emflys wrote:

courierguy wrote: Righto Emflys, and the S-6 cruises and lands faster, not a STOL bird so much, really not at all like the 7, though the model numbering/name sure makes it sound similar.

Not even sure I would say that Tom. I flew to JC with 2 S6's, one with the slow and one with the fast wing. The slow wing was way slower than me. The fast wing was about the same as me. It was a little under propped, but overall - I think they both cruise pretty similar.

I forgot, they offer two different wing scenarios for the S-6, correct? That somewhat confuses the issue I guess. I do know that no S-6 has ever chose to land at my place, which of course doesn't mean they can't. Like you, I just REALLY like the S-7S so much it pretty much makes me worthless in being impartial!

dirtstrip wrote:

Oregon180 wrote:

Zane wrote:I chose a pretty woman, maybe an ugly plane is ok.

What was it Gump said... " And if you don't like what you see turn the lights back off."
No wait that was for emergencies.

I suppose if she's ugly enough, leaving the lights on might well qualify as an emergency. Where's a brown paper bag when you need one?

Oh come on guys! they are all beautiful in someone's eyes!

I agree with Matt - pick the FUN!

besides, my Highlander still makes my socks go up and down - especially on a nice, rough unimproved strip!!

k

Zane wrote:

courierguy wrote:The LSA version will be different, it will have no flaps for one thing

That is pretty weak to skimp on flaps for an LSA version. Perhaps some aircraft designs just aren't destined to be LSA's? Or rather, the concessions made to get them compliant suck the soul out of the aircraft.

I've been flying the Cubcrafters Sport Cub S2 quite a bit recently, and really appreciate the flaps. It would be fine without them, but they really do make the aircraft more fun and short field capable.

How much weight does omitting flaps save you anyway?

I really like Bob Barrows' designs in general. Just wanted to add some info on the LSA Patrol from the Bearhawk Patrol Yahoo group:

1. Bob says you can build the standard patrol as an LSA by keeping it light.
2. The new "Patrol LSA" isn't intended to be a STOL ship, or (confusingly) a light Patrol. Think J3 cub rather than Supercub.
3. Bob says no flaps save 30-40 lbs. No balanced control surfaces save more weight.
4. The prototype Patrol LSA has an A65 engine and no electrics.

courierguy wrote:

emflys wrote:

courierguy wrote: Righto Emflys, and the S-6 cruises and lands faster, not a STOL bird so much, really not at all like the 7, though the model numbering/name sure makes it sound similar.

Not even sure I would say that Tom. I flew to JC with 2 S6's, one with the slow and one with the fast wing. The slow wing was way slower than me. The fast wing was about the same as me. It was a little under propped, but overall - I think they both cruise pretty similar.

I forgot, they offer two different wing scenarios for the S-6, correct? That somewhat confuses the issue I guess. I do know that no S-6 has ever chose to land at my place, which of course doesn't mean they can't. Like you, I just REALLY like the S-7S so much it pretty much makes me worthless in being impartial!

Right now Rans only sells what they used the call the Sport wing. It's a compromise between the long and short wings they used to sell. I can't remember what they were called. The S7 has a narrower fuselage, the S6 has a wider fuselage, I believe tip to tip wing span is the same on both so with the same engine and prop they probably cruise about the same. I'm sure the S7 will land slower.

No S6's have ever landed at your place? Can I try?

You bet, you have a invite anytime you're up this way. I didn't mean an S-6 COULDN'T, I meant an S-6 HASN'T, as of yet. I can't see any problem, 400' on a 12% up grade is like at least 600 or 800' level ground, plenty of room. It's pretty smooth too, since the voles and moles have realized I mean business, they've pretty much camp out elsewhere.

courierguy wrote:You bet, you have a invite anytime you're up this way. I didn't mean an S-6 COULDN'T, I meant an S-6 HASN'T, as of yet. I can't see any problem, 400' on a 12% up grade is like at least 600 or 800' level ground, plenty of room. It's pretty smooth too, since the voles and moles have realized I mean business, they've pretty much camp out elsewhere.

I think when the weather breaks I need to come up and we'll talk solar panels Be the first M-7 I'd guess?

UtahMaule wrote:

courierguy wrote:You bet, you have a invite anytime you're up this way. I didn't mean an S-6 COULDN'T, I meant an S-6 HASN'T, as of yet. I can't see any problem, 400' on a 12% up grade is like at least 600 or 800' level ground, plenty of room. It's pretty smooth too, since the voles and moles have realized I mean business, they've pretty much camp out elsewhere.

I think when the weather breaks I need to come up and we'll talk solar panels Be the first M-7 I'd guess?

First M-7 yeah, if you don't like it keep in mind Lava is 5 minutes away, Maules land there all the time! Wait until the snow melts.....

Zane wrote:Let me state this one more time It's not about saving money. There's no price on freedom. Almost.

I do have a question for my LSA class flying brethren: courierguy, emflys, taildrgfun, newkid...

Would you guys trade your birds straight across for a good condition Skywagon or the like given the opportunity? I have a feeling the answer is No.

One more thing-- take note that this thread is in the Kitplanes and Homebuilding forum, not Types. Lots of opinions in here from people who haven't built and apparently aren't interested in building. Good points, just too rational. You guys are smart. I'm not looking to make sense.

I just found this thread today. The answer is NO! These little things are just to much FUN! They have no problem doing X-countries, handle more wind than you can, and will fly with whatever you can fit in them. My dad used to have a Cessna 210. In 1996 Dad discovered Kitfoxes, and parked the 210, flying it maybe 20 hrs. a year.
I personally would rather take a Rans/Kitfox across the country than that 210. The trip to your destination is half the fun. You really get to see the country and get a great sense of speed when you head across the state at 50 ft. above the ground. The most fun thing about the 210 was looking at the ground speeds on the GPS.
You can also build these things fairly cheap. We have $21,000 in our latest Kitfox. It was Model IV kit from the early '90s that we picked up for $6,000. We bought a used 912S with 300hrs on it, a firewall foreward kit, extended landing gear, avionics, covering, and paint. We now have have a plane that can carry it's own weight, cruise at 108 mph, and take off in 90 ft. solo, and always puts a big smile on your face.

I wouldn't trade my Highlander. In fact I like it so much that I'm going to start building a new one in three weeks. And I'm becoming a dealer for Just Aircraft selling Highlander kits! (something I probably should have done about 5 years ago) My precious YEE HAW Highlander will be for sale very soon to help pay for the new one.

Steve

taildrgfun wrote:I wouldn't trade my Highlander. In fact I like it so much that I'm going to start building a new one in three weeks. And I'm becoming a dealer for Just Aircraft selling Highlander kits! (something I probably should have done about 5 years ago) My precious YEE HAW Highlander will be for sale very soon to help pay for the new one.

Steve

Congrats Steve! I'd say your a perfect salesmen and demonstrator for the Highlander.

Just thinking too. What would be the max weight for a 6'2" guy if he would like to get into an LSA/Kit plane one of these days? And what would be a comfortable plane for a tall person?

I know some big guys with Highlanders who fit in them just fine. I've taken big guys for rides in mine and they were pretty amazed at how well they fit and and how much we could still haul for being a 2 place airplane. The seats are independently adjustable which lets us offset our shoulders giving a roomier feeling. The visibility out the front,sides and top is always impressive to people. The view over the nose is so much better than what they are used to I have to keep saying to lower the nose for level flight when they have the controls.

I set my gross weight at 1320 for resale as light sport legal and it weighs 770 empty with the big gear and 29" bushwheels. I burn 4-5 gph on prem mogas. It is a very affordable plane to operate.

Steve

taildrgfun wrote:I know some big guys with Highlanders who fit in them just fine. I've taken big guys for rides in mine and they were pretty amazed at how well they fit and and how much we could still haul for being a 2 place airplane. The seats are independently adjustable which lets us offset our shoulders giving a roomier feeling. The visibility out the front,sides and top is always impressive to people. The view over the nose is so much better than what they are used to I have to keep saying to lower the nose for level flight when they have the controls.

I set my gross weight at 1320 for resale as light sport legal and it weighs 770 empty with the big gear and 29" bushwheels. I burn 4-5 gph on prem mogas. It is a very affordable plane to operate.

Steve

Steve,

Some companies mention their airplanes can be certified at a higher gross. I don't recall seeing that on the Highlander site but I may have overlooked it. Does the company have a recommendation for the highest gross it could safely carry?

courierguy wrote:

emflys wrote:

courierguy wrote: Righto Emflys, and the S-6 cruises and lands faster, not a STOL bird so much, really not at all like the 7, though the model numbering/name sure makes it sound similar.

Not even sure I would say that Tom. I flew to JC with 2 S6's, one with the slow and one with the fast wing. The slow wing was way slower than me. The fast wing was about the same as me. It was a little under propped, but overall - I think they both cruise pretty similar.

I forgot, they offer two different wing scenarios for the S-6, correct? That somewhat confuses the issue I guess. I do know that no S-6 has ever chose to land at my place, which of course doesn't mean they can't. Like you, I just REALLY like the S-7S so much it pretty much makes me worthless in being impartial!

Oops. I already replied to this thread.

Groundlooper, I remember when I built mine they said I could easily go up to 1550 lbs. They are a really tough plane, really strong wings.

Steve

courierguy wrote:

emflys wrote:

courierguy wrote: Righto Emflys, and the S-6 cruises and lands faster, not a STOL bird so much, really not at all like the 7, though the model numbering/name sure makes it sound similar.

Not even sure I would say that Tom. I flew to JC with 2 S6's, one with the slow and one with the fast wing. The slow wing was way slower than me. The fast wing was about the same as me. It was a little under propped, but overall - I think they both cruise pretty similar.

I forgot, they offer two different wing scenarios for the S-6, correct? That somewhat confuses the issue I guess. I do know that no S-6 has ever chose to land at my place, which of course doesn't mean they can't. Like you, I just REALLY like the S-7S so much it pretty much makes me worthless in being impartial!

The two wings that used to be offered on the S-6 have been replaced by what Rans calls the Sport Wing. I've never flown either of the two old wings, but can say that the newer wing is a great performer. According to the Rans spec sheets, the current S-6 actually stalls considerably slower than the S-7 in stock form, although I think all that really shows is the necessity of VGs on the S-7. There is no doubt that the S-7 is a superb back country airplane (especially when equipped with VGs), but I doubt that if equally equipped (tires, VGs, engine, etc.) there are many -if any- places an S-7 could go that an S-6 couldn't. Just in case you couldn't tell, I love both the S-6 and the S-7!

Taledrgger, what does a kit cost to build? They seem like a neat plane. Can you use a normal aircraft engine, like a cont 0-200?

Description Price
Standard Tail Wheel Escapade kit:
Includes everything to build a complete airplane ready for firewall forward & painting.
Features include: Two 9 gallon wing tanks, Fibreglass wing tips, Tires 800x6 & bungee landing gear, Matco hydraulic disc toe brakes, elevator with manual trim & linkage, Flared doors with Windows, Push button flap handle, Streamline struts, Aluminium trailing edges for wings, Includes flaps & ailerons, fiberglass leading edges for flaps & ailerons, Seat Harnesses, Aluminium turtledeck, Fabric & fabric adhesive, Structural adhesive. Includes basic embroidered seat cushions. $19,800.00
Highlander Upgrade: Extended Wings, Heavy Duty Extended Main Gear w/1.25” Axles, 8 inch Tail Wheel, Upgrade E Series Matco Wheels and Brakes, Large Elevator/Rudder Combination (Balanced), Gull Style Doors/Windows, and Vortex Generators $3,000.00
Powder Coating $750.00
Quick Build Wings, Flaps and Ailerons $750.00
Wings set to Fuselage (only available with QBW, F&A) $600.00
Cowling - Rotax ( Jabiru & Bushking - $1100.00) $900.00
Motor Mount (Jabiru Motor Mount - $900.00) $700.00
Shipment Preparation for Customer Pick UP $300.00
Sub total $26,800.00
Example of Complete Build Pricing and Payment Schedule
Engine Options:
Rotax 912UL 80HP (Engine + Cooler and Radiator) With Firewall Forward & Prop $21,525.00
Rotax 912ULS 100HP (Engine + Cooler and Radiator) With Firewall Forward & Prop $24,855.00
Jabiru 2200 85HP (Engine + Cooler ) With Firewall Forward(less prop) $15,350.00
Jabiru 3300 120HP (Engine + Cooler ) With Firewall Forward(less prop) $19,350.00
VW Bushking 117HP with Firewall Forward & Prop $15,280.00
Other Options:
Rugged Highlander Nose Wheel Kit $1900.00
Nose Gear $1500.00
Electric Elevator Trim Kit $250.00
Tinted Lexan for Doors and Windows $280.00
Deluxe Carpet, Side Panel Kit, firewall panel, and baggage area $950.00
Large Fuel Tanks (13 gallon versus STD 9 gallon) $1000.00
Instruments/Avionics Allowance Customer Choice
Paint and Supplies Customer Choice
Customer in-house build $400.00/month
Crating for truck shipment $800.00
Freight Charges Please Inquire

Payment Schedule
50% down with the order. (In the case of the Highlander this would be $26,800.00 / 2 = $13,400.00). The balance is due two weeks prior to shipping.
Payment on the Engine is not due until required by the customer at a later date when ready for assembly.

People use all kinds of engines but Rotax are the most popular because they are light and reliable.

NoCOpilot wrote:The two wings that used to be offered on the S-6 have been replaced by what Rans calls the Sport Wing. I've never flown either of the two old wings, but can say that the newer wing is a great performer. According to the Rans spec sheets, the current S-6 actually stalls considerably slower than the S-7 in stock form, although I think all that really shows is the necessity of VGs on the S-7. There is no doubt that the S-7 is a superb back country airplane (especially when equipped with VGs), but I doubt that if equally equipped (tires, VGs, engine, etc.) there are many -if any- places an S-7 could go that an S-6 couldn't. Just in case you couldn't tell, I love both the S-6 and the S-7!

My S6ES stalls at 38 MPH, full flaps, with no VG's. This is the only Rans airplane I've ever flown so I have nothing to compare it to. The Sport wing was supposed to be a compromise between the 116 wing and the speed wing. Whatever he did it works well.

Also, Randy has eliminated the air slats on the top of the cowling on the upcoming S6. Won't affect stall speed but it makes it look nicer.

Murphy Aircraft has not been discussed much in this thread. Their website is also lacking. I was hoping for a picture or two of a Murphy Rebel interior in the 2+1 configuration. That configuration would be perfect for my mission (floatplane, two adults, dog (third seat), and a little room for some light camping gear).