If you build the plane you can certify the gross as whatever you want. You're listed as the manufacturer. That being said I always listed mine as whatever the kit manufacturer recommended. I believe Randy is going to up the gross weight on the EAB versions of this plane with the larger engine. But then I believe a lot of things.

True but I want to know it was engineered for whatever weight I set it at. If they only engineer it for 1320 it would be foolish to set the gross higher than that.

No argument here.

whee wrote:True but I want to know it was engineered for whatever weight I set it at. If they only engineer it for 1320 it would be foolish to set the gross higher than that.

I'd be willing to bet they engineered the design to withstand a gross weight that the largest engine can handle.

All it would take to certify it for LSA is to drop the approved MGW on the certificate to the appropriate weight - even if the plane is designed to handle more.

This could be interesting with the Turbo 912.. 125mph cruise perhaps..
and adapt the baggage a bit to fit a non-folding mountain bike (front wheel removed) for those of us that spend excessive amounts on bikes.

Of course paying someone to build it (i dont have time to build unfortunately) and building it out I am sure will get up over 100k,

29singlespeed wrote:...

Of course paying someone to build it (i dont have time to build unfortunately) and building it out I am sure will get up over 100k,

With ease.

29singlespeed wrote:This could be interesting with the Turbo 912.. 125mph cruise perhaps..
and adapt the baggage a bit to fit a non-folding mountain bike (front wheel removed) for those of us that spend excessive amounts on bikes.

Of course paying someone to build it (i dont have time to build unfortunately) and building it out I am sure will get up over 100k,

You can pay me to build it. I'll fly it for you until you can come around a pick it up. Or until you catch me.

I was going to make the same offer. My dad is convinced he wants one of these but I think it is important to fly before you buy.

29singlespeed wrote:This could be interesting with the Turbo 912.. 125mph cruise perhaps..
and adapt the baggage a bit to fit a non-folding mountain bike (front wheel removed) for those of us that spend excessive amounts on bikes.

Of course paying someone to build it (i dont have time to build unfortunately) and building it out I am sure will get up over 100k,

I think that would be the sweet spot performance wise. Especially if in the West and up high a lot. Adding 60 and more lbs. to the nose by using a UL engine doesn't appeal to me. I still get annoyed when they throw those horsepower numbers around, based on unusable prop rpm's, unless you're swing a toothpick. I mean, what do you think a 160 hp 0-320 would produce, (forget for how long) could claim, at 3200 RPM?!

I was down in SLC a while back talking to the RANS dealer down there, he is a big proponent of the after market turbos for the 912, and has modded several. In explaining the difference in performance at our base altitude, not to mention higher up, he pointed at the mountain range to the east, the frigging Wasatch, the big boys, and says when he aims right at them from his strip he can be at 18K by the time he crosses them! Then, while cruising high up, he trues out at something like 130 mph at less then 5 gph. All this while I would still be poking along through a pass at 90.....(but I LIKE poking around down low). But, my personal performance criteria is: will it help me on short final on a mountainside? NO, most performance mods don't help in that case, climbing out faster and higher is way down on my list as compared to keeping it dirt simple and most of all light as possible. If I was building a S-20 tomorrow, I would use Oratex fabric and every (simple) trick in the book to keep it as light as possible, and I'd use a 100 horse 912S and spend the money saved on more fuel.

Say the word Whee and I'll fly over to IF (?) and give you and your father a ride in the S-7S, the same darn wing so that should tell you something about the S-20.

+1 on the Oratex. It is my hope that the factory embraces this also as a number of builders including myself have little interest in the covering process. I can certainly live with the "translucent" look for the weight savings. I believe the cost of the Oratex fabric is about double of conventional cover, but that's the end of it. Primer and paint is out of sight expensive unless you use latex house paint, and very, very slow.

That Oratex looks like good stuff. I really want to experience covering a plane but I have zero desire to paint. I've painted a couple cars and I hate it. That is probly the part of building an airplane that I dread the most.

CG, if my dad gets serious enough about it I'll let you know. Thanks for the offer.

Randy is dropping the pre-sewn dacron skins like on my S6Es and replacing them with Oratex skins. I'm betting the S20 will have an Oratex slip on option at some point. The new S6 model with Oratex will be called the S6ELS. When it comes time to replace my dacron I'll be going with Oratex.

Amen to Oratex. Add a +1 for me as well.

The S20 is a very interesting design, although these days I think for myself I need 4 place capability. The S20 will soon face some interesting competition from the BackCountry LSA sub. Both AC have considerable wingspans with decent wing area for the floaty approach vs the sink like rock STOL of a Zenith or Just.

I did read somewhere that Rans is even looking at 180hp options for the S20, probably in the form of a UL engine.

I wish they would consider an S40 four place design LOL. So for now, I am so looking at Bearhawk and BackCountry Boss SQ4.. The Dream Aircraft Tundra is an aircraft I just can't figure out.at the moment; maybe it will be a contender.

For a 2 place, hats off to S20, Just Highlander/SSTOL, KitFox SS, BackCountry SuperCubs, and I suppose the Zenith 750 Cruzer and/or STOL.

Choice is good.

Randy showed up at KASG last week while visiting with the good folks over at TruTrak.
After I topped off the tanks for him, he was very gracious in letting me take a few pic's and look over this gorgeous plane.
If you look closely you'll see the top portion of the rudder has been cut down some. He explained that the rudder input
was not quite consumer ready as it was more inline with how an Extra 300 behaves.
Needless to say; "I want one!"

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/3aiqr6621zm3obo/xV1epDgaHv


I think its fixed now. Damn computer shit!

No joy on the photos. Can you adjust your dropbox permissions to let guests view?

the rans stuff ive been around work pretty darn good! but to drop upwards of a hundred large and still have a rotax out front, NFW....!

Hope this works....
https://www.dropbox.com/sc/3aiqr6621zm3obo/xV1epDgaHv

Perfect! Great pictures!


I don't mind my Rotax one bit. Love it in fact.

jomac wrote:the rans stuff ive been around work pretty darn good! but to drop upwards of a hundred large and still have a rotax out front, NFW....!

Maybe they will offer a less expensive version, offering a "lightweight" 0-200. That would appeal to the ones willing to put up with less range, less payload, higher hourly operating costs, faster landing speeds, less climb rate, and lesser glide ratio's and higher sink rate if ever flown dead stick, as long as it has a Lyc or Con. in the nose.

They could also offer a premium model featuring the 135 horse turbo with intercooler model Rotax, like the BackCountry Cub guys have chosen for their LSA.

Point being, adding 60 to 80 lbs. way up front on the nose of a barely 700 lb airplane has major compromises. Been there done that, with a close to 60 lb heavier engine (100 hp Subaru conversion, worked great but HEAVY) in my first S-7, and now cruise faster, further, and on less fuel. Plus I can do some dead stick ridge soaring from time to time, which I never was able to do with the boat anchor of a Soob.

Doing the math, anyone want to add roughly 150 lbs on the front of a C 182, for the same amount of thrust power plant?

Maybe they will offer a less expensive version, offering a "lightweight" 0-200. That would appeal to the ones willing to put up with less range, less payload, higher hourly operating costs, faster landing speeds, less climb rate, and lesser glide ratio's and higher sink rate if ever flown dead stick, as long as it has a Lyc or Con. in the nose.


Well said Courierguy. I'll stick with the Rotax.