AFA M15-100 Pondskipper II: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(wrong article, meant for pondskipper I not II) |
m (type fixed in m15-100- to m15-100) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Craft|name=AFA M15-100 Pondskipper II|origin=[[Fortis]]|type=Wide-body airliner|designer=Anderophl Fortiska Aeronautical|built=70|cost=29,862|serv_start=2184|operators=[[Hook Brzinair]]|prod_start=2178|imagedesc=An AFA M-15-100 of Hook Brznair|image=AFA M15-100 Pondskipper II.jpg}} |
{{Craft|name=AFA M15-100 Pondskipper II|origin=[[Fortis]]|type=Wide-body airliner|designer=Anderophl Fortiska Aeronautical|built=70|cost=29,862|serv_start=2184|operators=[[Hook Brzinair]]|prod_start=2178|imagedesc=An AFA M-15-100 of Hook Brznair|image=AFA M15-100 Pondskipper II.jpg}} |
||
| − | The '''M15-100 |
+ | The '''M15-100''' is a short, wide-body airliner produced by Anderophl Fortiska Aeronautical at its Fedlithe factory in [[Fortis]]. The twin turboprop-fan engine liner was designed as a follow up to the more expensive [[AFA M10-100 Pondskipper]]. The M10-100 did not meet its design goals of cost-effectiveness, and the multiple complaints regarding it culminated in the M15-100 design. |
==Variants== |
==Variants== |
||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Aircraft]] |
||
| + | [[Category:Passenger Aircraft]] |
||
Latest revision as of 20:42, 6 October 2024
|
AFA M15-100 Pondskipper II
|
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide-body airliner | |||||
 |
|||||
| An AFA M-15-100 of Hook Brznair | |||||
| National Origin | Fortis | ||||
| Production History | |||||
| Designer | Anderophl Fortiska Aeronautical | ||||
| Unit Cost | 29,862(√) | ||||
| Number Built | 70 | ||||
| Service History | |||||
| Used By | Hook Brzinair | ||||
The M15-100 is a short, wide-body airliner produced by Anderophl Fortiska Aeronautical at its Fedlithe factory in Fortis. The twin turboprop-fan engine liner was designed as a follow up to the more expensive AFA M10-100 Pondskipper. The M10-100 did not meet its design goals of cost-effectiveness, and the multiple complaints regarding it culminated in the M15-100 design.