Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Has anyone here ever flown a RANS S-7 on floats or amphibs?

  1. #1
    Alex Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Life Long Alaskan
    Posts
    3,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Has anyone here ever flown a RANS S-7 on floats or amphibs?

    Has anyone here ever flown a RANS S-7 on floats or amphibs? I was wondering how they have enough usable load?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,367
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not on floats, but on wheel skis. It performs very well, but I also don't take a big passenger AND lot's of gear. Just me and lot's of gear, or me and a passenger, with emergency gear, still very good performance. Check out this takeoff at 8,000', right at 9:30, nothing marginal about it at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycv2GDm2DOo&t=520s So, it'd depend on your mission. I've done three different op's at 10K, in the summer, but again just me, but with full camping gear.

    There have been several of them put on floats, that I know, though I never paid that close of attention, the design has been around for 30 years now. I can't see why it wouldn't be a good float performer.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    132
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Clark View Post
    Has anyone here ever flown a RANS S-7 on floats or amphibs? I was wondering how they have enough usable load?
    Flown RANS S7S on aluminum 1500 straight floats about 100 hours. Performance is excellent with 1/2 fuel and one person. Full fuel and two average people youíre over gross but the thing will still perform well. Floats less then 1500s are a little too small IMO. No experience with amphibs.
    Thanks Alex Clark, Jlee thanked for this post
    Likes courierguy liked this post

  4. #4
    Alex Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Life Long Alaskan
    Posts
    3,144
    Post Thanks / Like
    What type of fuel burn do you RANS 7 folks see on average?
    I take it that your max gross is around 1320 pounds, so what are you running for empty weights?
    I have only flown two long tail S7s and I was impressed with both. Although while instructing in the back seat my head was touching something above me..

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    132
    Post Thanks / Like
    You need to fly it hard to burn 5 gph. In the pattern you’d be around 3 gph and at cruise around 4.
    Empty wt on 2004 RANS S-7S with Roberts Gear and Aero Classic 850s plus T3 tailwheel is 762 lbs.
    Courierguy has more specific fuel burn numbers.
    Likes vj88, Alex Clark liked this post

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,367
    Post Thanks / Like
    Today, a 140 mile (one way) breakfast flight to Leadore, 29 gallons on board (mogas) 3.4 GPH at 75 MPH ASI, at 8 K', 3.7 GPH at 85 MPH. 29" Airstreaks, Roberts gear (though faired and covered), a HacMan leaner, a low comp BigBore Zipper mod, and a 78" Prince prop. 780 pounds, after 12 years, they always gain weight, but I have it set up exactly how I want it. Almost identical fuel burns to what I got in my T-Craft with the A-65, but a lot more thrust.
    Likes Alex Clark liked this post

  7. #7
    Alex Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Life Long Alaskan
    Posts
    3,144
    Post Thanks / Like
    I really loved the 2 I have flown on wheels. They behaved like my old lightweight non-electric PA-11, but with a little bit more width and a door on both sides.
    BUT,,, I am not sure I could get a LODA ( Letter of Devine Acceptance) from the Holy order of the FAA to use one for any sort of instruction.

  8. #8
    C130jake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Clark View Post
    Has anyone here ever flown a RANS S-7 on floats or amphibs? I was wondering how they have enough usable load?
    A guy in my EAA chapter won a Gold Lindy at OSH with his. Next time I see him I will ask.


    https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/li...o9X-l5k3iU35oI


    Jake


    Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    Thanks Alex Clark thanked for this post
    Likes Alex Clark, 180Marty liked this post

  9. #9
    gbflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PAGS
    Posts
    719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not a float guy.

    We burn closer to 5gal with ours on 29Ē Airstreaks. Sea level and cooler is much different than the guys getting by on 3.5 at higher altitudes. Of course Iíve always had the slowest plane and dumbest dog. We have big bore cylinders on a 912 and run it at 5200rpm or higher cruise. With the monster gear and big tires that yields a little less than 90mph average.

    I cannot imagine it would be a good float plane for instruction. We really like ours, itís a ton of fun, but it suffers greatly with a load compared to empty. Ingress/egress is not all that convenient for those a bit less mobile and useful load will be an issue with the size people are today.

    I also had a PA-11 with a ton of PA18 mods. It was probably 200# heavier than the Rans. There is very, very little performance difference getting off the ground and also getting on the ground. The climb performance on the Rans is better. The extra wing on the -11 is a huge boost.
    Thanks Alex Clark thanked for this post

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WesternMassachusetts
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    There was a review of a RANS S7 on floats in the July 2004 Sport Aviation issue.
    Likes Alex Clark liked this post

  11. #11
    Alex Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Life Long Alaskan
    Posts
    3,144
    Post Thanks / Like
    GBFlyer:
    My PA-11 was non electric, C-90-8, only one tank, fixed seats, bare bones interior, and lightweight fabric. so she was only 776 pounds on wheel gear. ( weighed) She jumped off the ground here at sea level.

    But I will say that my buddy's Long tail S-7 with a starter gets off the ground at about the same place.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Cub at mountain base.JPG 
Views:	39 
Size:	145.2 KB 
ID:	45313   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2012-12-31 003 (1280x882).jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	463.5 KB 
ID:	45314  

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,367
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=gbflyer;757969]Not a float guy.

    We burn closer to 5gal with ours on 29” Airstreaks. Sea level and cooler is much different than the guys getting by on 3.5 at higher altitudes. Of course I’ve always had the slowest plane and dumbest dog. We have big bore cylinders on a 912 and run it at 5200rpm or higher cruise. With the monster gear and big tires that yields a little less than 90mph average.

    I cannot imagine it would be a good float plane for instruction. We really like ours, it’s a ton of fun, but it suffers greatly with a load compared to empty. Ingress/egress is not all that convenient for those a bit less mobile and useful load will be an issue with the size people are today.

    I also had a PA-11 with a ton of PA18 mods. It was probably 200# heavier than the Rans. There is very, very little performance difference getting off the ground and also getting on the ground. The climb performance on the Rans is better. The extra wing on the -11 is a huge boost.

    Got a HacMan leaner GB? They pay for themselves quickly, but at sea level, or near to it, conditions I don't know......I rarely cruise at 5200, but when I do it's 3.7 or 3.9 GPH. I'm clueless on how the thicker air helps or hinders relative to fuel consumption. Thinner air helps I guess. I have no real idea if the 1" induction cross over tubes I have help my fuel burn, but something is. I do realize my fuel burn seems to be lower then most any Rotax other drivers, so much so that I have taken pains to accurately determine it, and I can't quite believe it myself! A gallon an hour less then my first 7, with the Subaru conversion FWIW. I flight plan for 4 GPH, and always err on the plus side, in round numbers.

  13. #13
    gbflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PAGS
    Posts
    719
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=courierguy;757982]
    Quote Originally Posted by gbflyer View Post
    Not a float guy.

    We burn closer to 5gal with ours on 29Ē Airstreaks. Sea level and cooler is much different than the guys getting by on 3.5 at higher altitudes. Of course Iíve always had the slowest plane and dumbest dog. We have big bore cylinders on a 912 and run it at 5200rpm or higher cruise. With the monster gear and big tires that yields a little less than 90mph average.

    I cannot imagine it would be a good float plane for instruction. We really like ours, itís a ton of fun, but it suffers greatly with a load compared to empty. Ingress/egress is not all that convenient for those a bit less mobile and useful load will be an issue with the size people are today.

    I also had a PA-11 with a ton of PA18 mods. It was probably 200# heavier than the Rans. There is very, very little performance difference getting off the ground and also getting on the ground. The climb performance on the Rans is better. The extra wing on the -11 is a huge boost.

    Got a HacMan leaner GB? They pay for themselves quickly, but at sea level, or near to it, conditions I don't know......I rarely cruise at 5200, but when I do it's 3.7 or 3.9 GPH. I'm clueless on how the thicker air helps or hinders relative to fuel consumption. Thinner air helps I guess. I have no real idea if the 1" induction cross over tubes I have help my fuel burn, but something is. I do realize my fuel burn seems to be lower then most any Rotax other drivers, so much so that I have taken pains to accurately determine it, and I can't quite believe it myself! A gallon an hour less then my first 7, with the Subaru conversion FWIW. I flight plan for 4 GPH, and always err on the plus side, in round numbers.
    Seems like my dad talked with Hal about a Hackman leaner and I believe the consensus was it would be of very little use at our usual altitudes. We got a set of the exchange intakes with the 1Ē crossover tube plumbing. All I can say is that the quality of workmanship is such that I would not put them on an air boat much less an airplane. Must have been a bad day.

  14. #14
    gbflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PAGS
    Posts
    719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Clark View Post
    GBFlyer:
    My PA-11 was non electric, C-90-8, only one tank, fixed seats, bare bones interior, and lightweight fabric. so she was only 776 pounds on wheel gear. ( weighed) She jumped off the ground here at sea level.

    But I will say that my buddy's Long tail S-7 with a starter gets off the ground at about the same place.
    My -11 was C90-12 but no electric at the time. I believe someone has put a starter in it since. It has flaps, -18 seat, 2 tanks,no headers. It is #900 plus. Itís been passed around quite a bit since it left Canada years ago, I got it from Stan Franz at CC. It might be back in Alaska, last time I saw if for sale it was. Fun solo airplane and performed well considering the weight.

    Iím of the opinion that the Rans S7S is just a touch short of wing....but I guess the speed penalty was too much? I dunno. If I was scratch building one it would get more.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    132
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gbflyer View Post
    Not a float guy.

    We burn closer to 5gal with ours on 29Ē Airstreaks. Sea level and cooler is much different than the guys getting by on 3.5 at higher altitudes. Of course Iíve always had the slowest plane and dumbest dog. We have big bore cylinders on a 912 and run it at 5200rpm or higher cruise. With the monster gear and big tires that yields a little less than 90mph average.

    I cannot imagine it would be a good float plane for instruction. We really like ours, itís a ton of fun, but it suffers greatly with a load compared to empty. Ingress/egress is not all that convenient for those a bit less mobile and useful load will be an issue with the size people are today.

    I also had a PA-11 with a ton of PA18 mods. It was probably 200# heavier than the Rans. There is very, very little performance difference getting off the ground and also getting on the ground. The climb performance on the Rans is better. The extra wing on the -11 is a huge boost.
    I donít have to imagine. RANS S-7S is a great float plane, especially on straight floats. Two average people and 1/2 fuel makes it a fine training aircraft. (Many pilots were trained in Nova Scotia exactly like this). Double doors are a bonus on floats. Easier to get into and out of, more room then a cub.

  16. #16
    gbflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PAGS
    Posts
    719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RoddyM View Post
    I donít have to imagine. RANS S-7S is a great float plane, especially on straight floats. Two average people and 1/2 fuel makes it a fine training aircraft. (Many pilots were trained in Nova Scotia exactly like this). Double doors are a bonus on floats. Easier to get into and out of, more room then a cub.
    If you say so. With floats thereís somewhere around a 450# payload left maybe. Pretty thin but could theoretically work I suppose for some folks but fewer than you might think. It isnít gonna take much in the way of seas with those little bitty floats. I donít fly them but where I live Iíve rode in lots of float planes. I strongly disagree that itís easier to get in and out of than a cub. The strut is in the way just like a Maule. Double doors are cool until you get hung up on the throttle handle.

    I think it would be a ton of fun on a little frog water pond by myself. Love to try it sometime but surrounded by ocean. One thing for sure, a student would certainly have to learn how to fly the floats. There isnít enough power to make up for poor technique.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    132
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jack Brown seaplane base- they’re training aircraft are J3s on Aqua 1500s. Those aircraft are heavier then the S-7, lack flaps, and, have heavier 100 hp 0-200s which don’t crank up like a 100 hp 912. They’ve trained more floatplane pilots then anyone else. What are we talkin about anyway? Lol. Passing an opinion on the RANS on floats and ya ain’t never flew one on floats. Great info.

  18. #18
    gbflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PAGS
    Posts
    719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RoddyM View Post
    Jack Brown seaplane base- theyíre training aircraft are J3s on Aqua 1500s. Those aircraft are heavier then the S-7, lack flaps, and, have heavier 100 hp 0-200s which donít crank up like a 100 hp 912. Theyíve trained more floatplane pilots then anyone else. What are we talkin about anyway? Lol. Passing an opinion on the RANS on floats and ya ainít never flew one on floats. Great info.
    True.

  19. #19
    WWhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Laporte, Minnesota and the white sandy beaches of NW Florida
    Posts
    1,445
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, one of these days maybe I'll get back to the original poster and answer the question. I have a set of Full Lotus floats that are already rigged for an S-7. I've just never had the time to mount them up to my S-7. When I do fly end up flying the plane, it's mostly just locat area flights and several T/O and landings at my own strip.Absolutely love flying floats, but the guys I used to fly around with have mostly moved on the other endeavours. Still want to do more float flying though.... Maybe next year.

  20. #20
    Alex Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Life Long Alaskan
    Posts
    3,144
    Post Thanks / Like
    I called the RANS folks.
    The factory built S7s are certified as Special Light Sport category ( not experimental ) and it is legal to do instruction with them or rent them out.

  21. #21
    Cubus Maximus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,812
    Post Thanks / Like
    Saw this one near Siren, WI a few years ago. I don't know anything about it though.









    Lowrance!
    Likes Bill Rusk liked this post

  22. #22
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,462
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Clark View Post
    I called the RANS folks.
    The factory built S7s are certified as Special Light Sport category ( not experimental ) and it is legal to do instruction with them or rent them out.
    Alex, Before you get too wound up with this you should make certain with the FAA that you can use this for regular seaplane rating instruction without being limited to Light Sport.
    N1PA

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,367
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm not sure how sea level (or close to it) ops at standard temps compare to 14 degree temps at 6,000' density altitude wise, but I do know that my short local flight yesterday showed some pretty good overall performance. With my runway slope, (9 to 12%) I take off, downslope of course,at partial power, as I am too impatient to wait for the motor to fully warm up usually. Yesterday's cold air meant a 1640 RPM, at the prop, takeoff was no sweat (being punny there) and then more then level flight, a slight climb, was possible. Once the engine got warmed up, 1800 fpm climb at WOT. Point being, set up right, there would seem to be enough excess performance to make it a decent float plane. I know nothing about the allowable regs that address the instruction issue. 5 degrees right now......but snowing heavily and 100 yard viz.
    Likes flyrite liked this post

  24. #24
    Alex Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Life Long Alaskan
    Posts
    3,144
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sky wagon: Apparently I could use one as long as it is a factory built version. The Rams 7 factory built are certified under the special light sport category. Just a thought towards the future where affordability and light weight will be an issue.
    Thanks skywagon8a thanked for this post
    Likes Gordon Misch, RoddyM liked this post

  25. #25
    gbflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PAGS
    Posts
    719
    Post Thanks / Like

    Has anyone here ever flown a RANS S-7 on floats or amphibs?

    Donít want to offend Roddy any further so Iíll keep my lack of water rudder time opinions to myself as building one of these things and flying it a couple hundred hours doesnít count.

    Jamie in Palmer had a factory S7 for awhile. I think itís been passed around a bit too. His number is 240-1764 and heís at RAVN. Heís a good resource for all things S7S and a super nice fellow. Heís also built a bunch of them, and Highlanders and a SQ.
    Likes courierguy liked this post

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    What kind of floats are in post # 21?

    Sik
    Last edited by Sikorsky; 10-31-2019 at 10:16 PM. Reason: spelling

  27. #27
    irishfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Penetanguishene, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,957
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sik, you have yet to reply or email me in regards to a float build CD for Murphy' 1800's.. do you want one or not? #1 son is hard to tack down and for now I'm only bothering him once to do a run for those that want same. You asked.. others have paid and given me all their details, but still nothing from you! Thanks, Wayne

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by irishfield View Post
    Sik, you have yet to reply or email me in regards to a float build CD for Murphy' 1800's.. do you want one or not? #1 son is hard to tack down and for now I'm only bothering him once to do a run for those that want same. You asked.. others have paid and given me all their details, but still nothing from you! Thanks, Wayne
    I have chosen to take a different route regarding the Murphy floats and no longer need information for construction. Simply put, I didn't want to waste your time, thus no contact.

    Sik

  29. #29
    irishfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Penetanguishene, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,957
    Post Thanks / Like
    Okay... it actually works the other way as I strive to take care of my customers, and have for the past 26+ years. You've wasted my time, and others, by asking about the CD (while trying to coax others to loan/sell you their encrypted copy) and then not following through when I stated they are indeed available from me, while I hold up others waiting for a build CD... as I wait for the original requester to order one, being you! A simple reply on the Murphy builders forum that you were "out" would have expedited other folks orders ...

    Sorry for the hijack Alex !

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by irishfield View Post
    You've wasted my time, and others, by asking about the CD !
    Inappropriate location for this exchange. No apology to you Irishfield, but I do apologize to the rest of supercub.org for the previous three posts.

    I am curious however (back on topic), who made the floats in posting # 21.

    Sik

  31. #31
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Clark View Post
    Sky wagon: Apparently I could use one as long as it is a factory built version. The Rams 7 factory built are certified under the special light sport category. Just a thought towards the future where affordability and light weight will be an issue.
    Alex,

    No experience in these aircraft, but if you go this route, you are going to have to do a couple things:

    1. Ask for ACTUAL weights of every prospective customer.

    2. Turn down a significant percentage of those prospective customers due to limited useful load.

    3. Above will be worse if amphib.

    4. Have you considered cost of new, factory built and new floats?

    5. Insurance for above? Amphib insurance? Customer solo???

    6. Have you found a VERY petite DPE?

    MTV

  32. #32
    Alex Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Life Long Alaskan
    Posts
    3,144
    Post Thanks / Like
    1. Ask for ACTUAL weights of every prospective customer.
    Did that for 12 years with the PA-11 and 3 years with the C172. I only managed to load the 11 because an IA did not know the difference between exchange weight and real weight of EDO-1400s.

    2. Turn down a significant percentage of those prospective customers due to limited useful load.
    Been doing that for years. But I am loosing more now to to high operating costs. Fatties like the 180, but don't like paying for it. , this is just an idea I am kicking around, particularly if I have to go LSA in the future.

    3. Above will be worse if amphib.
    That is why I was asking. I can't figure out how it would work, BUT I see them on amphibs in photos....

    4. Have you considered cost of new, factory built and new floats?
    Yeap... I have already priced out 3 RAN S7 long tail, factory-builts that are used and one new. The used market costs are not bad. Plus I priced out a couple a couple CC11-100 Cub Crafter cubs.

    5. Insurance for above? Amphib insurance? Customer solo???
    I would not be doing solo, dual only, either tailwheel or straight floats. Not any more shocking than what I pay now.
    6. Have you found a VERY petite DPE?
    ...Old big DPE retired. Have used a couple lighter folks so far. Who knows who I might find down south in the winter months. If I am in a warm dry place in the winters, it might just be tailwheel

    If a RANS 7 weighs 780 pounds on wheels, and Alex and Mike remove 80 pounds of gear legs and tailwheel,,,, ( 700 lbs) then add 197 pound Baumann 1500s ( 897 pounds )Yes I know they are like hens teeth, just using the example.. The 1420 pound gross weight on floats would give us 523 pounds of legal load. The same as a PA-12 I did a rating in this summer.
    Likes marcusofcotton, RoddyM liked this post

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like

    Rans S7 Comparison

    FWIW this is my experience with the Rans S7 (short and long tails) and S7s (these are all long). I've bought and sold a dozen of them. Most started out on wheels but I added floats. I moved to the S7 from a very snappy homebuilt C 170 with a fabric steel tube fuselage (one of a kind homebuilt with 180hp on 2425s). It was a great performer but my first S7 with a 65hp 582 got off the water with two 180 lb guys a lot quicker and it handled like a real plane.

    One 80hp short tail I had was on 1100 Aerocet air operated amphib retracts. It had been built with 4x 9 gal tanks instead of 2. It easily got off with me and a 220lb passenger on a hot day with no wind (that was the buyers criteria and he was happy). All the short tails I owned were 80hp and weighed empty on wheels in the 675 lb range. They have been on 1260 Lotus, 1500 Murphy, the 1100 Aerocets, 1350 Aeroflotteur and 1400 PG (the absolute heaviest set: about the same weight 225lb as Edo 1400) and this one got off slowly with me, the 230lb owner and 1/2 fuel also with 80hp.

    One 80 hp performed fine on Lotus 1260 but when an external amphib kit added it was a dog until the owner upgraded to 95.

    All the 100hp models are terrific performers on both straight and amphibs. I helped a friend fly his newly purchased S model on Zenair amphibs with all our baggage, spare parts and two spare gas cans strapped to the float struts cause they wouldn't fit in the hatches from Nova Scotia to Saskatchewan and performance was a non issue.

    I learned to fly floats on Cubs, Pa-11, PA-12 and 14 many years ago. The S7S is a modern Cub replacement that has toe brakes, effective flaps, better vis, more room, bigger, deeper seaplane doors on both sides that do make it a lot easier to get in and out of for both pilot and passenger (this stated by a cub owner!). The 912 is a modern engine that is light, economical, goes to TBO without repairs and uses no oil.

    The only thing you can fault the S7 for is the lack of the name "CUB"
    Thanks Alex Clark thanked for this post

Similar Threads

  1. Rans Man
    By Patrol Guy in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-21-2010, 11:51 AM
  2. Hangar Door Height for straight floats or amphibs
    By scottperry in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-20-2010, 07:43 PM
  3. Oscar Tango:: Anyone flown a Bush Hawk on floats???
    By Alex Clark in forum Everything Else (formerly:My Other Plane Is A....)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-06-2007, 12:00 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •