What's new
Van's Air Force

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

WTB RV15

Jaypratt

Well Known Member
Mentor
Looking for a RV15.
When I find it, it will be High wing, go 150 mph, on 180hp, 26” wheels, plenty of baggage room. Something like DRs high wing RV Super cub thread.
I’ll build it fast. Where is it? I want it
 
Yup!

There?s a lot of us drawn to that other An?s Company for some of the features you mention!

:)
 
I?m looking for an RV-16 (sounds a lot like F-16 :) ). It would look a lot like an Extra 330, but be an all metal quick build kit, 330 hp AEIO-580, capable of +/- 10 g?s, be highly maneuverable capable of unlimited aerobatics, 200 knots, 500 nm range, and enough baggage space to put a couple of decent sized, long weekend, duffel bags. I know, we can all dream!
 
Looking for a RV15.
When I find it, it will be High wing, go 150 mph, on 180hp, 26? wheels, plenty of baggage room. Something like DRs high wing RV Super cub thread.
I?ll build it fast. Where is it? I want it

I couldn't agree more!

A Cessna 170/172 from Van's that sports any four cylinder Lycoming and is a 2+2 back country plane but not a super stol would be perfect.
 
What are they thinking?

I would like to be a fly on the wall in Ryan?s and Greg?s offices
 
I think it's called a Glastar. ;)
That has the same problem as the -14, it requires a stupid expensive engine and prop combination.

Something that can be build with any engine and prop from an O-320 w/ a FP prop to an IO-400 with a CS prop would be ideal.

I would like to be a fly on the wall in Ryan?s and Greg?s offices
I know, it would be an interesting discussion.

In January or February I'm going to start welding sticks of 4130 together to get what I want for our 2+2 family.

To put this in perspective, a neighbor just sold his very nice 182 for something simpler. He does not want an RV because getting in and out of the bucket that is our airplanes doesn't work for him.

He is looking for an older 172 that has the 180 hp conversion. I believe there is sweet spot in the market for just such a plane. With all the 170's, 180's, and 185's getting very old and trashed, an option from Van's would fill that void very well. It doesn't need to compete with Cub's, Super STOL's, Bearhawks in the short landing competition because the market for two seat bush planes is saturated but a usable 2+2 with the take of and landing performance of the -9 would be amazing!
 
Bill?s 2+2

I think Bill is spot on with his ideas.
I too think there is a Big big unfilled hole in the Home Built market.
A 170/172 sized home built is not out there.
All metal, = easy to build
struts. Something to push on
Sticks, have you worked behind a 170 panel?
ExperMental, I want this option.

I love the capabilities of The RV series. I have built 4, RVs for my self. The first one flew 1996. Two 6s and two RV8s, since. But! There is always a but. My interest is back country flying.
I built a North Star 180hp, like a Super Cub in 2004 to complement my RV6. The Cub, I call it Shooter, has flown to The Idaho back country 6 times from Fort Worth. 80 - 90 knots. Slow. Not the 160! RV Knots. 2007 Enter Carol in my life. I needed more airplane.
Nothing, nothing! On the home built market perked my interest.
Glass? NOT
Fabric? No more
Super Rebel? Too big, not the best reputation/ support. Remember I’m a RV guy at heart. Give me a match hole all metal Van’s kit.
I found a Cessna 180 near home NDH, hangered, no mods. That was 2009. I wrote a check and flew it home. It does 130 knots pretty easy.
I went from 15.5 hours home to Idaho to about 10 hours. Cool.
Not cool,,, A certified plane. I added a Sentry Auto Pilot and Could Not Do the install myself, it cost $14,700. I’m still mad about that.
I want the airplane that Bill described. An improved wing and probably an improved cowl over a 170/172 might go faster?
I call my 180 ‘Paul Revere’ if Van’s Aircraft offered this dream plane ‘Paul Revere’ would get a new name,,,,,,,,, For Sale. ��
 
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree with Bill and those wanting the next RV to be a non-STOL 2+2.

If it won't comfortably land on a sandbar here on the Brazos I'll say thank you and pass (and I guess do something Super-Cub after Tate gets out of college). I would dearly like to help promote a STOL Backcountry RV.

I don't need a non-STOL 2+2 RV. The (16) configurations of RVs already developed are non-STOL and won't land comfortably on sandbars. Why make a 17th? By all means offer a 2+2 down the road, just like they did offering the RV-10 after many 2-seat models. Just please offer the 2 seat backcountry STOL slash also-works-on-floats first so you can grab the largest share of the backcountry market from the get go.

As I mention in my 63 page sales pitch/plea, I need a 2 + tent/fishingpole/RC car/telescope RV. Give the doc a read if you haven't, and let me know if you would order one....I'll add you to the list.

It needs to be STOL for my needs, otherwise it's just another RV model I can't land on a sandbar with.....and I have that now (RV-6). The current models/configurations offer 75% of what I want to do with a plane. I'm craving the other 25%, but in an RV. Building something that is essentially what I already have isn't appealing to me. I have to believe there are hundreds upon hundreds of RVators who would want a backcountry STOL RV to compliment their current RV stable. Now THAT would be TOTAL Performance!!!! <g>.

Fingers crossed!

v/r,dr

VAFDR_18%202019-08-04.jpg


VAFDR_11%20Oct.%2023%2015.44.jpg
 
Last edited:
Currently, the best back country kit on the market is the S-21, hands down.

Problem is, there's currently a 14 month wait. That's a lifetime for us older guys!

This presents a huge opportunity for Vans to steal (read: jump into) this market. Obviously, there's a huge demand for this airplane. And there's room for improvement: an 0-360 option? I really like the 500-man-hour build time.

I suspect this hasn't gone unnoticed at the mothership. Come on Vans, you can make a lot of us really happy! I'm ready to place my order.
 
Preach Bro Pat! Preach!!!!!

Currently, the best back country kit on the market is the S-21, hands down.

Problem is, there's currently a 14 month wait. That's a lifetime for us older guys!

This presents a huge opportunity for Vans to steal (read: jump into) this market. Obviously, there's a huge demand for this airplane. And there's room for improvement: an 0-360 option? I really like the 500-man-hour build time.

I suspect this hasn't gone unnoticed at the mothership. Come on Vans, you can make a lot of us really happy! I'm ready to place my order.
 
There are options out there and may be part of the reason Vans hasn't jumped into that part of the homebuilt market.The Bearhawk is a pretty decent high wing Cessna 170/180 size airplane as is the Dream Tundra. Murphy aircraft also has both 2 and 4 seat all metal high wing options.

That said; hopefully they come out with a tandem, cantilever high wing, STOL, airplane that can be put on floats (need entry doors on both sides and no strut to duck), and can do mild acro like a Citabria when on wheels :D.
 
Doug, as Pat pointed out, there are many two seat options available. Also of the eight models in the current Van's lineup, only one is a four seater. The problem with the -10 and -14 is the cost. While selling well, a $150+K hoppy build is way out of reach for most builders.

A 2+2 model that can be built for the price of a -7, 8, or 9 would be outstanding!
 
Here’s what’s on my wish-list:

1. All metal.
2. Tandem.
3. STOL.
4. High wing.
5. Can be put on amphibs/floats.
6. Entry doors on both sides.
7. Big payload.
8. Minimum 50 gallon tanks with built in fuel return lines to accommodate the more modern electronic fuel injection systems that utilize a high pressure fuel rail and that requires a return line setup.
9. Big tires and big off-road suspension.
10. Accommodate and perform well with many engines....(O-320 to IO-390).
11. Ultra quick build...maximum of 500 hours.
12. “Decent” X-country cruse speeds...maybe somewhere around 120 knots.

****All of the above could also be incorporated into a four seater at some point.
 
Last edited:
Doug, as Pat pointed out, there are many two seat options available. Also of the eight models in the current Van's lineup, only one is a four seater. The problem with the -10 and -14 is the cost. While selling well, a $150+K hoppy build is way out of reach for most builders.

A 2+2 model that can be built for the price of a -7, 8, or 9 would be outstanding!

I lobbied for an AA-5B knockoff for years.
 
STOL

STOL
The plane I’m thinking of would land on river bars. My C180 lands and takes off river bars just fine. Bills 2+2 170 ideas will do that job as well.
A Home Built ‘improved’ C170/172 would weigh less than my 1976 C180J. It is 1700 lbs empty.
My North Star weighs 1320 with 31” Alaskan Bush wheels and Baby BushWheel tail wheel.
I would hope, not being an engineer, that something Van’s might design would be in the 1200 lb range. I’m doing it with 1700 lbs, and 230 hp. And I’m doing it with a cub weighing 1320 lbs, with 180 hp.
The light airplanes have been designed. The 180 185 is certified, and too big. The market would buy a STOL 2+2 sized plane. It’s is not available.
Yes there are a few that are close, Rans 21 is a 3 run homer,,,but Van’s could hit a grand slam if done right.
 
Last edited:
I have an RV dream…and it starts with a 2-place RV STOL plane based on some of the RV-8 hardware (firewall forward and tail).

High wing RV-8 with removable slats, fowler flaps, windows that open in flight on both sides, quick(ish) change bush wheels and attach points for floats. That keeps the cost in the neighborhood of an RV-8, opens up RVation to thousands of currently RV-unfriendly unimproved strips as well as thousands of lakes and rivers. And snow. If you want to do some speedy traveling, swap out the tires and remove the slats - it’ll go faster than any Super Cub.

And it gives you the opportunity to build RV-amphib kitfloats as a next project.

Who could possibly want that? <eye roll and grin>

v/r,dr

VAFDR_01%20Nov.%2006%2008.06.jpg


VAFDR_01%20Nov.%2006%2013.46.jpg


VAFDR_05%20Nov.%2020%2016.03.jpg
 
Last edited:
Currently, the best back country kit on the market is the S-21, hands down.

Problem is, there's currently a 14 month wait. That's a lifetime for us older guys!

This presents a huge opportunity for Vans to steal (read: jump into) this market. Obviously, there's a huge demand for this airplane. And there's room for improvement: an 0-360 option? I really like the 500-man-hour build time.

I suspect this hasn't gone unnoticed at the mothership. Come on Vans, you can make a lot of us really happy! I'm ready to place my order.

The truth is that if you ordered an S-21 TODAY, you?d have your kit YEARS before an RV equivalent (unless the announcement from Aurora is coming as a New Year?s gift....and I have no way of knowing if it is or not.

Development time on new aircraft is a lot longer than people think - and then you have to develop the kit, the instructions, the support, get parts in the pipeline.... so while its a nice dream, dreams aren?t reality.

The Tundra has been out there for quite a few years, and didn?t sell many (I know, we have 300+ hours on ours) - the company is now for sale. Murphy has put out quite a few kits that meet Jay?s requirements, and owners love them. As we know, the S-21 is selling like hot cakes. Those are just the metal planes.

If you?re worried about ?aging out? before a new kit comes out, then jump in and try one that?s out there and available. Or....wait and see what might be coming from Aurora. And no....I have no idea what that might be.

And I recently flew Steve Henry?s Yeehaw Seven - a Highlander with a 300 HP turbocharged Yamaha that fits under the same cowling as a Rotax. Yeehaw is right!!! Put that motor on a 2+2 and go take off from anywhere....

Lots of choices....
 
All good discussion, and I really enjoy thinking about the future RV models….

Maybe I’m so passionate about being offered this RV ‘Super Cub’ because of where fate put me at birth. Due to the humid heat in N.TX during summer months it can be almost unbearable to get in my RV-6 for part of the year.

Which is why, for a huge part of each year the lion’s share of my flying is in a ’46 Cub that is flown by a few at my airport. Open windows and shade. I don’t really talk about it much, because well, it’s not RV-related. Having said that, more than a few editions of the daily VAF newsletter were sketched out in the shade, in a lawn chair, parked next to a dried-up-for-the-summer lake bed about 3 miles from my home field. With half gas and 1 person it works given the room I have and the HP available.

2019122308270206--7818969104207798706-IMG_9923-XL.jpg


There are dozens of potential sandbar-like landing spots within a 15 minute flight that this Cub can’t access due to its 65hp engine, no flaps, smaller wheels, etc.

2019122308245431-3714769659674754290-IMG_9924-XL.jpg


I’m relying only on my hunch of what would sell and what other RV builders have told me over the past decade. Many RV owners/builders around here in the hot climates would like an RV option that provided shade and windows that open in flight to compliment the RVs they already enjoy.

2019122308262514--7737469159948576143-IMG_9941-X3.jpg

Breakfast, sweet tea, VAF and shade. A nice summer morning work session.....

Maybe I’m just selfish wanting an RV Super Cub that I can write about in the field. I’d love to be able to fly to a dark sky sandbar 30 minutes away on a Friday afternoon, put up a tent and telescope, then write about it on Sunday to the RV universe….with a nice long exposure picture of a rising M31 behind a RV Super Cub ;^).

Every summer in the heat I sort of dread flying the RV. Every fall and winter I love it. Every summer I love the cub more than the RV. Every winter I leave the Cub in the corner (hand prop and no heater). I guess it’s human nature to want what you don’t have. ;^)

Buddy of mine James read some of these posts last night and emailed me to put his name ‘on the list’ of people who would build this (he has an RV-4).

That makes 81…

If the next RV isn’t what I am hoping for then I guess I could add slightly bigger tires to the Cub and overhaul the engine to get some of the HP back. I would sell this thing in a nanosecond to partially fund a RV Backcountry STOL plane. I want to talk RV backcountry in addition to the already amazing RV envelope.

I'm fine with struts - you can hang wet towels on them <g>.

Fun to dream about and someday we’ll know. Fingers crossed!

v/r,dr
 
Last edited:
The truth is that if you ordered an S-21 TODAY, you’d have your kit YEARS before an RV equivalent (unless the announcement from Aurora is coming as a New Year’s gift....and I have no way of knowing if it is or not.

Development time on new aircraft is a lot longer than people think - and then you have to develop the kit, the instructions, the support, get parts in the pipeline.... so while its a nice dream, dreams aren’t reality.

The Tundra has been out there for quite a few years, and didn’t sell many (I know, we have 300+ hours on ours) - the company is now for sale. Murphy has put out quite a few kits that meet Jay’s requirements, and owners love them. As we know, the S-21 is selling like hot cakes. Those are just the metal planes.

If you’re worried about “aging out” before a new kit comes out, then jump in and try one that’s out there and available. Or....wait and see what might be coming from Aurora. And no....I have no idea what that might be.

And I recently flew Steve Henry’s Yeehaw Seven - a Highlander with a 300 HP turbocharged Yamaha that fits under the same cowling as a Rotax. Yeehaw is right!!! Put that motor on a 2+2 and go take off from anywhere....

Lots of choices....

The RVs are wonderful handling and performing airplanes, and I'm sure that whatever Vans builds next will continue on that trend. I went for an S21 demo with the mindset that I was not willing to compromise on handling or performance.

The S21 absolutely exceeded my expectations in every possible way. It's handling is balanced and very responsive. It also has an incredibly wide performance range. In addition, it is a very strong aircraft. Our intention is to put it on amphib floats.

It took 13 months from order to delivery (which was last week). The kit was extremely well crated and EVERY single item was there. Part quality looks excellent.

In addition, as the popularity of this kit is rapidly growing, there are a growing number of aftermarket vendors that are going to be supporting this kit and developing optional accessories.

I'm very excited to get building again.
 
I seem to be swimming "against the stream" concerning my new plane requirements. I built my first plane in 2016. Rans S-20 Raven. I wanted to fly low and slow as this was completely opposite of my day job for the last 30 years.

I really enjoyed the build. Also, landing on gravel bars, rough strips etc. Normal cruise with the Rotax 912 was 90 knots. Most often I would have the proverbial 20 knot headwind no matter what the compass heading was. I found myself wanting to be there already dreaming of a faster aircraft.

Guess I didnt define my mission correctly. 80% to 90% of the time I was enroute somewhere with a 75kt groundspeed.

Barring the RV-15 being a tandem taper wing akin to an RV-8 on steroids, I will build a RV-14. The 14 will take me into the backcountry strips I was flying with my Rans. Smiley, Johnson, Cavanaugh, Moose Creek etc.

Just some random musings,
Jim
 
Last edited:
impossible combinations of requirements

Going back to Jay's original post:

The only way you are going to go 150 mph with 26" wheels is if you retract them!:D

Some want struts to push on, some want cantilever. But that is heavier. The same people want it light weight.

Seems to me that there are a lot of available airplanes that meet most of people's wish list here, and enough variety to span most of the preferences that vary here.

If you want to help shape a new airplane, you have to articulate the shortcomings of the existing ones, and see if you can do better.

So, among these airplanes, what is missing?

C-170 with 180 hp STC

Dream Tundra

S-21

Maule M-4 (is there a Lycoming STC?)
 
Last edited:
OK, so I'm a dreamer--guilty as charged! :)

Paul, I'd of thought you would have had your S-21 on order by now! As you probably know, a lot of RV guys have them on order or are working on them. Your S-21 write-up in Kitplanes was excellent, BTW.

The truth is that if you ordered an S-21 TODAY, you?d have your kit YEARS before an RV equivalent (unless the announcement from Aurora is coming as a New Year?s gift....and I have no way of knowing if it is or not.

Development time on new aircraft is a lot longer than people think - and then you have to develop the kit, the instructions, the support, get parts in the pipeline.... so while its a nice dream, dreams aren?t reality.

The Tundra has been out there for quite a few years, and didn?t sell many (I know, we have 300+ hours on ours) - the company is now for sale. Murphy has put out quite a few kits that meet Jay?s requirements, and owners love them. As we know, the S-21 is selling like hot cakes. Those are just the metal planes.

If you?re worried about ?aging out? before a new kit comes out, then jump in and try one that?s out there and available. Or....wait and see what might be coming from Aurora. And no....I have no idea what that might be.

And I recently flew Steve Henry?s Yeehaw Seven - a Highlander with a 300 HP turbocharged Yamaha that fits under the same cowling as a Rotax. Yeehaw is right!!! Put that motor on a 2+2 and go take off from anywhere....

Lots of choices....
 
Van?s RV15

Having some fun with this thread.
If Van’s Develops something like I am wanting, I would jump on it. My Carol doesn’t think it could happen in time for me to get one. 3 more years ,, she guesses. I’m 73 and fit, and wanting to fly more and build less these days. A brand X isn’t in my deck now.
My North Star and Cessna 180J will carry me into old age just fine. Carol has a 1959 Cessna 172 that I fly some as well. We are all set with nice airplanes, and cars.
I have two 14s in the shop and a 7 coming in April, plenty of work.
If Van’s doesn’t make a high wing kit, we will be fine.
But,,,,There is always a but,,,,,, I have a N# reserved. I Need to use it. N6YH. It would look good on a Van’s High Wing 2+2 RV15
N6 Yaaaa Hoooo,,,, don’t make me build a 21
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of challenges in designing a Swiss Army Knife airplane. As a builder/owner of a Glasair Sportsman I have to say the airplane does very well in meeting a broad range of mission requirements.

Yes, it's not all-metal. To which I reply... No Big Deal. For those who hate Van's fiberglass, that hatred is well deserved. Glass gets a bad rap if it's bad glass. Vans glass parts are bad glass and there's no excuse for them being as bad as they are. Glasair's glass parts are nothing like the Vans parts - no days and days of filling and sanding pinholes.

In looking at the Glastar/Sportsman design we see the airplane is not fully a STOL airplane to compete with a beast Super Cub, but it's pretty darned close and can get in an out of some pretty tight spaces. It can easily convert from trike to tail dragger. Its wings can fold. It can be put on amphib floats with no aerodynamic additions like strakes and fences. It can go from 2 seats to 4 seats easily. On 180hp it can push 150mph with wheel pants installed.

In short, the Glasair/Sportsman design is one that any manufacturer would do well to emulate. Doing it with matched hole aluminum would be nice, but the combination of steel tube frame and sleek glass fuselage works very well and, as kitted, is not any slower to build than aluminum and certainly no more difficult. The crashworthiness of this style of fabrication is excellent - a point few wish to talk about, but a very important point nonetheless.

I realize many folks here are steeped in Vans kool-aid - that's OK. It's worthwhile, though, to realize other airplanes are out there, have already been designed and are available and flying.

Besides, it's kinda cool to have the line boy ask if that's a Cessna Skycatcher, then to see the surprise on their face when the big Lycoming barks to life!
 
I don't think Vans is going to deliver on this one.. Just doesn't seem in their nature to do a high-wing airplane..

S-21 is my next airplane.
 
Glasair's glass parts are nothing like the Vans parts - no days and days of filling and sanding pinholes.

Things are constantly changing and being improved...... when was that last time you purchased a new sub kit that contained fiberglass parts.

About 98% of the parts now shipped by Vans are gel coated just like the Sportsman parts. This was implemented a couple of years ago.

It does substantially reduce the finishing time on the parts.
 
I wish

I wish the inside of the cabin top of the ?10 was more ?refined?...and that is putting it mildly.

The other issue with the cabin top is that the door openings need to be about 3/8? narrower. This would allow installation as the plans state...as it is, the flanges need to be completely removed as well as thinning of the jamb and removal of a portion of the formed jamb radius. Reducicing the width of the door opening would alleviate those issues and make fitting the cabin top far easier
 
Decisions, decisions.....

As I sit here reading back thru these posts (some very old), it brings me to one main question. I think Paul outlined the basis of my question...Paul detailed the fact that it takes a LONG time to design a new aircraft kit, and actually get it to market. So my question: Hasn't it been like what, six-years (?) since the RV-14 was offered? I surely don't mean this sarcastic by any stretch of the imagination, but what have the engineers been working on for the past 6-years? Surely something is in the works. That many staff engineers to provide build assistance and existing product support? Surely not?

**Full disclosure: I have a new home and hangar within a great Texas airpark community. I have a C-182 in the hangar, then I have nothing else going on in there. I sold my 12 when it was decided that I couldn't safely get my dad flying again, so I NEED A PROJECT. I have a blank check burning a hole in my pockets. A neighbor just bought a Legend Cub kit, and it is nice. I want a STOL-type kit, too. Do I order an S-21 and wait forever? Order a Legend kit and go pick it up two hours away? Or do I wait and see what Van's has coming? Man, decisions, decisions......might just force me to drink...on a Monday....
 
As I sit here reading back thru these posts (some very old), it brings me to one main question. I think Paul outlined the basis of my question...Paul detailed the fact that it takes a LONG time to design a new aircraft kit, and actually get it to market. So my question: Hasn't it been like what, six-years (?) since the RV-14 was offered? I surely don't mean this sarcastic by any stretch of the imagination, but what have the engineers been working on for the past 6-years? Surely something is in the works. That many staff engineers to provide build assistance and existing product support? Surely not?

**Full disclosure: I have a new home and hangar within a great Texas airpark community. I have a C-182 in the hangar, then I have nothing else going on in there. I sold my 12 when it was decided that I couldn't safely get my dad flying again, so I NEED A PROJECT. I have a blank check burning a hole in my pockets. A neighbor just bought a Legend Cub kit, and it is nice. I want a STOL-type kit, too. Do I order an S-21 and wait forever? Order a Legend kit and go pick it up two hours away? Or do I wait and see what Van's has coming? Man, decisions, decisions......might just force me to drink...on a Monday....

Give Van's till July 26th.
 
E/RV-15

and I want an E/RV-15 (yes E = electrically driven :))

Give it another say 20 years, with oil production costs climbing thru the roof, environmental pressure growing exponentially, demography following its non-linear curve, etc., the only way for private aviation to survive, talking medium/long term, will be if electrically powered, period.

So Mr., excuse me, Sir Vans, gimme an electrical -15 (no need for the -A derivative, thanks ;)), say like a -7, eventually -14 (with thinner wings maybe?), with the same performance and endurance.
Looking towards the future, many thanks for listening out!
 
and I want an E/RV-15 (yes E = electrically driven :))

Give it another say 20 years, with oil production costs climbing thru the roof, environmental pressure growing exponentially, demography following its non-linear curve, etc., the only way for private aviation to survive, talking medium/long term, will be if electrically powered, period.

So Mr., excuse me, Sir Vans, gimme an electrical -15 (no need for the -A derivative, thanks ;)), say like a -7, eventually -14 (with thinner wings maybe?), with the same performance and endurance.
Looking towards the future, many thanks for listening out!

Battery technology will not support your “same performance and endurance” requirement - at least not for a few decades. By then, if we continue to follow the European model, private ownership of airplanes will be regulated into the grave and/or priced out of reach of us standard working slobs.

The only practical paths for us are rapid developments of:
- Diesel engines running 100% bio fuel.
- Practical (and affordable) turbo props running bio jet fuel.
- A breakthrough in affordable fuel cell technology (hopefully this will be accompanied by a redirected green agenda toward a hydrogen economy).

Shoot fire, a lot of builders seem to struggle to just keep their aircraft battery healthy. Extrapolating this to an electric airplane might just be asking too much.

Carl
 
Back
Top