StillLearning wrote:

anorphirith wrote:Thanks for the feedback.
I would get a 170/180 if I could afford the maintenance.
I think an experimental S7 is more in my budget and skill level.

I’m not sure what is so expensive in maintenance on a 170 or 180 that people can’t afford. Unless you build the s7, and get your repairman certificate, you still have to pay someone else. I own a 180, other than the upgrades I choose to make, the maintenance is pretty minimal. If you lose a cylinder on a 470, or you lose a cylinder on a 360, is the cost really any different? Other than a couple more cylinders and a cs prop, what really is the difference?

You would have to pay someone to do the yearly condition inspection on the S-7, but they only have to hold the A&P license, not necessarily an IA. And as someone else already pointed out, literally anyone can do all the other maintenance on an Experimental, and that includes the owner.

And you're probably correct about Lycoming vs Continental being pretty much a "draw" as far as maintenance costs. But most of the RANS S-7 fleet uses the Rotax 912ULS. The design was optimized for that engine, and a Lyc/Cont on the nose would make for a very unbalanced airplane. And given the Rotax engine, maintenance truly should be considerably lower than for Lyc/Cont... The vast majority of Rotax engines make TBO without ever having a cylinder pulled or having the engine opened up at all. As for "regular" maintenance items: Spark plugs for a Rotax are around $3 each, and can be purchased at your local auto parts store. Oil and filters are significantly less expensive than for a Lyc or Cont. There are no mags to be overhauled every 500 (or less) hours. The carbs can be rebuilt (with readily available kits) by pretty much any competent mechanic. There's even a "Rotax Owners" website you can join ($30/year) that has extensive videos to teach you how to do many of these things for yourself.

JP256 wrote:

StillLearning wrote:

anorphirith wrote:Thanks for the feedback.
I would get a 170/180 if I could afford the maintenance.
I think an experimental S7 is more in my budget and skill level.

I’m not sure what is so expensive in maintenance on a 170 or 180 that people can’t afford. Unless you build the s7, and get your repairman certificate, you still have to pay someone else. I own a 180, other than the upgrades I choose to make, the maintenance is pretty minimal. If you lose a cylinder on a 470, or you lose a cylinder on a 360, is the cost really any different? Other than a couple more cylinders and a cs prop, what really is the difference?

You would have to pay someone to do the yearly condition inspection on the S-7, but they only have to hold the A&P license, not necessarily an IA. And as someone else already pointed out, literally anyone can do all the other maintenance on an Experimental, and that includes the owner.

And you're probably correct about Lycoming vs Continental being pretty much a "draw" as far as maintenance costs. But most of the RANS S-7 fleet uses the Rotax 912ULS. The design was optimized for that engine, and a Lyc/Cont on the nose would make for a very unbalanced airplane. And given the Rotax engine, maintenance truly should be considerably lower than for Lyc/Cont... The vast majority of Rotax engines make TBO without ever having a cylinder pulled or having the engine opened up at all. As for "regular" maintenance items: Spark plugs for a Rotax are around $3 each, and can be purchased at your local auto parts store. Oil and filters are significantly less expensive than for a Lyc or Cont. There are no mags to be overhauled every 500 (or less) hours. The carbs can be rebuilt (with readily available kits) by pretty much any competent mechanic. There's even a "Rotax Owners" website you can join ($30/year) that has extensive videos to teach you how to do many of these things for yourself.

All great reasons, that's in the long term cheaper and less headache than a 180/170.
They're also usually newer so less maintenance
I can also install cheaper experimental avionics instead of certified ones.
And one of the biggest advantages for me is that the engine won't rot if I let the plane sit. (camshaft corrosion nightmare)

A 180 has a Continental so it doesn't have camshaft corrosion issues like a Lycoming may if not properly cared for.

The little Rans is a cool plane but it's NOT a 180 substitute.

akaviator wrote:A 180 has a Continental so it doesn't have camshaft corrosion issues like a Lycoming may if not properly cared for.

The little Rans is a cool plane but it's NOT a 180 substitute.

The C-180 is one heck of a nice airplane. The RANS S-7 is likewise a nice airplane. The two serve quite different markets, in my view...

The 180 is more of a backcountry "hauler" and cross-country machine (even IFR, if so equipped). The S-7 is an LSA with only two seats, much slower cruise speed, and correspondingly lower stall speeds. Both are pretty decent STOL machines, though the "standard" S-7 will out-perform a C-180, while the C-180 can carry a LOT more of the 'stuff' we pilots are so fond of carrying into the backcountry. (I would still argue that the real limiting STOL factor on both airplanes is the pilot...)

But since the OP started out by stating he was considering purchase of an S-7, I was making the assumption that he had already determined that his mission was better fulfilled by the S-7 than it would be by a Maule, C-180/C-170, or even a Pilatus or Gulfstream IV...

I know that was certainly the case for me, when I decided I wanted a RANS S-6, which is basically a side-by-side design very similar (functionally) to the S-7. I would have been fine with an S-7, but the existing S-6 examples on the market were typically priced about 2/3 the price of a comparable S-7. To me, the RANS S-6 is the best-kept "non-secret" in the STOL LSA world... But then, my mission doesn't call for flying 3 states away, hauling everything I need to survive for a week in the wild, either. Flying a RANS S-6 (or S-7, for that matter) is a lot like flying a J-3 Cub or Champ: It's more about the "journey" than it is about arriving at the "destination." (Translation: they're not fast cross-country machines, but they're a TON of fun to fly!)

this was a joy to read @JP256

akaviator wrote:A 180 has a Continental so it doesn't have camshaft corrosion issues like a Lycoming may if not properly cared for.

The little Rans is a cool plane but it's NOT a 180 substitute.

I can tell you with 100 percent empirical certainty that an O470 can indeed suffer from camshaft and lifter corrosion and cost it’s owner $20,000 for an IRAN. Been there done that.

StillLearning wrote:

anorphirith wrote:Thanks for the feedback.
I would get a 170/180 if I could afford the maintenance.
I think an experimental S7 is more in my budget and skill level.

I’m not sure what is so expensive in maintenance on a 170 or 180 that people can’t afford. Unless you build the s7, and get your repairman certificate, you still have to pay someone else. I own a 180, other than the upgrades I choose to make, the maintenance is pretty minimal. If you lose a cylinder on a 470, or you lose a cylinder on a 360, is the cost really any different? Other than a couple more cylinders and a cs prop, what really is the difference?

I have a hard time believing this is even a question. Have you priced cessna parts versus just about any other on the market? The cost to repair a tube a fabric ding versus one on a cessna? The cost of ownership and maintenance is not even in the same ball park. Cost for an annual (condition inspection) on my experimental was under 500 bucks every year. The last annual on my brothers 170 was 3500. My pacer was around 2k with a few little issues being taken care of. Your not even remotely close to comparing apples to apples trying to compare maintenance on an S7 to that of a 180 or any other cessna.

You are correct, to compare an s7 to a 180 is apples to cantaloupes, however he said he would have a “170/180” if he could afford The MAINTENANCE cost.

We are talking maintenance, not repairs due to damage, abuse, or neglect. Sure, I changed the plugs on my 180 this year, about $300. But, I’ve had the plane for 3 years and the plugs were probably originally installed 25 years ago. I’d wager that over the life of the plugs the difference is negligible. I think this discussion only matters if you are talking about a couple dollars per hour difference.

Perhaps the op should have said operating costs overall? Bringing a neglected, or abused airplane up to spec is a different situation.

I also fly a CGS Hawk, looks and sounds like an ultralight, costs about $21/hr to fly it Not including depreciation on the engine. Is it fun, yes, is it something I’m going to fly camping for a week, no. Do I feel comfortable in it at 4000 agl, not really. And, today I had cars on the highway passing me.

My 180 is the first real airplane I owned, I don’t regret it one bit. In fact, most days I get out of it and think to myself, “I love this thing”.

asa wrote:

akaviator wrote:A 180 has a Continental so it doesn't have camshaft corrosion issues like a Lycoming may if not properly cared for.

The little Rans is a cool plane but it's NOT a 180 substitute.

I can tell you with 100 percent empirical certainty that an O470 can indeed suffer from camshaft and lifter corrosion and cost it’s owner $20,000 for an IRAN. Been there done that.

I'm sure with a little effort there are folks out there that can screw up any motor. Most know what I was referring to regarding Lycoming engines and their high cam. That's why they came out with Camguard.

akaviator wrote:

asa wrote:

akaviator wrote:A 180 has a Continental so it doesn't have camshaft corrosion issues like a Lycoming may if not properly cared for.

The little Rans is a cool plane but it's NOT a 180 substitute.

I can tell you with 100 percent empirical certainty that an O470 can indeed suffer from camshaft and lifter corrosion and cost it’s owner $20,000 for an IRAN. Been there done that.

I'm sure with a little effort there are folks out there that can screw up any motor. Most know what I was referring to regarding Lycoming engines and their high cam. That's why they came out with Camguard.

Yeah this is why I don’t do oil analysis on my 540... can’t unsee it after it’s seen haha

asa wrote:

akaviator wrote:

asa wrote:

akaviator wrote:A 180 has a Continental so it doesn't have camshaft corrosion issues like a Lycoming may if not properly cared for.

The little Rans is a cool plane but it's NOT a 180 substitute.

I can tell you with 100 percent empirical certainty that an O470 can indeed suffer from camshaft and lifter corrosion and cost it’s owner $20,000 for an IRAN. Been there done that.

I'm sure with a little effort there are folks out there that can screw up any motor. Most know what I was referring to regarding Lycoming engines and their high cam. That's why they came out with Camguard.

Yeah this is why I don’t do oil analysis on my 540... can’t unsee it after it’s seen haha

Right!