• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Aeronca 15AC Sedan

Jon B.

Registered User
Willmar, MN (KBDH)
Anyone here at all familiar with the Sedan? Don Sheldon's book has mention of it but it's been about 25 years since I last laid eyes on one.

I'm looking for a machine with more room but not necessarily higher performance than the Champ. Cessna 170s are getting expensive. Stinson parts are made of unobtanium (in some cases) and the newer aircraft are too much money for my limited budget.

What can one expect from a Sedan, performance-wise? The one I saw for sale has the original C-145 engine. Will they fly off the snow, with skis? Any idea what the useful load might be?

Jon B.
 
I had a Sedan for a number of years and loved it. It is a great airplane if your not in a hurry. It has lots of room and is very comfortable, as I recall ours had about an 800# useful load. We had a c-145 and operated on wheels and skis, if you dont get carried away with loading it to heavy you can get out shorter than you can comfortbly get in. In any case 700 ft. is not a problem.If you do get one with the 145 invest in a set of fine wire plugs as that engine hates 100LL, or do as we did and get the auto fuel stc. One other thing, we used a seaplane prop, an 8040 I think. ( memory is not what it used to be ) that prop can be a little difficult to find but makes a big diff. in performance.Great airplane you wont be dissapointed.

Cheers.. Steve
 
No flaps. But that's not much different from a Champ I guess. I think the Sedan is a fine looking aircraft. One of the major mags did a piece on a Sedan on floats a while back...Plane and Pilot perhaps? I wonder how it compares performance-wise to my similarly powered 170? Anyone have any idea what the average empty weight of one is?
 
They are all in Alaska - that should say something about the aircraft. Bet it's a lot easier to buy parts for a Stinson, but have you seen Stinson prices lately? My first Stinson cost $2500; would haul anything we could get in there.
 
Aeronca Sedan

I'm biased towards Stinson's - since I own one. A friend has a Sedan here with the Continental. A little roomier than my bird. It is a fine plane on wheels and skis. On 2000 floats, it just doesn't have it. A marginal 2 person float plane = don't carry much fuel or bring much other than your fishing pole. He has bought different props, etc etc for float flying, with only marginal improvement. His mechanic says get the 180 horse STC. Great, except by the time he does all that he just as well go buy an old Cessna 180 for the same money he will have into it. Parts for my Stinson are no problem, thanks to Univair and an abundance on the used parts market. You can buy a big engine Stinson, with the O-470 or Franklin 220 (back in production now), with floats, skis and wheels for $45-$65,000. You will then have a real float plane that can haul a real load. And an unbelievable performing wheel and ski plane. You can get a real nice 165 HP Stinson for the low to mid 30's without floats. You couldn't go wrong with either bird for ski's or wheels, but if you'll ever float it my money would buy another Stinson. My biased 2 cents.
 
My buddy Kevin Mays has 2 C-170s for sale in KY. Both at extreemly fair prices.

Jason
N43643
 
I don't see it on floats, even though I have an 'S' on my certificate. I don't live on a lake or river, and am not wild about leaving my airplane sit outside all summer.

I would most definitely mount skis, though. I put the K-A Champ on skis last winter and had an awful lot of fun with it. I'm already looking forward to winter (after New Holstein, of course).

Stinsons are definitely nice. Cessna 170s are, too (Model Bs, anyway). I agree that Stinson parts are readily available if you can afford them. There were only 561 Sedans manufactured, of which fewer than half are still alive. Of these, over 70 are registered in Alaska. That does, indeed, mean something.

Burl has plenty of parts and STCs for the Sedan; with support like that, the old birds should last a long time.

jgerard, I sent a PM regarding the 170s on Kentucky.

Jon B.
 
Jon,

I know of a guy that has a Sedan up in MN. I will be back in MN on the 9th. I'll ask him if it is for sale. I know he was selling some of his other planes last year. I'll let you know if I find anything out.

Keith
 
I was surrounded by all three models of 170s for a while. The rag wings were a little lighter, a little faster, held 50 gals of gas, and were way better looking. Right now they are a bunch cheaper. I owned an A model, but the ragwings were my favorites. We had all kinds of short takeoff and landing comparisons--didn't seem to be enough difference to talk about. You can buy a rag wing with a mid time engine for highs 20s to low 30s. You can be lazier on the trim wheel with a B, and you don't have to work as hard with those big flaps, but you pay a ton for those flaps. I think they are over rated.
I would take a 170 over a Stinson any day.
 
One of my Stinsons was a gorgeous red "dash 3" with a 180 Franklin. It would climb with the best Cessna 180 around (same load). Wasn't very fast, even with a constant speed prop, but it sure was fun! You want to haul stuff, get a Stinson. You are rich and want to haul stuff, get a 180. You want to have fun, get a J-3. My opinion.
 
A 170 over a Stinson - now those are fightin words. Just got home from dinner - flew 4 full size adults on floats to dinner 40 miles away - started with 50 gallons of fuel. Find me a 170 - even with the 180 horse, that will do that. And all the 180 HP's 170's I've seen sell for 70 plus -without floats. Anyways, they are all nice birds as long as they are tail draggers. If you will never fly floats, the Sedan is fine. Just don't expect it to take more than 2 skinny people off the water on a hot day. I saw a nice looking one for sale in TAP over in Wisconsin about a month ago, as I recall was asking about $50,000 with floats and skis and had the 145 in it. Neither the Stinson nor the Sedan have any where near the aftermarket parts, STC's, mods etc that the Cub line has. So if you are the type who might want to add a little here and there over the years to the bird, you will run out of options quick on the Sedan and Stinson.
 
Fightin Words, huh? Everyone has their own goofy ideas--including me.
When I had a 170, I flew around at something like 2100 rpm and 100 mph, saving fuel,enjoying the scenery. My buddy with the big tail 108 said he couldn't do that because of some harmonic thing with the 165 Franklin. Other than the fact that the 170 was faster, slower, roomier, better looking, and burned less fuel, I thought the Stinson was great.

Just pulling your chain--I thought the Stinson was pretty cool. Especially the interior. The wooden panels in the back of the station wagon were really cool.
 
superchamp said:
A 170 over a Stinson - now those are fightin words. Just got home from dinner - flew 4 full size adults on floats to dinner 40 miles away - started with 50 gallons of fuel.

I am curious as to the specs of your Stinson and the take-off numbers and such on this day. I have owned two 170's,one with a 145 hp and the other with a 180 hp with a c/s prop and a Stinson 108-3 with a 165 hp. Loved them all! I am particularly fond of the Stinson and the main reason is because of strength. I feel better protected in the Stinson than I do the Cessna...

Jim
 
My Stinson is the -3 has the Franklin 220 and a 80 inch hartzell constant speed - don't know anything about playing harmonicas in them. Actually, I think that rpm/prop thing you mention is something with the 150 - didn't think the 165 had any issues there. Empty weight on floats is 1687, legal gross is 2500, makes legal useful 813. According to my weight and balance the EDO 2425's add 303 pounds (seems high), so on wheels it weighs 1384 - legal gross on wheels is 2400. At full gross, on floats, say about 75 degrees and a 10 mph wind, I would estimate at 10-15 second takeoff run. On skis or wheels it is off before you know what happened. Don't pick on me now because I have never actually timed it. I will check tomorrow when I head out for Canada- at ahem-full gross. All I know is it is off the water fast. I routinely work it on floats near gross out of a 1/2 mile long lake. Cruises on floats is 115 mph on the airspeed indicator, at 2350 and 24 inches. I flight plan at 12 gph, I would say it normally burns 10 - depends on how many takeoffs etc. On ski's/wheels it is significantly faster. You don't buy a Stinson for speed. My budies 57 C180B burns about 14 gph - he cruises about 5-10 mph faster. The -3 carries 50 gallons, so on floats you have about 4 hours range. You could put a 55 gallon drum in it if you cut a hole in the side or the ceiling. With both rear seats removed, the legal cargo back there is 650 pounds. The baggage area is legal for 100 pounds (accessed by a cargo door). The baggage area is roomy, but the door size limits what you can get into it. I put a 3 horse motor, gas can etc in it. I wish I had lockers on the floats for that junk. The frames on them are beefy. Big double V braces across the windscreen. The 108, 108-1, and 108-2 carry 40 gallons fuel, and have lower gross weights. Most of the empty weights aren't much different that the -3. Stinsons are a cool old planes. Like every other plane, they are a compromise. There is a 170B with the O-360 and CS prop in it on the lake I live at. On floats, the performance isn't even close to my Stinson with any weight in them. And he has a lot more $ into that 170. It is a beautiful plane though.The price on the Stinsons is right, with floats, Fli Lite 3000 wheel skis, and 2500 straight skis, fresh motor and prop, and 4 year old fabric and interior, a Garmin 250XL, Mode C, wing/windscreen covers, I paid a little less than $60,000. Stinson's fly very smooth, and handle turbulence well. If I had $120,000, I probably would have bought a comparably equipped 180. But I don't think the 180 is twice the plane. Can you tell I like my Stinson?
 
AOPA had an article about the aeronca sedan in the November 2005 issue. I pasted in the article for you. Sounds like a nice plane. Happy reading.



Budget Buy
By Land or By Sea
The Aeronca Sedan is a 1940s four-placer that is comfortable anywhere
BY RICK DURDEN (From AOPA Pilot, November 2005.)

Had the gears of fate meshed differently, the best-selling civilian airplane in history might have been an outgrowth of the Aeronca 15-AC Sedan, instead of its contemporary and competitor, the Cessna 170. Indeed, but for critical decisions made by companies facing the financial abyss when the post-World War II aviation boom went bust, it might be Cessna, not Aeronca, which today makes high-quality thrust reversers and other aircraft components rather than complete airplanes.

Instead, the Aeronca Sedan, a most capable airplane and the only four-place machine that Aeronca offered to the market, never quite made its mark, even though production ran from 1948 through 1951. It has so faded from general aviation consciousness as to become but a footnote in the history of one of the largest airplane manufacturers of the 1930s and 1940s. Yet, its abilities make it a fascinating airplane that should not be overlooked, while its relative anonymity means that prices have not gone berserk, so about $35,000 will buy a nice one.

The Aeronautical Company of America appeared in 1928 when some flush Cincinnati businessmen decided that the way to make even more money would be to manufacture airplanes for the public. Employing one Jean Roche, who had been an aeronautical engineer at the cutting-edge Army Air Corps Research & Development facility at McCook Field in Dayton, Aeronca turned Roche's design genius into the single-place C-2, which begat the two-place C-3, which, despite its close resemblance to a bathtub with wings and a powerplant of a mere 36 horsepower, sold and sold and sold because it flew better than anything else around (which wasn't saying much) and could be operated for a pittance.

In the seesaw of airplane development and sales over the next 20 years, Aeronca's fortunes waxed and waned. By 1947, with some 500 unsold two-place Champs and Chiefs sitting about, and having just completed developmental testing of the all-metal, low-wing Chum, Aeronca realized the two-place market was effectively dead. It decided to concentrate on a four-place airplane.

In a remarkably short time the Sedan was created and certificated. Its good performance and overall quality, as well as an initial price of $4,395 (less than a Cessna 170), meant that sales were possible in spite of a truly terrible market. While the idea of a four-seat, aerial family car for customers who had previously purchased Champs or Cubs and needed more seats seemed reasonable, the reality was less than stunning; a modest 561 were built. It may have hurt that it shared a name with a four-place Luscombe that had some interesting development problems.

One of the best markets for the 15-AC proved to be the northern bush operators. They had been desperately seeking to replace their aging and expensive radial-powered monsters with something that was smaller and more efficient, with good low-speed handling characteristics, yet could still carry a decent load. The Aeronca Sedan came to be the answer to many of their prayers, especially when it proved to be most amenable to operation on floats.

A half-century later, Aeronca Sedans are less likely to be working for their fuel, yet many owners keep them on floats. Just offshore from his Lake Skegemog, Michigan, home rests Jim Lindner's float-equipped 15-AC on a cleverly modified boat hoist. That perch allows for the luxury of preflighting a seaplane while keeping one's feet dry, and gives one the time to notice some of the details of this increasingly rare ship.

Unlike other production Aeroncas, the Sedan has all-metal wings, although most of the fuselage is steel tube and fabric. Each wing is supported by a single strut that attaches aft of the cabin door, making it unobtrusive and endearing the airplane to photographers. The cabin, with its ample glassed-in area, is slightly larger than its competitors and tapers from top to bottom, giving the Sedan an aura of size and robustness. There is but one cabin door, on the right side, although there is a supplemental type certificate (STC) for a left door. Only the pilot seat is adjustable, and cabin size, while a bit cramped by today's standards, is perfectly adequate.

One happy surprise comes when weight and balance is calculated — with a 2,050-pound gross weight, 33 usable gallons of fuel, and an empty weight of 1,170 pounds on Lindner's airplane (when on wheels), 682 pounds may be carried with full fuel — which means both filling the tanks with fuel and filling the seats with 170-pounders, an almost unheard-of capability. On floats, the gross weight is increased to 2,100, but the 50-pound bump is exceeded by the extra weight of the floats. Lindner, as with most float operators, considers a float-equipped 15-AC to be a two-place airplane with full fuel, once survival equipment, an anchor, and other necessities are aboard.

The panel is charmingly vintage 1940s, with the instruments clustered in the center, so as to be convenient to both seats, if one is to believe the advertisements of the time. Visibility is amazing. The seating position is low enough that one does not have to crane to look below the wing, yet the cowling is so low that there is more than adequate visibility over the nose.

The two wing tanks are connected, so fuel management consists of selecting either On or Off on the panel-mounted selector. Fuel burn in cruise is about 8.5 gph, so with full tanks the six-cylinder, 145-horsepower Continental engine (either the 0-300A or C-145) can be counted on to run for about 3.5 hours.

Starting is entirely conventional, and the Continental on Lindner's airplane began its delightful, throaty rumble immediately, something of great value to seaplane operators who often have to shove the airplane away from the dock before hitting the starter. On floats, the Sedan rides solidly, with little tendency to pitch or rock even in moderate chop.

On wheels, the toe brakes on the pilot side, combined with Aeronca's seemingly innate ability to make airplanes that are easy to handle on the ground, result in the 15-AC's being one of the nicer tailwheel airplanes to operate. Prior to takeoff the standard runup is completed, recognizing that the gyroscopic flight instruments have yet to come to life because they are powered by a venturi on the side of the fuselage and are only effective once the airplane is at speed.

A gross-weight takeoff in the Aeronca Sedan is not a hurried affair; the rudder becomes effective immediately so directional control on land or water is without surprises, assuming one is determined to keep the airplane pointed straight ahead. Published ground roll is 700 feet, with the airplane flying off at about 55 mph. On floats, application of full power initially results in a clattering roar, but not much else. There is little sensation of acceleration, while what spray there is stays low, away from the cabin and windshield. Full aft wheel is held to start the ascent onto the step, where the floats will plane most efficiently. The nose pitches up, pauses, then pitches up again as the Sedan slowly heaves its way upward. The nose is gradually lowered until the floats are planing, which generates a short burst of modest acceleration, to about 45 mph. Then acceleration pauses, as if the Sedan is asking the pilot if flight is truly desired, and allowing suitable time for a considered answer. Eventually airspeed creeps toward larger numbers and 52 mph is achieved as the airplane lifts off the water.

At 60 mph indicated airspeed (IAS), the 15-AC is firmly and happily flying. It can be tossed from steep turn to steep turn at that speed, demonstrating remarkable stability and control, one of the reasons the airplane has remained popular with those who appreciate low-speed handling. Sixty mph is also best-angle-of-climb speed, while best rate is 75 mph. Even at gross weight, unless the day is hot or the altitude high, the 15-AC offers a climb rate of better than 500 fpm.

At altitude, 2,500 rpm generates about 100 mph true airspeed for the floatplane, or 105 to 110 mph for the landplane. Rolling into any turn requires getting used to leading slightly with the rudder, and once established, especially in steep turns, a healthy dose of opposite aileron is needed to maintain the selected bank. The controls would not be considered quick; it takes a noticeable deflection to make things happen, and they are reasonably well harmonized, with the feel being very close to that of its smaller sibling, the Chief. Upon slowing to 55 mph, the feel changes very little; control inputs are only slightly magnified and there is no tendency of the airplane to misbehave.

The ceiling-mounted elevator trim crank is effective, leading to overcorrection at first. Age-induced gear lash produces an effect involving a dead spot when changing direction with the trim crank, so very little happens, followed shortly thereafter by a great deal happening. Every power change requires re-trimming because the propeller slipstream and downwash from the wing have a powerful effect on trim, requiring much adjustment when changing speed.

While maneuvering speed is 91 mph, 60 mph is the jack-of-all-trades speed; if the area is confined, or if there is an obstruction, hold 60 mph and a spiral descent can be made, or a turn can be made almost immediately after liftoff with little fear that the airplane will fall out from under the pilot. Stall speed is 50 mph (there are no flaps; the high lift wing just doesn't seem to need them). The stall, whether straight ahead or turning, is benign. There is little tendency to drop a wing, even with the wheel held full aft, attempting to aggravate things. The rudder, and to a lesser extent, the ailerons, remains effective.

Returning for landing, there is little to do to prepare. No fuel tank to switch or propeller control to fiddle with; simply apply carb heat opposite the point of desired touchdown, go to full rich mixture, if desired, and slow to about 80 mph. On final, 70 mph works well, with some power. The Sedan slips very nicely, obviating any need for flaps. Power is reduced to idle in the flare and a slightly nose-high attitude is selected for float landings. Properly done, the water begins to tickle the underside of the floats shortly after the throttle is fully back to idle.

On wheels, the Sedan issues its own challenge to land well in three-point attitude. If the flare is entered below 70 mph, full up elevator may be inadequate to get the nose high enough to roll the tailwheel on with the mains, resulting in a less-than-pleasing bit of bounding between the tailwheel and main gear. For a short field, 60 mph is selected with the understanding that a lot of power is required to break the descent and flare. Wheel landings are typical Aeronca: Flare slightly tail low with power at idle, then when the mains start to roll, relax the back-pressure and let the trim raise the tail and reduce the angle of attack. The Sedan stays on the ground, and the effective rudder and toe brakes allow a skilled pilot to handle fairly strong crosswinds.

Back at the dock, it's difficult to accept the end of a flight in a Sedan. It does its job well, without flash or arrogance. When not flying, you can console yourself by visiting the numerous Web sites and support groups dedicated to Aeroncas, and maybe even consider one of the STCs for the installation of larger engines. Or, maybe just stroll out to the deck and gaze at the Sedan there on the boat hoist as the setting sun's last rays glint off it and remind yourself how fortunate you were to fly it, and look forward to the next time.
 
Thanks, all, for the info!

The Kick-Ass Champ is now officially For Sale. I posted it this morning in the Classified section here. Mrs. B. is adamant that we not borrow money, so the Champ has to go before we acquire a heavy hauler. She's weird that way; we have total liabilities of around $15k (loan on an '06 Toyota Corolla).

I suppose whatever I buy will be the 'Haul-Ass' Sedan/Stinson/Cessna/Whatever...

I have a lead on a local 108-3 in pretty decent shape.

Keith: any info about the possible Sedan here in MN?

Jon B. 8)
 
Jon B. - just saw a Sedan for sale in Little Falls MN - think it was in Trade A Plane or maybe Barnstomers - it was cheap. The Sedan would work great for you and ma and the youngins, or a bunch of bulky light luggage. It just isn't a "real" 4 place plane. When I went from my champ to a Stinson, the thing I miss most is the tandem seating and the stick. It just isn't the same when you can't look out both sides. The champ was way more fun for just bumming around. The Stinson is more of a gear hauler - still fun - but not as much as a 2 seater. Don't overlook some of the older Maule's - they have an awesome baggage door setup. Good luck in finding your new bird. Russ
 
Jon B.

If you are thinking about a Stinson, send me a PM and I can fill you in on the areas to thoroughly inspect. I am doing a progressive restoration on my dash 3. I have completed the engine and wings and am now doing the fuselage, so I have seen all the inside stuff. They are great airplanes - all ball bearing controls. Those spam can drivers don't know what they are missing. I have flown a straight C170 some and the handling is truck-like compared to the Stinson. I still miss looking out both sides that I had when I flew Champs and Citabrias, but if you want to haul a load, you can't beat a Stinson, especially with a big engine. I think the Sedan would be a cool plane, but wonder about the power of the C145 being adequate. Also, not many around, so airframe parts might be an issue. I only see about one ore two at OSH. If you can afford it, the C180 is probably you best bet, but plan on letting go of some coins.
 
Both the Stinsons and the Sedans are great airplanes. I have no doubt that the big engined Stinsons are THE off airport sleeper of the planet. The -3 will legally carry a good load, and has lots of room. With a big engine, it will also perform. That said, many, if not most Stinsons now have Franklin engines. Make sure you have a mechanic who understands Franklins, cause they ain't like any other engine built. Not bad motors, just different. Also, I believe the Franklins are again an orphan motor, now owned by P & W. Unless they can spin that line off, and get someone else to build them, you are looking at used parts, or surplus, or......

But, there are still a lot of Franklins around. If I were looking for Stinsons, I'd look for a Continental powered big engine one. The O-470 is a great engine, period.

As to Sedans, I've seen a Sedan with 180 hp pull four full size adults and full gas (which isn't a lot) out of the water. Dang near sank those EDO 2000 floats, and I couldn't believe the takeoff performance. This was a 2200 foot (yes, you read that right) float pond, by the way. The 180 hp Sedans are a real performer on floats, just learn how to slip to landings.

Even the stock Sedans, with a strong O-300, are decent two seat seaplanes. Performance-wise, a stock Sedan will out perform a stock 170 on floats every day.

As noted, Burl Rogers in AK has the TC for the Sedan, so as long as he's around, there will be parts.

The 170 (I have one with a 180--a B) is a fine airplane as well. With the stock engine, it's not a sparkling performer on floats, and the most common floats, the EDO 2000's are underfloated on this airplane. But they work, and are a good budget ALL METAL floatplane.

Note that the Stinson is all fabric, and the Sedan has a fabric fuselage and metal wing. If you don't like fabric planes, stay away from these, then. Nothing wrong with fabric, but maintenance will be higher over the long term, and its harder to keep them looking nice, especially if parked outside.

MTV
 
Mike,

You are right about Franklins being an orphan engine. I think that is the main reason for the low price of Stinsons. Franklins are a great engine and 165 HP parts are available on the surplus and PMA market except crankshafts. PZL in Poland was making the 220 HP engine until P&W bought them out. Pratt was not interested in recips, apparently, so production stopped.

There was a Polish guy at S&F named Roman who claims to have purchased the rights to Franklin and says he will start making the 220 engines and parts. Also parts for the 150 and 165 to follow. Let's wish him luck.

The TCM 470 is a solid engine with strong support, but is a little nose heavy in a Stinson application. I am holding out for a 220 Franklin for my Stinson float plane, preferably USA made. Then I can start on an EXP Super Cub project!
 
The Franklin 220 being back in production is supposedly a realty. The new manufacturer from Poland was at Sun-N-Fun with the 220, and will be at OSH. Claims he will have cranks for 165 and 220 in the US by the end of this year, and certified 220's in the US by early next year. Check it out at franklin-engines.com (real corny background music). I hope they pull it off, since I believe the 220 is one of the best power to weight motors out there. When installed in the Stinson, it is about 100 pounds lighter than the O-470, and no 15 pound lead ball required on the tail as with the O-470. Also fuel burn is an easy 2+ gal per hour less with the 220. There is a Stinson in TAP right now with 4 year old fabric, and 128 hour TTSN 220 in it asking $56K. Sounds like a nice plane. I'll admit when I bought mine with the 220 I was a little worried about parts availability, but thus far there are no real issues. Some 170's have either the 210 Cont or the 220 Franklin in them, and I'll bet they haul. Bad part is you end up paying the same as a decent 180. Don't forget to browse through the Maule ads. There are some good true 4 person Maules out there for $45-$60K. There prices are about the same, maybe just a bit more than comparable performing Stinsons. The Sedan is cool, but still a just a roomy 2 place plane for the most part.
 
Jon,

I'll be back in MN on Saturday and as soon as I can either find the guys number (I left it at my house up there) or go by his house I'll stop and ask him. He doesn't live very far from me.
Do you still have my PH#? It'll be hooked back up as soon as I get home so if I forget to email you, give me a call. Also, I'm not sure when I'll have internet access when I get back so I won't be checking this site for a while.

Keith
 
Keith:

I don't think I have your number. Feel free to drop a PM. Might it be the one that 'superchamp' mentioned, in Little Falls? I didn't find it on barnstormers. I circled a few ads in TAP the other day; one of them might be that one.

I'm making a run to Park Rapids tomorrow - Wednesday - in the K-A Champ, so I'll also check the airport bulletin board for any that may be for sale.

One of these days, I'll drop in to your new strip - I'll call ahead, though!

Jon B.
 
I have my 172 hangared at PR. And my house is straight north about 20 air miles. To bad you weren't waiting about a week, I would be home by then. ALL the people up there in PR are pretty good people. As a matter of fact a buddy of mine from Okinawa just moved to the area and started working at the FBO. His name is Mike and he'll know who I am.

The Sedan isn't in Little Falls, it is up near my place on a private strip. I'm not sure the guy is selling it but he had a couple of other planes for sale last year so I thought he might sell.
I'll PM my PH#
Keith
 
Back
Top