I've been looking for an affordable(for me) alternative to the supercub, to do the type of flying like our buddy Coyote Ugly does. I have pretty much decided that the Rans s7 would hopefully do the job. But while looking, I have recently come across a couple of Wag-aero 2+2 cubs. One w/180hp. I do feel that I want tandem seating just to have a little more room if I am taking someone along.

So, my questions are, how good in the performance of one of these planes? And how big a deal to convert one to tandem seating?

Thanks Gary

Gary:

What's your budget?? I think you should consider a J-5 or PA-12. They have bigger back seat room, tandem seating and I have seen a number at the 30k to 40k levels (usually with the 115hp engine).

You can always upgrade engine later.

I think, knowing you and a little about your habits you would probably be a lot happier with load capabilities. J-5 or PA-12 with large tires should get you into just about anything you want with good two person load capabilities.

Don't know anything about the RANS, so maybe they can match numbers for Super Cruiser, but if you haven't considered that, you might.

Would also point out all of the STCs and Mods floating out there for the Cub Products. Knowing you, you will always be looking to improve performance, capability and upgrading (as you have with the 180). Probably have a lot more upside potential with the cubs (again, don't know much about RANS). Everything from tires, cargo pods, wing and STOL mods, bigger engines, etc.

Hope all is well with you Gary!! I have been down for the last two months doing a top overhaul and not flying is killing me. Especially considering the weather we have had this fall.

Regards, Larry

Gary,

Put the extra passenger in the back seat of the 2+2. Problem solved. (It's just a modified Cub, Family Cruiser, slightly wider in front than the PA-12). They're nice airplanes with parts support from Wag. Sure wouldn't want to pass one up if it was built right.

Brad

Hey Larry
Sorry about your engine. Had a friend here loose his the other day. .

My budget is around $40K.

Don't want to get another plan and start throwing money at it. Like to find a good one the way I want it, and just do what I need to to keep it nice, and buy gas.

I haven't verified any of the info that I have been getting on the Rans, but everyone that I have talked to with one is VERY happy. Better T/O, faster, burn less fuel. Experimental, so you can do pretty much what you want. Insurance about 1/2 what it is for the 180. You get a planea few years old vs.50 years old.

Sounds pretty good to me, still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Don't figure I could get much for my plane at this point, so my plan is to but one, kinda set my plane aside for awhile, and fly the Rans for awhile, and see how I like. If I like it, I'll probably try harder to sell the 180. If I don't like it, I'll sell it and move on.

I flew Sat. and Sun. Back it Utah. It was awesome. I don't like work much anyways, and it is killing me to have to work this week with weather like this.

Thanks for your thoughts Gary

Hey Gary,

I got about a dozen hours on the S7 now. A little early to give any kind of a comprehensive or meaningful performance report, but here is my take so far:

Take off performance is at least as good as claimed. With full fuel, about 40 pounds of stuff in the back and me (you saw how big I am, about 1.4 x FAA std occupant weight) and without really trying to be short, the S7 comes off the pavement almost as soon as you get the throttle all in, and climbs out at a silly angle. If you aren't ready on the stick to get the tail up when you start to apply throttle, it just lifts off in a three-point attitude. With full fuel and two guys my size it is off in under 300', again without really trying to be short, and still climbs out at a sharper angle than you would expect. Full-fuel and the two big guys described above still leaves room for the full 50# of baggage, and puts the CG right in the middle third of the chart.

Economy cruise yields speeds in the mid to high 90s corrected. I did a 40-mile two-way run today at about 65-70% power at 4500', and the GPS ground speed was 85 into the wind and 105 away from the wind. I have not yet done a measured high-speed run.

The S7 almost will not stall with either a solo pilot or the two guys described above. It mushes along with good control rudder and aileron authoriey and the stick all back. A little dive and a sharp pull-up will generate a stall, and slightly relaxing the back pressure on the stick yields an immediate recovery. Slow flight with full flaps and power brings the indicated speed to zero, and the GPS ground-speed below 35. I have not done two-way runs in this configuration to try to derive an accurate speed, but it won't be much higher than 35. I have not yet installed the VGs on either the wings or tail surfaces.

Landing speeds are also "as advertised" or better. I'd been told that the S7 is best-suited to wheel landings, and that definitely seems to be the case. It does three-point nicely with a big guy in the back seat though. Ground-tracking seems to be very good with positive rudder authority down to very low speed. The tailwheel steering is way, way better than the Citabria I've been flying. Visibility in all attitudes is almost helicopter-like.

The plane basically fly's way, way better than I am capable of driving it.

Mark

Oh yeah, the fuel burn is hard to beat. I spent a little over an hour in the pattern the other day and used about 3 3/4 gallons of fuel. I flew for 1.6 hours today, including climbing 6500'+ and burned right at 6 gallons. This was using 91 octane mo-gas.

Mark

Keep that info coming. Thanks Gary

Gary-

When you listen/read what I have to say, you are listening to the voice of inexperience, You really need to be talking to some of the more experienced S7/backcountry pilots about what plane is really capable of. Talk to Joel and pose all of your performance questions to him. Joel is an honest and forthright kind of guy, plus he really uses his S7s at the edge of the envelope. He flies around the high deserts of Wyoming with a gunner in the backseat eradicating 'yots, and the gunner he works with is reported to be "size enhanced". I believe that he would honestly and accurately answer your questions and would be basing his answers on lots of real flying experience, not just a few meager hours of test flying.

You should also talk to Fred Weaver, Joa Harrison, Mark Pringle at Rocky Mountain Kitplanes, and Greg Swingle. Those guys have "been there, done that" in the high backcountry, and would give you much more usable and meaningful advice and info that I in any way can. I've flown with Fred numerous times and can tell you that he can do stuff with the S7s that, in the words of Ernie Hudson in Ghostbusters, "will turn you white". Mark Pringle does all the Utah backcountry stuff, and everyone has seen Swingles Vimeo postings. Don't let Greg's video persona put you off. When he is not in front of the humor camera he is quite thoughtful, and he has learned how to make the S7 really dance in a very short period of time.

It would be worth your time to fly out to Jackson (CA east of Sacto) to meet with Fred, Bill Lind, Emmit, and the other S7 pilots in the area, go for a few rides and see for yourself how the planes fly. They have a lot of off-pavement places to fly into, so you should be able to get a good sense of how the S7 really works.

Maybe Courierguy will throw in his two-cents worth here as well.

Let me know if you want contact info for any of the guys above.

Mark

Hey Mark

Yes I would like some contact info. I have talked w/Mark Pringle. I would like to talk to the Weav.
I know you are new to this plane, but I enjoy hearing your excitement and look forward to having the same excitement when I get my turn.

Thanks Gary

Plus it's good practice for me trying these quesions on you, before I show someone else how stupid I am. Plus it helps me generate quesions.

Have a good evening

OK, I'll chime in: you may be put off by our rants about the S7-S, but several of us S7-S pilots (Weave and me in particular, Swingle and Joel are kids, damn it) have been around the patch a while, not new to these kinds of birds, and everything about the S-7S you may have heard is true. How about this: you know the rep Van's creations have??? I mean I know I get SICK of hearing about the "RV grin", BUT I put up with it because its all true, they ( Rans and Vans) are that good. The companies AND the planes. Track Weave and his local cohorts down, you should sign up on the Yahoo S-7S site (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RansS7Courier/) and touch base with him that way. While there check out my latest flight report for last Monday, 4.7 hrs, multiple 7 K elevation shale ridge landings, one real narrow twisty dirt road landing, a few Snake River gravel bar landings on the way back, and just to top things off a few miles from my strip several steep stubble field landings. Average cruise was 90 to 95, and some putting around at 65 or so, all told 3.7 GPH of mo gas per hr, if money is a factor or not, that fuel burn rate is hard to beat. Look under the photo albums "Idaho Mt. flying for some pictures of that flight, also "Idaho hillside fun". OK, I'm done ranting!

One last thing, unless you are bigger then Joa (unlikely, trust me, and I don't mean fat) you'll fit just fine. He must be 6'5", maybe more, and BIG, and his dad flys with him, and he is of a similar size!

Good Morning cg

I am not put off at all by the rants and raves. Kinda like the old Will Sonnet show, "no brag, just fact". . I enjoy hearing all I can about these planes. Negative or positve. Actually the only negative I have heard is in regard to the location of the flap handle.

I have always liked the RV's also. Infact, if Buzzard Bait(what I affectionately call my 180) ever sells, an RV4/6 will likely be my 2nd plane for cross country/aerobatics.

I had a good talk with Weav yesterday, very insightful. I am looking forward to meeting him in person, and doing some flying with him.

I have started the process to be a member in the yahoo group. If/when they let me in, I will check out your flight reports.

I am VERY interested in seeing pics/videos of what these planes are capable of.

Thanks for chiming in

Gary

A guy in a C180 beat Swingle in a landing contest last summer in WI.

http://www.vimeo.com/6092855

How can a 180 beat any Cub? Were the Cub pilots retarded?

I've been looking at doing the same thing as shortfielder. I've been looking at the S-7 and the Highlander. Figuring both airplanes are nearly the same with the exception of seating arrangement. Can anybody offer a comparison between the two that may direct myself or others towards one or the other. People's experiences would be great as I've just started looking into this the last couple of months.

The insight and experiences shared from the S-7 guys has been great. Note: In addition to intending to do the same kind of flying as shortfielder I also want to use the airplane to teach my son how to fly as well.

There's a Wag 2+2 Sportsman for sale in the Seattle area for $50K. I had occasion to eyeball it the other day. Pretty nice- looked to be pretty much IFR capable, had 2 tanks in each wing (owner claimed 7 hours endurance), 180 hp with Hartzell c/s prop, spoilers top & bottom instead of flaps. Don't recall the engine time or total time, but I think it was built about 1993ish. Seemed like a lot of airplane for the money.
But it seemed to be more like about halfway between the Supercub & the C180, caopacity and operating cost wise, and a way different animal than an S7 or Highlander.
I could see how owning a C180 and a light STOL airplane like an S7 or similar would be a good combination. LSA-compliant on the little airplane would be a plus too.

Eric

doth wrote:I've been looking at doing the same thing as shortfielder. I've been looking at the S-7 and the Highlander. Figuring both airplanes are nearly the same with the exception of seating arrangement. Can anybody offer a comparison between the two that may direct myself or others towards one or the other. People's experiences would be great as I've just started looking into this the last couple of months.

We had a number of key points to address in picking our plane. First, for lack of a better term, the plane had to have high "fun-factor". It is not for commerce, not for rent, not going into a club, doesn't need to "pencil-out" for business travel or in comparison to Southwest Airlines etc. It is for us to use and enjoy. Second, we wanted a high-wing with conventional gear and excellent visibility for both occupants, and something definitely off-pavement capable and as STOL as possible. Third, it needs to be economical to fly and easy to maintain. Next, seating was a primary consideration. I am 6'2", my wife is 6', and my sons are both around 6'4" tall and still growing. Whatever the seating arrangement, there had to be room for a couple of tall people, potentially a couple of very tall people. Other less important factors included our preference for a stick vs a yoke, easy entry and exit if possible, doors/access on both sides of the fuselage, and good looks.

As we had decided to look for an experimental to build, I wanted it to come from a proven, long-term factory/company with a reputation for good parts and technical support, and I absolutely had to have a decent construction manual (prior experience made this an imperative). We preferred to find a plane with a good on-line community of builders if possible, knowing that even the best manuals could not provide all I would probably need to put it together.

We went to Oshkosh and other events, looked at and sat in a lot of planes, tried to get rides in those that we were really interested in, we talked at length with the factory representatives trying to get some feel for how we could expect them to treat us down the road (dubious at a fly-in as they are all on their best behavior), we examined the construction manuals, found any on-line groups or forums and read the builders reports of the ease or difficulty of assembly and factory support and so on. I tried to talk to builder/pilots with experience in each of the kits we were interested in as well.

After all of our looking and research we decided on the S7 over the other options for a number of reasons. The S7 fit virtually all of the factors listed above. It was the only plane we found that truly seated two tall people very comfortably. It is wide-enough for a wide-body like me, it has good leg room, and the seating position just felt comfortable. It had the best all-around visibility of all the planes we investigated. The operating costs are as low as any plane available. RANS has been in business for a long time, and they have a good reputation for customer support and loyalty. The construction manuals were about the best that we saw, and there is a very active and supportive on-line builders group. And perhaps most importantly, the S7 just felt plain-flat fun to fly.

Having finished the plane and now flying it, I can say that we have not been disappointed. The manuals were pretty good, though not perfect. The kit was every bit as complete as they claimed it to be. I received good support from the factory when needed, although some builders don't seem as happy with them as I was. Maybe I am a low-expectations kinda guy, but whenever I asked a question or asked for advice, I received it in short order. The existence of the Yahoo S7 Courier builders group and the incredible support that I received from guys there alone justified our decision. But the real story is how the thing flies, and all I can say is that it flies far better than I had even hoped it would, and far far better than I can drive it. Maybe some day I'll improve enough to use the S7 somewhere near its potential, but that is a long-way off.

One last thing to add. We were not looking for something that was "just like a supercub". If we really wanted a supercub we would have bought a supercub. If you really want a supercub then that is what you should get. I've flown in supercubs, love them and think they are a tremendous pilots plane, but one just did not fit our complete set of needs. We had specific criteria, made up a good list of priorities, then went looking for the plane that best fit our specific needs.

Mark

Gary, Go with the Super Cub... They're, King of the Mountain... I know, I know, too much money.

"Gary, Go with the Super Cub... They're, King of the Mountain... I know, I know, too much money"

Great picture , but nothing you can't do in an S7-S, (we gotta fly together sometime) and on half the fuel burn! I landed in 125' today with a 185 lb passenger, after 1.9 hrs of local mountain flying and way off airport hill landings: total fuel burn was a bit under 6 gallons. Most of the time we were admittedly just putting around at 70 or so, with some 45 to 50 mph also, but hey we weren't in a hurry!

You have VG's on that S7-S Mark?? If not, I'd strongly recommend it, as solid as the slow speed performance is stock, it is even better with vg's. I have the specs on where to locate them, and can send that info to you, I worked with MicroAerodynamics on their first S-7 installation, my old short tail. I am routinely landing under 100' at density altitudes of 6 K, but do have a 8 degree upslope to help out. Glad you are enjoying it, I am coming up on 1700 hrs of S-7 time, and plan on getting another 4 or 5 in tomorrow if the work phone doesn't ring!