Ken
Yes, as I was writing my post, I thought of the cheapness of the airframe. I
suppose that's because no one really likes them :-)
Good luck to these chaps.
Chris
On 18 Dec 2010, at 15:13, Ken Norton wrote:
> Agreed, Chris. The 172 would seem to be an unlikely candidate, except
> the idea is to create a powerplant replacement for an existing
> airframe that can take it. This is actually rather smart as those
> things are essentially disposable. I'm more likely to think they will
> succeed by focussing on just the powerplant than try to compete
> against the entire industry with a soup to nuts airframe that will
> take decades to bring to market.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|