Av8r3400 wrote:Why is it that "wives" always prefer side by side seating rather than tandem?

So they can smack you when you get annoyed with them and "accidentally" leave the pilot isolate switch turned on.

Av8r3400 wrote:Why is it that "wives" always prefer side by side seating rather than tandem?

Because always sitting in the back with a fat guy between your legs gets old after a while

I told my wife she can sit up front if she'll take a lesson on operating the engine, flaps, and avionics. "No thanks, I'll just sit in the back..."

It's just a plain bad idea to have her sit back there! All she has to do back there is stare at the bald spot on the back of my head as it gets bigger and bigger and probably surfs the internet to see if she can find a decent trade in . I try to tell her to think of it as a solar panel for a sex machine but I don't think she's buying it. Sit her next to you if you can. And look at her a lot and smile .

CW

(I'm loving the likes of the plane too by the way!)

In tandem seat airplanes, the pilot seat (front) is located almost precisely on the aerodynamic center of the airplane. Flying in a skid? Who'd know? BUT, the BACK seat rests a couple feet behind the center of the plane. If anyone is even slightly inclined to get airsickness, that is an EVIL place to be. Having spent a lot of hours back there, I can tell you that a lot of "aces" out there will bounce your head off the side windows pretty much the whole flight.

Oh, and you can't see shit from back there unless you're 12 feet tall.

MTV

Good excuse to leave her home.

Anybody know if the wings will fold for transport/storage?

My wife is a lot more comfortable if she's next to me rather than behind me. Anything that helps her relax while flying is a good thing.

I'm not sure if the wings fold or not. I thought they did but a quick look at the website tells me they don't include "folding wings" as one of the features in their description of the plane.

So ah, Scott, when are you going to pull the trigger?

I read somewhere that the Rans airfoil does not lend itself well to folding. As I understand it the wing is too fat, and there is no way to get it to fold and be a width that would be legal for highway transport. Just Aircraft got past this by a different wing design that does not perform as well, at least according to those who are entrenched in the Rans camp.

That could all be BS, but its out there.

My wife carries a concealed weapon, so I've got to ask myself, do I really want her behind me with a loaded weapon when I bounce one on a rough short airstrip with a cliff on one side and a river on the other side? Well, do I? Absolutely not!

MTV: "In tandem seat airplanes, the pilot seat (front) is located almost precisely on the aerodynamic center of the airplane. Flying in a skid? Who'd know? BUT, the BACK seat rests a couple feet behind the center of the plane. If anyone is even slightly inclined to get airsickness, that is an EVIL place to be. Having spent a lot of hours back there, I can tell you that a lot of "aces" out there will bounce your head off the side windows pretty much the whole flight.."

I am probably guilty of this! I will never try to tell anyone I am an 'ace' of any sort though. I get by and haven't crashed...yet, so I will just call myself mediocre.
I have noticed that my wife can get nausiated quickly in the RANS S7. One of the issues is she likes to take lots of pictures so she is looking side to side frequently. She has much less tendency to get airsick when flying in the 172 or even the Champ when it was on floats. I attribute this to both of these planes being much more stable in yaw then the S7. I try my hardest to keep the ball in the center when she is riding in the back of the S7, but this plane, being an early short-tailed version, is what a friend calls squirrelly! I will admit it takes much more attention to keep centered than any other plane I have personally flown. I believe if I ever get to the point of having one all around plane it will be side by side for this reason. Retirement and the possibilty of my wife flying more often with me sort of tells me that is what I will need.

I looked at both the Just Highlander STOL and the S-20...hard decision between the two actually. Having spoken with both of the 'Top Dog' of each of these companies, I will say both of them are very down to earth types and I wouldn't have a problem going with either plane.
The S-20 sure is a sweet looking plane though.

gbflyer wrote:I read somewhere that the Rans airfoil does not lend itself well to folding. As I understand it the wing is too fat, and there is no way to get it to fold and be a width that would be legal for highway transport. Just Aircraft got past this by a different wing design that does not perform as well, at least according to those who are entrenched in the Rans camp.

That could all be BS, but its out there.

My S6 wings are connected at the rear spar with a U joint. So the wings no only fold back but the leading edge folds downward. You have to build a jig to hold the wings this way. The HS also folds upward so the plane can fit on a trailer or in a shipping container. I don't ever plan on folding anything on my plane.

Mister701 wrote:So ah, Scott, when are you going to pull the trigger?

I would love an S20 but my wife has stuck with me through 2 airplane builds. I've beaten the odds. I'm done. No more airplane building for me. Cristy is pretty cool. I want to keep her.

Sweet S-20 aerial photo...

Heard from Randy at Rans, and there apparently is a folding wing option.

That's good, just don't expect the wing folding process to be anywhere near as quick and easy as the Kitfox/Highlander/Avid designs. The much bigger wing chord obviously changes the whole wing folding thing, the rear hor stab gets in the way when the wings are rotated and then folded, so it also must fold up. More connections etc. to mess with. And taking it down the road on a open or even enclosed trailer is a whole nother matter. I just mention this as a reality check, having had both a folding wing earlier model S-7 and a early model Kitfox. I would hate to see the S-20 marketed as having "folding wings", and then see people bitching about it being more awkward then the others. As good as Randy is, I don't see how he can get a 10 minute one person/ready to go down the road wing fold option on that design. Taking 45 mintues and needing help would get real old after a while. I'm also not sure he should even try, as the compromises involved may not be worth it.

However, I still believe there would be a market for a folding wing plane that ended up being overwidth, NOT intended to be legal but being simpler in execution as the payoff. NOT meant to be hauled through traffic on a regular basis, but just for fitting in a hanger easier or fitting in the shop for maintenance. Or for the occasional WIDE LOAD placarded trip through town. It would be a compromise, but hell all aircraft design is.

I'm wondering if you just put a hinged fitting a the lift strut attach point on the fuselage, that maybe you could just fold the wings straight back. Like you said it would be a wide load but would be a lot faster and easier than the way the wings fold now.

I know LSA is the "hot new thing", but limiting that design to 1320 limits its usefulness. Do manufacturers allow a higher gross weight if you don't want to put it in the LSA category?

Edit: I see Kitfox does that. http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/FAQ.htm#10

UngaWunga wrote:I know LSA is the "hot new thing", but limiting that design to 1320 limits its usefulness. Do manufacturers allow a higher gross weight if you don't want to put it in the LSA category?

Edit: I see Kitfox does that. http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/FAQ.htm#10

I think it's just a matter of what your mission is. If you are doing a lot of long range multi day camping trips with 2 or more people then LSA certainly isn't very convenient.

For me...I can no longer work hard enough to earn the money it takes to keep going in the certified world with the flying SUV. Too much other crap to pay for. Health is good (knock wood), so for me it's not about the medical. Still like to fly so the EAB is the way to go. Just have to live with the limited gross, camp closer and make more trips in and out.

UngaWunga wrote:I know LSA is the "hot new thing", but limiting that design to 1320 limits its usefulness. Do manufacturers allow a higher gross weight if you don't want to put it in the LSA category?

Edit: I see Kitfox does that. http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/FAQ.htm#10

I haven't looked into Rans planes much but the others I looked at a while back: Highlander, Frontier, Bearhawk LSA, Kitfox 7, all allowed up to 1500# gross.