What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Is your other plane a bush plane?

Is it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 107 74.8%
  • No

    Votes: 36 25.2%

  • Total voters
    143

DeltaRomeo

doug reeves: unfluencer
Staff member
As an addendum to my 'Would you build an RV-Super Cub?' document that I'm gathering signatures for to see if there is interest, my friend Jay Pratt told me today another of our local RV circle has began construction of a Rans S-21 bush plane (Don C). Jay asked what I thought about a poll regarding people who own a 2nd airplane. Sounds like a good idea. Hoping to get a rough idea of the percentages....

Here is the question:

*IF* you are building or fly an RV AND*IF* you own an additional plane, is that additional plane (or one of the additional planes if you own more) what would be considered a 'bush plane'? A J-3 or a Champ would be an example...as would a C170/C180 (high wing / taildragger).

If you're flying an RV and building a bush plane that would be a yes. Same in reverse....flying a bush plane and building an RV.

Basically trying to see roughly what percentage of VAF readers have some 'bush plane genes' in them in addition to their obvious 'RV gene'. ;^)

Yes or no?​
 
Last edited:
If Van's ever comes out with a C170/172 bush plane, I'm going to put down my welding torch and pick up my rivet gun and start putting my RV-bush plane together tomorrow!

I need a 2+2 bush plane, another two seater won't cut it for me. Sorry Doug.
 
Last edited:
Had an experimental SuperCub and sold it last spring to build the Aircam on amph. float. Going to Brunswick , ME. in a few days to pick up my new Clamar floats ( their new manufacturing shop location). I think I'm set number 2 out of there.
 
In the first post, it's considered a bush plane, but I'd only call it a quasi-bush plane. I've flown mine to some interesting places that certainly look like "bush" places. But it doesn't have the big tires, vortex generators, and heck, the rear seat is still installed. It certainly can't successfully use the tiny places that the very serious short-field aircraft use, and nobody will ever mistake it for a helicopter. It has a respectable cruise speed and has gone to both borders and both coasts.

I fly the 1955 Cessna 180, "Big Hammer."

Dx1akQu.jpg


Guess I should mark the poll yes, huh? [ed. Absolutely!]

Dave
RV-3B, stuff being put in the canoe now
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Champ

Restoring a 1958 Champ, very different than building the RV. Good champ group on Google for VAF like advice and assistance.

Champ is for the other end of the spectrum flying and am hoping to fly Idaho back country again (and maybe Alaska)
Figs
 
I have a 1948 ("ragwing") Cessna 170, similar to David's post above it is considered a bush plane per the first post.

It has a climb prop so it does pretty well (in climb, not cruise!), but certainly nothing like the true STOL guys.
 
RV kit designed for floats or skis sign me up! J3 currently filling that role, but would be nice to have something a bit more modern that goes faster than 80mph!

GMaLyZs.png
 
Yes, I have an RV12 and plan on building a Rans S21 with the same panel as the 12 and a Barrett IO360.
 
Hmm, lets me check the hangar inventory....R-3, RV-6, RV-8, Xenos motorglider under construction, Subsonex under construction....oh, there it is - the Tundra! Hiding behind the old Four-Runner. Yep, big tires, 180 HP, High drag flaps, no back sets installed, mud on the floor, bike racks - definitely a bush plane!
 
I'd love to see Vans offer a kit Cub. Then, I'd like to see Cubcrafters (who are 45 min. away) offer a low wing 4 place nose dragger in response.
 
Bush Planes

I'm genuinely enjoying building my very none standard Radial RV-8 and should have it standing up on it's own custom tall & wide Grove gear by this weekend. Now my 8 project by no means will be a bush plane other than I hope to be able to get it in & out of my grass farm strip eventually and sharing the hangar with the Maule that is truly a STOL performer.

Now for the part our host is interested in hearing. I enjoy the building almost as much as the flying. With the difficulty of dealing with mantiance of a certified aircraft I'am quite sure as soon as I'm proficient enough to get the 8 in & out of my home strip, the building of a bush / STOL type experimental will commence shortly. If Vans have an option for this mission profile they would be my first choice.
 
After finishing my RV9 and flying it for 500 hours, I built a Sportsman 2+2. It has 8.50x6 tires, and we fly it to many of the Utah and Idaho back country strips, so I guess that qualifies. It'a a great plane.

We had so much fun with it, we converted the RV9 to a "Bush Plane"! We removed the wheel pants and installed Matco brakes, 6' wheels and 8.00x6 tires, along with a Bell tail fork and 7.5' tail wheel. My son flies the the RV9 into all the same strips as I do.

It's no Super Cub, but neither is the Sportsman, but both do a pretty good job. The RV9 does surprisingly well, since it's pretty light (just under 1000 lb),and the turbo makes a difference at higher altitudes.

Kurt Goodfellow
RV9 / WAM 120 diesel 630 hours
Sportsman / Continental CD155 diesel 620 hours
 
An RV aircraft conplimented by a bush aircraft is a match made in heaven. Really not a whole lot missing in mission profiles then. I have an RV-8, RV-3, a 200hp Aviat Husky and Cessna 180J. A couple of other types types that don't apply for purposes of the survey. I think a Carbon Cub, Brusard, Husky, Super Cub, Super Legend, PA12, Javron, Wilga or even a Yamaha powered Highlander might be fun a fun match for an RV. A few RV guys have been attracted to the Javron Cub including the likes of Larry Vetterman, Jay Pratt and Jerry Sheppard. The Javron may already provide an existing kit similar to what Vans might could do. I just flew Sheppard's Javron with a smooth cool running Titan XO-370 and it was truly amazing. Much better than any other Super Cub types I have ever flown.
 
Flying a RV8

I’m Flying a RV8
Year 2002. I put my money on a North Star Bush kit plane. First flight was April, 2004
I have really enjoyed this 180 hp Super Cub type plane. Having a bush plane opens a lot of interesting places to fly to, That my RV8 cannot touch.
Gotta have both types if you can swing it.
I have owned a Cessna 180J for 9 years too.
If I was building another Bush Plane today it would be a Javron, or a Rans 21, unless,,,!!
Vans came out with a 2+2 C170 type plane
 
Last edited:
One of my "other airplanes" is a bush type, but I still vote no. I started my Pacer replica/flying dump truck long before I ever flew an RV. After that, the need for speed took over and the Hiperbipe turned into a Harmon Rocket and the Pacer is hanging forlorn in the rafters. No interest in a "bush airplane" anymore. The low and slow mission is satisfied by my T-craft, and the newest addition to the stable - my L-39 - certainly should round out the extreme fast end of things. The bottom line is that after experiencing the good flying qualities of the RV line, the primary ingredient lacking is speed... When the Rocket is flying, the RV sits; soon, the Rocket won't be fast enough either. What I'm interested in is a significantly faster RV.

If I ever want a bush plane for some reason, there are a dozen or so excellent examples available today.
 
Last edited:
I made the decision a year ago to build something that would get me in and out of the rough/short strips we have in BC, and highlighted by the BC General Aviation Association airstrip map.

My choice was an S-21. A Supercub is way too small for my big frame, and side-by-side is essential for pax comfort. The 46.5" fuselage width takes care of that. The build has been pretty straightforward, but the kit has teething pains.

It's weird debating this on a site dedicated to Vans RVs, almost disloyal. What I really wanted was a high-wing RV-9. The S-21 is about a close a match as I could find.

But of course, maybe Vans is going to roll out a 2-seat VTOL electric, and leap-frog everyone! This is not a joke, I expect to fly one in my lifetime (or at least push the buttons).
 
No

There are plenty of bush/stol plane kits, plans or certified. If anything van's next design should be something that does 300 knots. Like I said you go slow grass strip guys have plenty of choices already. A fast, piston and relatively cheap airplane aren't really available. I don't consider a lancaire cheap.
 
Poor Guy's Bush Plane

1941 Taylorcraft BC12-65. Totally restored 2015. Fun flyer and doesn't break the flying budget at 4.0 gph mogas. More like a powered sailplane than Cub performer. Can fly it as long as I have a valid drivers license. If Van would
design a simple kit similar to this it would attract first time builders.
 
We have in our fleet both an Experimental Super Cub, N128JS and a big tire 182a, N3982D. Now that we sold the RV3B, we are building a 7A. I think the Vans methodology would transfer to a 170-180 type aircraft over the cub replacement and they would dominate the market.

-Jay
 
Have RV-6 and sold Murphy Rebel on 31? Bushwheels to build the bigger Murphy Moose for my off airport needs. It?s like a Skywagon on steroids.
 
not yet...

My other plane is a Beech V35B. Great family hauler! It is my intention to build a Kitfox as a father/son project starting in a year or two. If they offered one, I'd consider a Van's bushplane instead of the Kitfox, but I doubt the timing will work out. Maybe it can be my father/daughter project in 8 or 9 years.
 
Let's face it - you need 3 planes. An RV, a bush plane, and an antique open cockpit biplane for those summer evening sunset cruises low enough that you can smell the fresh cut grass. I'm almost 1/3rd of the way there.

BTW Patrol is a great choice. I had to struggle to decide which to build - I have the plans. So it's next.
 
My other planes are a Subaru-powered Jodel
10470996_531629266965865_1183654377071488932_n.jpg


and a Bowers Fly Baby.
PH-BRR.jpg


Both not really bush flyers. Not a whole lot of bush to fly around here anyway...
 
Rv Supercub

I have an 8 and own 50% of a 10. Both great planes. Sold my 9a , couldn?t keep em all. I would love to see a Van?s super cub. Wondering if they could make the jump to true super cub thinking. I just want a new super cub bush plane that has close to super cub performance. All metal would be great......I?ve been to Randy?s shop twice to look at his s7. Looks good, just can?t pull out my wallet. I think if the design was for a full sized s/cub, not a compromise,I would be in.
Ed.
 
More

I know a lot of people that Have RVs and C180, 185s and Cubs,,, that will not show up on this poll. Lots!
Off road flying is fun, fun, fun!
 
I know a lot of people that Have RVs and C180, 185s and Cubs,,, that will not show up on this poll. Lots!
Off road flying is fun, fun, fun!

I can?t imagine ever getting rid of my 185. Full fuel (74 gal), four 200 lb people and 150 lbs of bags is still below gross and w/in CG. Pretty incredible machines.

I can?t wait to finish my RV-8, but the 185 is our family truckster.
 
Since you mentioned the 170 specifically as qualifying as a bush plane, I answered the poll ?yes?. But, even though I regularly operate on grass and I have been to Johnson Creek, my 170 with its stock 145hp and 6.00-6 tires isn?t really set up for what I think of as real bush flying.

2s5xlkj.jpg
[/QUOTE]
 
*Yes*

My first (and "always") airplane is my 2006 RV8--hard to imagine NOT having such a fantastic ride at my disposal. The (*s) are because I don't actually own my 2nd project (RANS S7S) anymore...but my son DOES and I still do the lion's share of the maintenance, so I consider it my 2nd airplane!
After I finish my current project (SPA Panther--would've loved building an RV3, but my keister, not to mention the rest of my carcass, just won't allow it!), I hope that Van's has a tandem or 4-seat bush plane to allow a yes vote without the asterisk. If not, maybe Randy will have an all metal tandem or 4-seater by then.

Jon Farley
RV8 "Redtail Angel"
RANS S7S "Squatch" Sold, but still in the family
SPA Panther Empennage complete, wings hanging in the jigs
Wannabe Van's Bushplane Builder
 
Please make sure it has a traditional aircraft engine. (0-360 like). And it must compete with the Carbon Cub.

I will strongly disagree with the "compete" with a Carbon Cub statement. There are a bunch of planes in the group that are lucky to do 110 knots but stall in the 20's and 30's.

My desire is a 2+2 that can use anywhere between a 150 hp O-320 to a 200 HP IO-360. (Avoid crazy expensive engines like the IO-390, 400, and/or 540.)

I would happily give up low end stall for something that flies like the -9 on the low end and maxes out at 140 knots, more is always better.

Realistically, how many people land on sandbars in the middle of a river? (We have a customer who sent us his EICommander after it spent two weeks upside-down in a river, along with his plane.) It is kind of like the Jeep thing, most owners don't but "could" go off roading to some place other than the local mall. However, having something that can land on relatively rough fields that are 1600' long would be ideal as long as they can get there in a reasonable amount of time.

I love SuperCubs, Super STOL's, Dakota Cubs, etc. for their ability to land in really short spaces but not so much for their ability to take a week getting there. Even the Bearhawk has a fairly slow cruise speed.

That's why I like the idea of a C170 like kit. They could design it so you can have a nosewheel or a tailwheel (Think of the Cessna crowd who would jump on the RV bandwagon!), you could take your wife and two friends out for dinner, or you and your buddy could LOAD it up and go hunting with it.

Just my dream plane as I already have a two place plane and really need the extra seats but want a Bearhawk, Maule or PA-14 with some speed.
 
Last edited:
My other plane is a 1940 Piper J3 Cub. Took me 4 years to restore from a trailer of parts. Finished it in Sept 2017. It now has 72 hrs. C85/Stroker. Love flying it
IMG_3913-L.jpg

IMG_6476-L.jpg
 
2+2

I will strongly disagree with the "compete" with a Carbon Cub statement. There are a bunch of planes in the group that are lucky to do 110 knots but stall in the 20's and 30's.

My desire is a 2+2 that can use anywhere between a 150 hp O-320 to a 200 HP IO-360. (Avoid crazy expensive engines like the IO-360, 400, and/or 540.)

I would happily give up low end stall for something that flies like the -9 on the low end and maxes out at 140 knots, more is always better.

Realistically, how many people land on sandbars in the middle of a river? (We have a customer who sent us his EICommander after it spent two weeks upside-down in a river, along with his plane.) It is kind of like the Jeep thing, most owners don't but "could" go off roading to some place other than the local mall. However, having something that can land on relatively rough fields that are 1600' long would be ideal as long as they can get there in a reasonable amount of time.

I love SuperCubs, Super STOL's, Dakota Cubs, etc. for their ability to land in really short spaces but not so much for their ability to take a week getting there. Even the Bearhawk has a fairly slow cruise speed.

That's why I like the idea of a C170 like kit. They could design it so you can have a nosewheel or a tailwheel (Think of the Cessna crowd who would jump on the RV bandwagon!), you could take your wife and two friends out for dinner, or you and your buddy could LOAD it up and go hunting with it.

Just my dream plane as I already have a two place plane and really need the extra seats but want a Bearhawk, Maule or PA-14 with some speed.

Right On! Bill. !!!!
A 2+2 170 type plane would be the ticket. One or two up front. Rear seats optional. All metal
 
Right On! Bill. !!!!
A 2+2 170 type plane would be the ticket. One or two up front. Rear seats optional. All metal

.....and not be a $150-$200k airplane like the Sportsman.

Folding wings and trailerable without fuss would be a plus just for hangar space concerns.

The market is really quite crowded with bush plane kits from the low and slow scaled cubs and Highlander's, all the way up to the Sportsman, which I feel is the closest to what an RV bush plane might spec out like, but again, hold onto your wallet.

The only reason Vans would consider doing this kit is their loyal fan base, which exceeds all other kit fans, would provide enough market. I don't think you will swing over the "bush" crowd very easily.

There seems to be a lot of opinions on what folks want in a bush plane, so that cuts down the number of Vans fans that would take final interest.

Not seeing much of a market here for the investment. Even this VAF crowd doesn't seem to agree on what type of bush plane they want.

Thus far we want a 2+2, #1000 useful load, 30" tires, 30mph stall, 150mph cruise, 600sm range, folding wings, all in for under $125k. Good luck Vans!

Perhaps that needs to be the next poll. What are you looking for (but make it reasonable, not like my example).
 
.....Thus far we want a 2+2, #1000 useful load, 30" tires, 30mph stall, 150mph cruise, 600sm range, folding wings, all in for under $125k. Good luck Vans!...

How about $60K. That would bring a LOT more people into this amazing hobby.

That's where the engine and prop and simple panels come into play. (Although one modern EFIS is lighter and cheaper than steam gauges.)

Come on Van's, we know you want to do this!
 
Right On! Bill. !!!!
A 2+2 170 type plane would be the ticket. One or two up front. Rear seats optional. All metal


I actually think there’s room in the Vans “bush plane” market for two different designs. 1. The 170/180 style 2+2 “gentlemen’s” bush-plane that could take the family and or friends on outdoor adventures. Make it all metal and with solid, one-piece spring type landing gear that’s robust but easy to maintain. Make the landing gear in an airfoil type of a design (kind of like the Grove RV-8 gear) so that the airplane will be relatively fast. Also make the gear easily removable and have the airframe pre-configured and rigged so that they could easily be swapped out for amphibious floats. Equip it with some relatively large “all terrain” tires, and you’d have one awesome “gentleman’s” bush-plane.

Now for number 2. A Super Cub/super STOL style, hard-core, all metal, tandem seating, all terrain, go anywhere, do anything, Bad-A$$, Alaskan style bush-plane. Equip it with the latest heavy duty Cub-style landing gear and Acme off-road shocks or the new Beringer Alaskan landed gear. Put a set of 31-35” tundra tires on it and you’d really be set to go anywhere. Design it with the latest Fowler flap and aileron airfoil technology along with automatically deployable leading edge slats to give it true super-STOL abilities. Design it with off-road/backcountry being its primary mission. You’d also still want to easily be able to convert it to a float plane.

Large doors on both sides of the fuselage would be highly desirable on a floatplane so that you could easily exit out of either side of the airplane. You’d also want to have the back seat and controls easily removable or mobile enough to get everything out of the way so that the back of the plane could be loaded up with camping and hunting or fishing gear along with the game that you’d taking home with you after your trip.

That backseat/rear fuselage area should also be designed and accessible to actually be able to sleep in that area if necessary. I could go on and on but I think the point is that I believe that Vans has the opportunity to satisfy a market that’s itching for both styles of airplane as I’ve described. You can kind of think of it as satisfying the RV-10 and RV-8 crowd.

Both types of airplanes are very capable but have a little bit different mission in mind. I think Vans saw a need for both a two and four seat versions of their traditional fast, efficient, and sexy aircraft and they really hit the nail on the head with those designs but I also think there’s a golden opportunity for them to capitalize on these very similar but distinctively different backcountry/bush-style airplanes as described above.

Heck, I think there’s even enough room for a third and possibly a fourth design. Can you imagine a four seater, and both a tandem and side by side two seater bush-planes in their lineup? And who knows, maybe even light-sport bush-plane? Think of it as the 7, 8, 10,....and 12 of Vans bush-planes!!....”And the crowd went wild”!! LOL!!

So Santa, I’ve been a “pretty good” boy this year, so now you know what I want under the tree. :)

Mark
 
Last edited:
I actually think there?s room in the Vans ?bush plane? market for two different designs. 1. The 170/180 style 2+2 ?gentlemen?s? bush-plane that could take the family and or friends on outdoor adventures. Make it all metal and with solid, one-piece spring type landing gear that?s robust but easy to maintain. Make the landing gear in an airfoil type of a design (kind of like the Grove RV-8 gear) so that the airplane will be relatively fast. Also make the gear easily removable and have the airframe pre-configured and rigged so that they could easily be swapped out for amphibious floats. Equip it with some relatively large ?all terrain? tires, and you?d have one awesome ?gentleman?s? bush-plane. Now for number 2. A Super Cub/super STOL style, hard-core, all metal, tandem seating, all terrain, go anywhere, do anything, Bad-A$$, Alaskan style bush-plane. Equip it with the latest heavy duty Cub-style landing gear and Acme off-road shocks or the new Beringer Alaskan landed gear. Put a set of 31-35? tundra tires on it and you?d really be set to go anywhere. Design it with the latest Fowler flap and aileron airfoil technology along with automatically deployable leading edge slats to give it true super-STOL abilities. Design it with off-road/backcountry being its primary mission. You?d also still want to easily be able to convert it to a float plane. Large doors on both sides of the fuselage would be highly desirable on a floatplane so that you could easily exit out of either side of the airplane. You?d also want to have the back seat and controls easily removable or mobile enough to get everything out of the way so that the back of the plane could be loaded up with camping and hunting or fishing gear along with the game that you?d taking home with you after your trip. That backseat/rear fuselage area should also be designed and accessible to actually be able to sleep in that area if necessary. I could go on and on but I think the point is that I believe that Vans has the opportunity to satisfy a market that?s itching for both styles of airplane as I?ve described. You can kind of think of it as satisfying the RV-10 and RV-8 crowd. Both types of airplanes are very capable but have a little bit different mission in mind. I think Vans saw a need for both a two and four seat versions of their traditional fast, efficient, and sexy aircraft and they really hit the nail on the head with those designs but I also think there?s a golden opportunity for them to capitalize on these very similar but distinctively different backcountry/bush-style airplanes as described above. Heck, I think there?s even enough room for a third and possibly a fourth design. Can you imagine a four seater, and both a tandem and side by side two seater bush-planes in their lineup? And who knows, maybe even light-sport bush-plane? Think of it as the 7, 8, 10,....and 12 of Vans bush-planes!!....?and the crowd went wild?!! LOL. So Santa, I?ve been a ?pretty good? boy this year so now you know what I want!!

Mark

Mark - you now just cut the market into another segment. Vans will never do a bush plane unless they have clear direction on what the market wants.
Thus far, all this poll thread has done is shown how little in common the VAF subscribers have when it comes to this type of aircraft.
If, together, this group can not settle on what they want and show Vans there are enough people that would buy it, they will not make the investment.
In a crowded market with lots of bush plane kit options, we better all settle on what you want Vans to do that is different, and what you would buy.
If I am sitting at Vans right now looking at this thread, I would be confused....
 
Mark - you now just cut the market into another segment. Vans will never do a bush plane unless they have clear direction on what the market wants.
Thus far, all this poll thread has done is shown how little in common the VAF subscribers have when it comes to this type of aircraft.
If, together, this group can not settle on what they want and show Vans there are enough people that would buy it, they will not make the investment.
In a crowded market with lots of bush plane kit options, we better all settle on what you want Vans to do that is different, and what you would buy.
If I am sitting at Vans right now looking at this thread, I would be confused....

Well, I tend to disagree with you a little bit. For starters, this thread is just about having some fun and daydreaming about a few “possibilities” if Vans were to introduce a bush-plane kit. I don’t think they’re confused in the least and if anything they probably enjoy reading the wishlist of all of us daydreamers. But if they were to ever actually take any of this seriously I see no reason why they shouldn’t look at the bush-plane market just exactly as they do the sport-plane market.

Obviously, they saw a need/desire for a four place and several two place kits (both side-by-side and tandem) as evidenced by their current lineup and with the many differences in opinions/desires that we’ve seen here on this thread alone, I don’t think they’re confused in the least as to the fact that there’s many different wants/needs from many different people.

From a business point of view the hard part would be determining where the most profitable niche is...or at the very least where the best place to start is. I think all of our imaginations can go wild and fantasizing about the possibilities that are only limited by those imaginations, but I also think if you’re in the kit plane business you have to keep your finger on the pulse of what your potential customers want.

So with that said, I’ll go back to my original thoughts of “why not” a bush-plane lineup exactly like,....but just a mirror image “opposite” of the sport-plane lineup. Once again, I think the hard part would be to decide on which one should be the “first” one to be introduced, but after that only the sky...(or market) would be your limit.

I think these airplane kits are just like anything else that there’s a market for and as a business you must decide what demographics your going to go after and I think there’s a fine balancing act that you must pull off. It’s kind of like a house building contractor....do you want to build one or two multimillion dollar homes a year or do you want to build a bunch of middle class homes a year??

I think when your dealing with “regular guys” like the majority of us are that are interested in kit-planes, then you must not only offer kit(s) that are desired, you must also keep them in a price range that “regular guys” can afford. Would I love a four place SUV bush-plane?....sure I would....just exactly like I’d love an RV-10. However, at this point in my life and with everything else in life to take in account, my budge will only allow me to build a fixed pitch prop RV-7.

There’s a lot of guys that can afford an RV-10 with all of the bells and whistles and I’m really happy for them...and maybe at some point I’ll be able to join their ranks, but right now I’ll be VERY happy with my new RV-7. Once again, from a business/market point of view, I think there’s a lot more RV-7 out there flying around than there are RV-10’s, but obviously Vans saw a market for both.

I also think the exact same analogy holds true with these bush-planes that we’re talking about. Confusion?....no, I don’t think so. Diverse desires....yes!! Once again, from a business point of view, where should/would they start?? Who knows, maybe the market is over saturated with bush-planes and maybe there’s no room for another player...but on the other hand, with the reputation that Vans has, maybe this is just exactly what the bush-plane market has been waiting on. I guess this is call that only Vans can make. Until then, we can all just keep on dreaming and keeping our fingers crossed.

Oh, BTW, if Vans is reading any of this, if I can’t get my Vans tandem bush-plane I’ll be building a Rans S-7 next...after I’m finished with my Vans RV-7. So, you can see what demographics I fall into. LOL!! .....it’s all fun though!!

Mark ��
 
Last edited:
Back
Top