Cubs vs. Highlander/Rans/Kitfox

I've been lurking for a while here as I consider my next project. I currently fly an RV-9 that I built with some mods that allow minor off-field flying. I've been thinking my next project will be a cub or something similar. I'm not particularly interested in certificated planes for a number of reasons. Looking at options, I see several experimental cub options, as well as the Rans S-7 (hangarmate has one of these), the Highlander, and maybe the Kitfox. The obvious difference is the allowable gross weight, which I don't see as a major issue (at this time, anyway). My mission will include off-field work, but not necessarily hauling huge loads. I'm aware of the cost difference, but am willing to spend the extra $$ if it is justified in my mind. I am thinking of putting it on floats at least some of the time as well. So, I'm looking for the collective wisdom/experience on why go with a cub vs. Rans/Highlander/Kitfox both from the building standpoint as well as the flying standpoint? I have little experience with any of these as a pilot, though I have flown in several as a passenger.

Thanks for the input,
greg

I have a friend who bought and then sold a Rans S-7. Too tinny and the Rotax threatened to quit several times. He now has a Clip Wing Cub project, will use a "real" aircraft engine and is a happy camper.

Rotax threatened to quit several times

Click to expand...

Do you know the specifics? Seems on Backcountry Pilot several have had very good luck.

The Rotax in my friend's S-7 had a variety of fuel system problems. It ran rough so many times and even after a series of changes that he lost faith in the engine / installation, so while it was running fine for awhile, he sold it.

There is nothing like a Cub, period. Lycosaur too. 8)

If you still want the tiny motors, get a direct drive like the UL Power. They sound like normal airplane motors.

I've Flown 2 different s-7s, and really liked the way they performed. The roll rate was almost double that of a cub, which I really liked. One had the extended wing that Joel Milloway builds and performed very well on the low end. My neighbor is currently building one with the 0-233 lycoming, Cub gear and extended wings. It will be interesting to see how it turns out

Thanks for the input so far. If I were to go with the Rans or Highlander, I would probably go with the UL engine - more power, direct drive, sounds like an airplane engine. I'm not a big fan of the 5000 rpm rotax with drive reduction (more complexity than necessary).

cheers,
greg

Resale

Glenn

I flew to Johnson Creek with a friend who flys out of Washington. I was by myself in a PA-18 with a 150 h.p that had a Borer climb prop, BushWheels and alot of other mods. My Friend Steve had the Highlander with the UL motor in it. All I can say is he did a great job building it and it does sound like a Airplane.
He could go faster than me, and Would leave me in the dust going up. He could land slower and flew alot cheaper on fuel.

I know that I could carry more weight but over all I think he has a real nice plane. I would think that one like that might be half the cost of a new SuperCub.
Just depends what you want to do with your airplane. Also met his friend who flew in with one on Amphibs, he just came back from fishing a high lake for the afternoon, he did not have the UL motor. After looking at Steve's plane the UL is the way to go.

Bill

I dunno about the Highlander or Kitfox, but have never seen them win (even try?) @ Valdez. I mention that because you plan on off field ops.
All other working planes are compared against the SuperCub. (or Beavers of course) THAT says lots too I think.
They are not worth what they sell for, but the demand for them keeps the price high.
They take off like a mallard & fly slow enough to track a moose.
They are not a go-fast airplane, they are for low/slow & SEEIN' stuff.
TONS of mods/possibilities to suit your mission.
I MIGHT be prejudiced.

No experience in a Rans but flew a Lycoming Kitfox, and I was impressed. Likewise the taildragger Glastar. I really like the RV-7. The Cub is my favorite. I even got a kick out of the new Cessna Gnatcatcher.

But my recommendation is to spend what ever it takes to get five hours in the pattern in each airplane type you are considering, and then make the decision on your preferences, not mine.

We never had a problem with the Rotax, but I refused to work on it, and then found out that somehow the feds have signed off on the idea that even if in an experimental aircraft, the only mechanics who can work on them are folks who have attended specific Rotax schools at specific intervals. I can see why; you can get in trouble just adding oil.

bob turner said:

We never had a problem with the Rotax, but I refused to work on it, and then found out that somehow the feds have signed off on the idea that even if in an experimental aircraft, the only mechanics who can work on them are folks who have attended specific Rotax schools at specific intervals. I can see why; you can get in trouble just adding oil.

Click to expand...

This is reason enough NOT to use a Rotax.

I doubt anyone here would recommend anything but the Cub. The Rans/Highlander/Kitfox folks would likely laud their types. Problem is they are wrong and we are right :lol:

If I was going out in the market to find a knock around airplane for off-airport fun I would certainly consider all of the above choices. Mainly because they are all a lot cheaper to buy second or third hand than an experimental Cub. On the other hand if I was going to build anything it would be the Cub simply because after I put all the time and effort into it I would want the best airplane I could build. There will always be a strong market for Cubs, experimental or certified. There is a good reason for that, they are simply more capable. Add to that the parts and accessories aftermarket for Cubs is second to none.

I know an S-7 with the Rotax on it. Well over a 1000 hours on it with no trouble. It can get off the ground quicker land shorter than my cub and has been in places that I won't try. It has more room inside flys at the same speed I do on half the gas.

I think there is a resistance to the unknown(Rotax) I plan on learning more about this engine as I figure it's the wave of the low fuel burn future. My favorite small powerplant is still the C-90 but as far as old choices go I already know how to pull jugs, split cases etc. on Lycoming's and Continental's. The Rotax isn't cheap to buy either. I sat in a Rans at Lee Bottom fly in and it was a roomy cockpit. The landing gear area looks weak compared to a Cub but I know there is a poster on this board that has proven it to be pretty rugged just by the movies he has posted. I know the answer to all this, CUB. You did pose the question on a cub forum.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately and the Rans looks good, as does the Kitfox with the 912 engine. BUT - if you use avgas, you must change the oil every 25 hours or there is a problem with slipping clutches in the gearbox. With unleaded auto fuel you can go 50 hours. Not very convenient if you're going cross country in the lower 48. I know a guy in England with a Skyranger (That's an ultra light, not a Commonwealth Skyranger -got a nerve to steal the name:-() Reminds me a bit of my grandfather operating an OX-5. One hour flight to one hour maintenance. I know Rotax have a great rep, but when I look at those multiple puny lines and fittings, I wonder why they don't quit more often. They seem more suited to an outboard motor boat than an airplane.

Cub junkie said:

The landing gear area looks weak compared to a Cub but I know there is a poster on this board that has proven it to be pretty rugged just by the movies he has posted. I know the answer to all this, CUB. You did pose the question on a cub forum.

Click to expand...

A friend is building a Highlander and I was very impressed with the gear on it. It looks stronger than PA18 gear to me.

spinner2 said:

A friend is building a Highlander and I was very impressed with the gear on it. It looks stronger than PA18 gear to me.

Click to expand...

I was refering to the Rans landing gear. The Highlander's I've seen have a cub type gear.

I know this is a Cub blog...but how can you argue after watching these Highlander videos. Remember, this is 4.5 gph, 705lb useful load, fold the wings an keep it in a single car garage, or trailer it, for around $65,000 complete!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHXnQCE0kG0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al5eA4WvqOk

For what it's worth, I fly a Pacer and my friend flys his KitFox V with O-290-D2 into the Idaho back country (Johnson, Smiley & Sulfur, etc). I burn 9 gph, he burns 6.5, gets off & lands shorter (as I said, I'm in a Pacer!!), I carry much more camping gear etc, and he can fly as fast. In our trips over the SawTooth, he does get beat up when in rough air, due to low wingloading I suspect. In any case, the KitFox V with Lycoming is a nice aircraft, but it isn't a CUB!! (I know, niether is the Pacer!).
Enjoy the day,
john
PA22-20 180 C/S

Cub Kits

If you want to build a Cub-like plane and keep to a lower budget the RANS S-7S is not a bad choice. It is a good kit with solid documentation and good builder support. This is pretty important for a first-time builder. I do not care for the Rotax engine, but there are lots of them flying around, so they obviously work.

I have not taken a close look at the Highlander or the Kitfox. The one advantage that some people see in these plane is the side-by-side seating. They will both land pretty slow, too, so short field work shouldn't be a problem. The Lycoming-powered Kitfox might be pretty interesting. One negative there is that the new O-233-LSA engine has no track record to look at yet.

The Carbon Cub EX is the Cadillac of this field if you want to stay light to meet LSA requirements, although it is pretty heavy for an LSA, but performance is superb. If you don't care about LSA you can up teh gross weight and have a very nice plane with Super Cub-like performance. The downside is the $125K or so finished price.

The Texas Sport Cub kit by Legend is a pretty good option to consider. The price for the complete airplane will come in around $80K with a Continental engine instead of a Rotax. This is a pretty nice plane that looks and flies like a Cub. The documentation is on the light side, but the kit components are very nice. I built one of these myself. The 'coming soon' Super Legend could also be very appealing, but the development of it is not moving very quickly at this point.

Of course, if you don't care about LSA there are a number of Super Cub kits available, which you can read about in other threads on this forum. I will have an article in the March 2012 KITPLANES magazine comparing several of these kits.

My two cents. The Super Cub is the gold standard--if you can afford to live on the gold standard. All my early flying was in a Cub, and I was originally very skeptical of the Rans. They are not as heavy-built as a Cub, won't haul as much, and don't have the ramp appeal or resale value. If I was flying for a living (I wish), the Super Cub would be a no-brainer. However, having now spread more than 500 hours across three different S-7s (all Rotax 912 or 912S), they have won me over. For personal recreational flying, the operating cost at 5 gph of mo gas is very tough to beat--especially for a plane that lets me do just about everything I could do in Cub. We've killed a lot of coyotes out of Super Cubs, and a lot of coyotes out of S-7s. After a lot of hard flying, the Rans has proven to be much tougher and a much better plane than I ever expected.

I used to think it was crazy to believe anyone would choose a Rans over a Super Cub. If I had to pick one or the other today, I'd take the Rans because I could do virtually all of the same things for a lot less money--enabling me to do those things a lot more. I realize this is probably heresy on the SC board, but not all of us can afford to feed and shelter a Cub for our own private use!

FWIW, my Cub with a 170+ hp mogas burning 0320 & 41" Borer, I got 5 gal/hr on two 3-hr legs last summer, on floats.
After rebuild, she weighs 1080 on (Aero M-2000) skis. With me, fuel, gear, etc I'm about 1500#.
It IS possible (& I'm a happy camper/flier)

Greg, as you know, First: define your mission, Then: define/refine your ride.

Hey Greg/All - I don't post much as I seem to use up all my free posting time on a few other forums, but love sc.org, and love cubs in general.

But, I have an a Rans S-7S, and a Rans S-7 long tail (previous model) before this one.

Nimpo is right, is if you ask what is important to you - really important - it will pretty much narrow down what plane that is the best fit.

I always find the stigma against the Rotax 912/912S odd. I think until you have had personal experience with any powerplant, its hard to really judge it. I have flown almost 600hrs behind my current 912S. It has been absolutely flawless - I've flown it 1/3 of the way across the country 2x, to Idaho from N. CA at least 6 times, over the Sierras I don't know how many. It's not a Lyc/Cont., and there is learning to do in relation to its operation and matin., but I dig that. And I am in no way above average in motor knowledge in general. The maint. on it has been a total non-issue for me - once you learn the motor. Probably below. They have produced 40,000 of these things - ALL are on aircraft. The super cub is the gold standard in many respects - for a 100hp powerplant in a light aircraft - the gold standard is the Rotax 912S, period. That doesn't happen to a POS motor. Period. Any motor will have issues if the installation, operation, or maint. has issues.

Regarding the S-7, I am also biased. I have cub time (1st ever airplane ride was a J3, and used to fly a friends J3 later in life), but cannot do a full comparison like RanchPilot. What I do know is this:
- Useful load is 600lb which ain't bad
- It will fly pretty much what I can fit in it. Its a REMARKABLY forgiving airplane at over gross and aft CG. People are amazed at what I have taken out of the plane.
- If you want lots of camping gear and a passenger, it's not the best plane. A bellypod would be great. If you can pack light, it's not an issue. I have a large baggage mod. For lots of gear, my rear seat comes out in seconds, goes in the baggage bag (or out), and I have a lightweight cargo platform that installs providing a huge area behind the pilot for more gear.
- It is NOT small inside - in fact, It feels a LOT roomier to a std. cub to me. And has 5 ft wide doors on BOTH sides.
-For 95% of any given "bush pilot", It will get into and out of about anywhere you will go in a SC. I feel I am a competent back country pilot, and I have yet to find the limit of the aircraft (as configured), only my personal limits. I think on the scale of that average bush pilot, I have taken it some pretty hairy places, and it's be a performer.
- I average an honest 97mph (GPS) burning 4.4-4.5 gph of premium mogas. I actually set my cruise by fuel flow, rather than airspeed. For me, this is one of the biggest benefits (beyond acquisition/build cost) that make the S-7 the best fit for my budget.

Landing Gear - John Roberts in Homedale, ID (used to build for CubCrafters, fabricated fuselage jigs for the SQ2 and worked for TCOW, designed and built his own light bush plane, etc.) now produces a cub-style gear for the S-7 that is an easy retrofit for a flying plane, or dead simple install for a kit. I run this gear now, and it's awesome. 3" extension, the fabrication and welding is flawless, and BEEFY. Slowed me down, but I don't have them faired.

I think the bet advice was given here that for any plane you are considering, go get some flight time. Considering what a commitment a plane is, getting some time is a worthwhile venture.

Now, all that said, I would love a CarbonCub EX with 210hp

Thanks to all for a great community.

Here is my bird along with some recent adventures in video and pics:

https://picasaweb.google.com/emmetw...&authkey=Gv1sRgCLvVhd2vvKmYCg&feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/emmetw/1stAnnualNorCalTruckeeFlyIn?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCJuk6cT0nre18wE&feat=directlink


Panel fashioned a bit after cubcrafters

Loaded

Roberts Cub-Style Gear


[video=vimeo;32758460]http://vimeo.com/32758460[/video]

btracy said:

I know an S-7 with the Rotax on it. Well over a 1000 hours on it with no trouble. It can get off the ground quicker land shorter than my cub and has been in places that I won't try. It has more room inside flys at the same speed I do on half the gas.

Click to expand...

Like being a Honda rider on a Harley site, but here goes: I routinely turn in fuel burns well under 4 GPH on multiday xc's in the Idaho/Montana/ and Wyoming mountains, landing much more challanging places (note, not strips, but "places") then in the Frank Church (the toughest one there, Mile Hi I suppose, is pretty mild for a vg equipped Airstreaked S-7)(it's the surrounding country that's intimidating, for sure!) and at higher altitudes. I'm solo during these, but carry full camping gear, 9 hrs of fuel, and a full size folding mountain bike (Montague, it fits in the S-7 like it was made for it).

893 hrs TT on my new 912S now, I change the plugs every 300 hrs or so (and they look like new), change the fuel filter at those times also, and change the oil and filter (local parts store for the filter, like the fuel filter) ever 75 hrs, it uses NO oil between changes, not that I can see anyway. That's it, that I just fly the hell out of it, like any other engine not working them is harder on them. They are like Honda Goldwing engines, or modern car engines, who cares how complex they are when they go over 2000 hrs with no problems? And yes more and more have done so, the guy having problems with his is doing something wrong. And yes, some constantly fuss with them, I just fly it and so far so good.


Back to the S-7S, think T-Craft with more power and flaps, as far as flying qualities, better gear also (with the Roberts Cub style gear aftermarket mod I have on mine) with as much room as a SC inside, plus 2 doors. Most guys that have flown them a while load them down, as long as it fits they carry it, it's one of those kinds of planes. This is my second S-7. I put 1300 hors on my first, which was Subaru powered and also totally trouble free, but the Rotax fits the airframe better and is less draggy cowl wise, so I now fly 10 mph faster while using 1 GPH less then the Soob powered one. I had 24 K in the first one, and had 43 K in the new one (before the Airstreaks, the wheel skis, the Roberts gear etc. etc.) cruise in the mid 90's to mid 80's on 3.2 to 4 GPH (mo-gas, even with ethanol) can slow fly slowest then the slowest ultralight with full control, and land short. How short I won't say, (double digits) I'd get too much BS, short. The UL engine is a long ways from being a viable power plant, the ones out there are having continuing teething problems, and they won't be cheap and like the direct drive Jabiru may burn considerable more fuel then the Rotax, so for now I'll stick with that.
I like the Carbon Cub a lot, but it won't land (take off sure, with all that power) places I do now, and even if it did I'd be scared I might scratch it, the price is out of the question, as is the fuel burn, so I make do with the S-7S.

Go to youtube and do a search for TAILDRGFUN.
Watch the deadstick takeoff, and the crosswinds videos.
Hard to deny the versatility of those Highlanders, Rotax or not.
4.5 gph, 700 lb useful load, folding wings to avoid hangar fees or for trailering.
All for around $65,000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHXnQCE0kG0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al5eA4WvqOk

Go to youtube and do a search for taildrgfun.
Watch the 2 videos "teaser for Deadstick Takeoff Flying Adventures" , and "Highlander Crosswing Landings".
This level of versatility at 4.5 gph, 700 lb useful load, folding wings for trailering or storing in your single car garage,
all for around $65,000 complete? Rotax or not, it's a fantastic plane.

I flew a rotax powered Highlander from SD to Valdez and then on to Fairbanks two years ago and also have 10-15 hrs. In a Suburu powered Kitfox. Both of these were beautifully constructed aircraft however, I wouldn't take them both in trade on one wornout cub. A little cross country time in an aircraft before purchase would be highly recommended.
ray

wefly4u said:

I flew a rotax powered Highlander from SD to Valdez and then on to Fairbanks two years ago and also have 10-15 hrs. In a Suburu powered Kitfox. Both of these were beautifully constructed aircraft however, I wouldn't take them both in trade on one wornout cub. A little cross country time in an aircraft before purchase would be highly recommended.
ray

Click to expand...

For my own knowledge, why is that? I don't have time in either plane.

btracy said:

I know an S-7 with the Rotax on it. Well over a 1000 hours on it with no trouble. It can get off the ground quicker land shorter than my cub and has been in places that I won't try. It has more room inside flys at the same speed I do on half the gas.

Click to expand...

ya ya ya but how does it perform with the same loads say when you and your significantly better half are in travel mode each summer? Because if it would do it such a frugal :roll: person such as yourself would already have one?

But don't get me wrong if going light sport and no winning lottery ticket (Carbon Cub) I'd be all over a Rans.