Tadpole wrote:

courierguy wrote:The Bearhawk people are looking at a LSA version of the tandem PATROL, that has piqued my interest.

There's no looking, it exists and there a few flying. Kits are available, http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/Kits/PKitsMain.html

That is the "standard" Patrol, and a fine aircraft it is, BUT not LSA'able, the next/latest upcoming model will be a lighter version of the "standard, and LSA doable!

courierguy wrote:That is the "standard" Patrol, and a fine aircraft it is, BUT not LSA'able, the next/latest upcoming model will be a lighter version of the "standard, and LSA doable!

Hmm I swear the last few newsletters I got said you can LSA this one just fine and that there's two flying. Maybe I misread.

Tadpole wrote:

courierguy wrote:That is the "standard" Patrol, and a fine aircraft it is, BUT not LSA'able, the next/latest upcoming model will be a lighter version of the "standard, and LSA doable!

Hmm I swear the last few newsletters I got said you can LSA this one just fine and that there's two flying. Maybe I misread.

The LSA version will be different, it will have no flaps for one thing. They may also be marketing the stock one as LSA if built super light (like Cub Crafter and the Carbon Cub), but in the emailing I did with them a while (I'm always looking for the next one, just like the next wife)I was under the impression it would be a slightly different version, optimized for LSA. A very cool plane either way, and I could be wrong, or they changed the marketing presentation somewhat, or both! I like their attitude regardless, and they seem like they would be fine to do business with.

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?

Zane, have you checked out the Cheetah XLS?

http://www.cheetahus.com/cheetah-xls/sp ... price.html




http://www.cheetahus.com/cheetah-xls/sp ... price.html

Cool! I realy like that bright green.
I am with Zane in his comment about flaps. I had looked at the Texas Sport Cub, Carbon Cub, and a few other and since I am building to eventually go on floats, I think the addition of flaps would help a bit. I don't think the Texas Sport Cub has flaps but it still seems to preform well from everything I have read. That and the fact that it can be built for (I am guessing here) close to half the price of the Carbon Cub. Is that performance gain of the Carbon Cub worth the added expense? I guess it would be is your flying is close to the edge frequently. I occasionally have thoughts of selling my Rebel kit and going this route but after sitting down and crunching the numbers I really wouldn't gain much unless I spend lots of cash.

Although the Champ I fly now doesn't have flaps there are many times I have wished it did. I guess all those years of flying with flaps spoiled me. Sure, slipping is great for landings but there is nothing a guy can do to give that little extra boost for take-off.
WW

Well, after 8 pages, I'm still waffling (not that a decision made today is worth anything tomorrow) between the 100hp Highlander and Kitfox 7, and the 160hp Murphy Rebel and 200hp Dream Tundra. Big cost discrepancies here, even between the Rebel and Tundra, but these are the aircraft I am focusing on and will fondle at the fly-ins this season. I really, really like the Rans S-7, but I value the side-by-side seating of the prior mentioned models more I think. Today at least. I've been flying a Cub a lot lately and it's not so bad.

Thanks for all your opinions and advice. My next big project is overhauling my garage: Building a storage attic, insulating ceiling and walls (built in 1955), and putting together a nice workbench and tool storage system.

Isn't the S-6 a side by side S-7 or is there other diferences? the rans site isnt very clear on this.

Yes, the S6 is a side by side, and S7 tandem. They are really totally different aircraft. Wing construction is similar, but different wing designs. The fuselage of the 7 is all chromoly construction while the 6 is combination of chromoly and aluminum tube.

emflys wrote:Yes, the S6 is a side by side, and S7 tandem. They are really totally different aircraft. Wing construction is similar, but different wing designs. The fuselage of the 7 is all chromoly construction while the 6 is combination of chromoly and aluminum tube.

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.

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 like the Highlander idea Zane. The Murphy, though also nice, is a bit more cave like.

(I had one chance to fly an S-6. Did NOT like the way that one handled. Much rather have an S-7S.)

I'm not going lie. I'm very aesthetically sensitive, and I have a hard time ignoring that in favor of function. The Highlander is more functional than the Kitfox SS7 in most ways (I like conventional flaps) but the Kitfox just has amazing lines in my opinion. The shape of the fuse and the engine cowl look much better than the Highlander.

I think you got the wrong picture Zane



One thing that maybe others can attest to, I am the same with looks - I have a mean right-brained streak and can only take the "function before form" so far. However, I also note that once you "own" something, it becomes more attractive to you. The same may be true of a plane that you at first don't like, but then come to love the look of after you build it

Sorry for offending, but I don't think I will ever like the lines of Zenith aircraft in general. Capable little suckers, but...

emflys wrote:Sorry for offending, but I don't think I will ever like the lines of Zenith aircraft in general. Capable little suckers, but...

Yeah, you are right! I don't think we had one build session when someone didn't say "Damn, this thing is ugly!"

However, it is amazing what a paint scheme can do!

Definitely go sit in all of them and if possible fly them all before buying. A friend built a Murphy and I flew it a bit. While performance was fine, visibility is poor and cavelike describes it well. Also, just an awesome amount of rivetting goes into construction and with all the drilling, deburing, etc it took him a lot of time, like a couple of years, and he was retired. You also end up kind of sitting on the floor in the Murphy, with legs straight out, but maybe that is the case with most of these kitbuilts. Also with his Murphy it had flaperons, and they never did work worth a damn. I think Murphy may have since scrapped those and gone with normal flaps, but not sure. That Kitfox looks nice, but if you're really into rough stuff I'm not sure the spring steel gear is the best. Nothing wrong with aesthetically pleasing preferences, be it planes or women.

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

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

It's better than the opposite scenario for sure. On the other hand, it's difficult to "close your eyes and think of England" while flying.

Better build a pretty plane to match your pretty wife!

They all look pretty sitting in the left seat. Pick the one with the most fun factor.

Oregon180 wrote:

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

It's better than the opposite scenario for sure. On the other hand, it's difficult to "close your eyes and think of England" while flying.

Better build a pretty plane to match your pretty wife!

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.