistic build time would sell a lot of kits.
 
Vans does do this with the RV-12 right now with pre-made and wired panels.. The more I think about it, the more I am in the camp that they will do a pop rivet, easier to build RV-9 with a bigger cabin. It would not be as fast, but getting a under 1000 hour realistic build time would sell a lot of kits.
Put a high wing on it, and you have a RANS S-21. Could be.
 
What does Vans want?

I think this entire thread could be condensed greatly if only the Vans company would chime in and tell us, What do they want to accomplish with their next offering? And prioritize the parameters.
Do they want bragging rights in the aviation world for the fastest 2 or 4 seat aircraft kit? then by all means proceed with a huge engine'd little plane..or a turbine.
Do they want to offer a twin retractable to have a fast heavy hauler?
Tall about the fringes of the market!..sheeesh..
Do they want to enter STOL bushplane market?
IS market fragmentation of their existing products a factor in consideration?
or..
Do they want to increase market share among homebuilder's, for the long term future of the company, preserve and create more jobs at the factory, and sell as many airplane kits as possible? How about a RV15, AND a RV16 with one fuselage.
IN my view, if the latter is the answer, how about this for a game plan.
It has to be a high wing, as thats a market they are not in, and its really big.
There are two major sub-segments of that market.. the folks that are attracted to the bushplane mission, and the folks that are attracted to the high-wing traveler mission.
An entry into this high wing market kinda need 2 airplane designs. They have already proven successful in pleasing 2 segments of the same market targets with the RV-9 and the RV7, aerobatics capable, and non aerobatics capable, nose wheel and tailwheel. Look how easy that was. One fuselage design and just 2 different wing designs. and tailwheel or nosewheel choices at the time of build. I dont think there is really a need to make a "convertable" of either config.
This same coverage of the different market sub-segments could be approached the same way.
One wide , easy entering fuselage design, with 2 wing options. A fat STOL airfoil with big flaps for one, and a nice high altitude performing airfoil, like the RV 9's for the other. jeez..they already have most of the parts on the rack for that one, if the 9's airfoil would work on a high wing design?? Dont know why it would not.
Start right in the middle of the market with a design to accommodate all the 4 cylinder lycoming variants, from a salvaged 320 from a piper to the newest IO390's. That puts it into the budget envelope of the most buyers.
AND, as for me, IF I were the CEO, I would start with the slick high wing speedster. Why?, because others are concentrating on STOL as the priority, and nobody is doing the traveling version, tweaked for speed. AND, if as I mentioned, the RV-9 Roncz airfoil proved suitable, its already in production. Just a new fuselage design, and a tweaked already available wing is all it take to get the first prototype in the air. Lowest risk, fastest market entry, and if it works, They have a direction to go with designing the rest of the high wing options. After all, Time is money, and it seems to me they have been dragging their feet long enough. How old is this thread? Most all of us builders know what the term "analysis paralysis" is, and I think theres a bad case of it going on in Oregon.
I encourage all to chime in if you agree...
 
Last edited:
Anyone have any ideas / guesses as to what the next product to come out of vans will be?

Any hopes?

I personally would like to see a complete refactor of the RV-3. More of a modern "fighter plane" for those of us who will never actually get to pilot one of those heh. Larger than the current three for us "bigger boys" (Fat.. okay fine.. I'm fat..).

Thoughts?

I think Van's is due to update and may start transitioning to a more "less liable" business model - maybe a move to carbon fiber like Cessna and Cirrus have done, or a more simple design where more parts are made under someone else's liability.

With law suits the way they are, one bad decision and Van's or any company for that matter could be sunk.

Also, when Van's started taking off, other manufactures likely took note. As a result, those manufacturers sell kits (like Rans) that can be completed in 200-300 hours. They're probably taking too much of the market. Vans would be wise to reclaim that market in the form of a STOL plane.

Whatever the case, I'll bet that $35 million lawsuit about the crash that killed that little girl and caused by the builder using RTV in the fuel system had an impact. That should scare all of us.

It's going to be good no matter what.
 
Given Van's investment in tools that work with aluminum, plus their proven success with it, I'd expect that the next kit will also be aluminum.

Since the cost of performance increases sharply with multi-engine airplanes, it's unlikely that the next airplane will be a twin. Nor a trimotor or more.

Since the RV-14 is so popular and assembles so relatively rapidly, probably that sort of instruction and kit quality will be continued.

We haven't seen many, if any, high wing airplanes of similar power with the performance of a comparable RV, so the next airplane will be low wing.

I expect the next airplane to be somewhat similar to the current line. It won't be a single seat airplane because the market's not there. If it were, you'd all have a Panther in the hangar. That means two or more seats.

Possibilities, in my opinion - a tandem seat airplane like an improved RV-8; a semi-STOL airplane somewhat like an RV-9; or less likely, an RV-10 or RV-12 taildragger. An RV-12is taildragger would be something I'd sure look hard at, in spite of my RV-3B project.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Possibilities, in my opinion - a tandem seat airplane like an improved RV-8; a semi-STOL airplane somewhat like an RV-9; or less likely, an RV-10 or RV-12 taildragger. An RV-12is would be something I'd sure look hard at, in spite of my RV-3B project.

Dave

The only hole in Van's lineup that has enough market potential is a STOL something or other. 2 seats ala Rans or 4 seats ala Bearhawk if they want to go that way.

I continue to think they will update their manuals and streamline the panel building process for the existing aircraft (-7 through -10) and funnel more and more of the panel and firewall forward stuff through Van's as opposed to Stein or others. That seems like a profitable path without a lot of investment in a new airframe.

Of course, I'd love a pre-punched RV-3, but...
 
My vote

My vote is for a 200-210 kt. something. That is where the market is lacking. Keep it simple but fast and still handles like a RV.

My $0.02
John
 
The only hole in Van's lineup that has enough market potential is a STOL something or other. 2 seats ala Rans or 4 seats ala Bearhawk if they want to go that way.

I continue to think they will update their manuals and streamline the panel building process for the existing aircraft (-7 through -10)

I agree with Kyle. Giving the current popular models such as the 7, 8 and 9 a modern makeover with updated manuals and build techniques a la the 10 and 14 makes the most sense to me.

I could also see a first high wing RV model (i.e. the RANS) in the offering as well as the STOL/high wing segment is clearly popular.
 
Rans

Although the Rans S-21 has been very popular, if Vans came out with something similar, high wing - STOL - Lands/Take off around 35 and cruises at 135 or higher, it would absolutely eat up the Rans market. Why you ask? Vans documentations, diagrams, instructions, etc. are leaps and bounds better that?s Rans. Rans has a great concept but their directions/instructions look like a 5th grader put it tougher and support... well Randy is Randy, short and sometimes not really to the point. I don?t normally bad mouth any company, this is really to highlight how great Vans is when comparing to another kit company.
 
Something that will fit the NEW ELSA RULES

I'd bet a few dollars that the skunk works at Van's is at least thinking about something that will fit the 'new' LSA rules. Maybe a high wing trainer with IFR capabilities on Rotax 912iS or 915iS power. This AC will be engineered so that it can do aerobatics, land and take off short, and mount a Lycoming 360 or so for those who want to cruise at 150K. Problem is that no one knows when the new LSA rules will be released. Of course there would have to be two versions in order to accommodate the weight of the larger Lycoming.
 
I'd bet a few dollars that the skunk works at Van's is at least thinking about something that will fit the 'new' LSA rules. Maybe a high wing trainer with IFR capabilities on Rotax 912iS or 915iS power. This AC will be engineered so that it can do aerobatics, land and take off short, and mount a Lycoming 360 or so for those who want to cruise at 150K. Problem is that no one knows when the new LSA rules will be released. Of course there would have to be two versions in order to accommodate the weight of the larger Lycoming.

The new LSA rules are to include a 4 place airplane and there is to be some sort of "power index" to limit the amount of energy involved instead of the speed and weight spec of today. The new rules started development in 2017 and must be in place by some time in 2023, so we all get to wait while the bureaucratic wheels slowly creep to the finish line.

I would guess that Van's is extremely interested in these new rules and is maybe even involved in influencing them. I think they will design a 4 place ELSA airplane to these rules, and possibly offer a SLSA factory built version like they are doing with the RV-12iS. It is my hope that some configuration of the current RV-9 (tailwheel) becomes certifiable as ELSA by these new rules. Again, we wait ....

Lance
 
Let's face it, Van's has always stuck with what they do best - excellent handling low wing designs. Why would they venture into high wings when the market is fairly saturated and the favorites in the market are tube & fabric? Van's is a medium sized successful company, and much like a large ship on the ocean, you cannot change direction easily or successfully, so high wing aircraft is not a good idea for them.

The best plan is to improve on the breed, possibly a STOL version of the RV-9 or a larger match hole punched version of the RV8 that can share RV-14 parts.
 
I want to build my next plane and the only reason I'm looking at the Ran's S-21 is because I'm not a good fabricator but I know how to put things together.

If Van's updates their planes to something like that then I'd be building a new RV-8 this month while I keep flying my current one.
 
snip..... Why would they venture into high wings when the market is fairly saturated and the favorites in the market are tube & fabric? ....snip

Why would computer company Apple ever want to venture into the cellular phone market in 2007 when there were already nearly 60 cell phones already available by 2006? Because they had a loyal following and they knew their customers wanted the 'Apple Feel' that they got from their computer on their phone.

Sound familiar? ;^) Some of us crave Van's-like 'Total Performance' in a Cub-like plane to compliment what we already have in our low wing RV.

Fast forward to 2019.... Apple made 49% of the phones sold. Source: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/

And in 2019 iPhones accounted for 54.7% of Apple's revenue stream. Source: https://www.investopedia.com/apple-s-5-most-profitable-lines-of-business-4684130

I hear what you're saying about the -9, but you can't clear bushes during T/O and Lndg with a low wing.

Van's would, IMHO, instantly dominate the high wing STOL market.

My .02

v/r,dr​
 
Last edited:
...
Sound familiar? ;^) Some of us crave Van's-like 'Total Performance' in a Cub-like plane to compliment what we already have in our low wing RV.
...
Come on Doug, help Jay and I out!

Some of us crave a 170/172 2+2 type airplane because the Cub-a-Like field is already full.
 
Come on Doug, help Jay and I out!

Some of us crave a 170/172 2+2 type airplane because the Cub-a-Like field is already full.


LOL.

I'd prefer a Cub-like Van's a/c, but I'd be happy with ANY high wing STOL Van's a/c that I could fly in the hot summer with the windows open in the shade.

;^)
 
Back
Top