Need NOSE plane recommendions. - pls comment.

Sorry nose wheel recommendations ..

Need some help from this experienced group of pilots, owners and Mechanics alike.


Understand this is not a normal tailwheel type issue - but I am sure this group has some great thoughts that will answer the below question


Question. Currently provided in kit form - what experimental airplane has the strongest airframe and nose wheel combination?


Looking for a kit that is;

1. side by side seating, 2/3 seats.
2. can support up to O-360 (200 hp)- only a Lycoming type / clone.
3. all aluminum - every surface
4. able to follow big tire cubs around - in the desert and soft dried river beds - within reason - min 8.50’s
5. STOL
6. 400 mile range
7. Strong customer support
8. When ordered all the pieces arrive at the time.
9. Must be experimental
10. Better than average visibility
11. Construction can be pull rivets
12. Not a first run product- want a kit company with a strong reputation
13. Need not float.
14. No light sport. After fuel would like 600 lbs useful load.
15. Built in 800 - 1000 hrs.

Have I asked for to much? Does this kit plane even exist? I must be dreaming.


Again, the answer / recommendation must be found in a nose wheel aircraft.


Thanks up front for you ideas and thoughts.


Let the comments begin. All are truly welcomed.


Shep

I'm not an expert on these things, but sounds a lot like a Zenair 701, even more like an 801.

That said, tail wheel aircraft are way more fun.

Rans S-21 trike. Tough to find a better kit maker, new airplane, can handle a big engine, etc. Tire size capabilities would be my only question


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

As silflexer stated, I think the only good option would be the S-21. In taildragger config it’s an 800 or less hour build, and very capable with the Titan and 29” bushwheels. All aluminum, could likely be enhanced even more with Stol Performance flaps.
The second thing that will be coming from Rans will be an extended wing version. The current wings are 32’ if I recall, and getting out to 35-36 will make an easy 5 mph change in stall speed.

Rans has been behind the power curve on getting ramped up in production to meet the demand, so lead time is out a ways, particularly for the “cage” - the factory welded tube forward fuselage. This is a irritant to customers, but I believe eventually this will be resolved.

The S-21 is a compromise from the “standard” tandem seating bush planes, but it fills its own niche - that of a cross-country traveler, with speeds of 125-150 depending on tire size, side by side seating so your significant other can grab your leg, and still let you go play with the boys off airport.

I’d be happy to build one for someone if they can wait for production to ship out all the parts.

Peter

Edit: in re-reading the original question- #7 & 8 are not strong suits of Rans...


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

Latest S-21 report from Rans.

RANS S-21 Progress Report 27

Flight Testing Continues with Two Titan-Powered S-21’s
With two S-21’s both nearly identical, with the exception of the main wheel size, we have been able to get some solid performance data. The numbers we predicted are on target and consistent between the two planes. As stated, the major difference is the wheels size. On N615RD we installed 26” Bushwheels, and they do take a bit more power to push. We are still seeing true airspeeds above 150 MPH with 145 IAS between 6000 and 7000 feet. Economy cruise is just plain fun, running 6.2 GPH and 125 MPH. That is a pinch over the Rotax powered plane and several MPH faster. Speeds of 145 MPH to 150 MPH run 9 plus GPH. Climb rates are strong, at 1800 gross, with 1100 FPM average from 2000 to 12,500.

The prop settings are a half-degree apart, so WOT on N615RD with the 26” wheels Outbound is only 2450 RPM. We will set it back a half-degree and expect even shorter take offs and greater climbs. Cruise will be impacted, and so will GPH, but the bottom line is it will be a fast plane even with the big rubber down under.

Aerobatic testing has shown a very decent roll rates (90 to 100 degrees/second) with entry speeds around 135 IAS, same for loops. Spin recovery is well within ¼ to ½ turns. Like all of our planes a hint of relaxed yaw and pitch input usually slows or stops rotation. Deep spin testing (beyond 3 turns) has not been conducted, that may come later in the spring, along with some other interesting flight testing.

Stalls between the two planes are dead on the numbers, break occurs between 38 and 40 MPH IAS. Both have AOA’s and work very well to shorten approach speeds (55 to 65MPH) and landing roll out. You can approach under 50 MPH IAS to the tune of the AOA.

The stick pressure in roll is a bit heavier over the Rotax powered plane, and that was expected due to the greater pendulum stability from the heavier engine. The handling is just plain fun and feels very natural.

Empty weights are 940 (low optioned and with out the bushwheels) and fully decked out 1035.

With the 22” Tundra tires the single calipers are adequate and with the low landing speeds you would not need more, unless you want to access critically short strips. The 26” Bushwheels do require a second set of calipers to take full advantage of the STOL end of things.

Both planes were easy to rig hands and feet off ball-centered flight. We cranked in more negative tail incidence in N615RD and are exploring the subtle differences.

Over all I am very pleased with the sameness between the planes, and the Garmin systems. The calibrated airspeeds are within 3 MPH at medium cruise speeds, well within certification limits.
The plan is to have both Titan powered planes at Sun and Fun, plus our Rotax powered prototype set up with the trike gear.
Titan Install Kit and Tech
Now that we have proven the firewall forward package, we are building Titan install kits and getting together the tech. We plan an install video on the next Titan build.

Assembly Alert on Doors
During the flight-testing we do some pretty lousy flying on purpose. Like full throttle climb outs with sideslips; yeah I know, who does that? Well someone will, and it stresses the lexan in the doors. To make sure your windows stay put we are adding 3M VHB to the kits. This is used to bond the lexan more securely to the doorframe. Make up shipments will be happening. VHB stands for Very High Bond. It is double-sided adhesive foam strip. Test bonds show it to be impressive. The brave may be tempted to bond a whole plane together. We like it because it is easy to use and provides light, lasting, and simple bonding in tricky places.

If you have already assembled your doors, it is a simple matter of drilling out the rivets on the mating extrusion, apply the VHB, and re-install. It is highly recommended to add the VHB, otherwise a window panel could separate at the mating seam.

Windshield Skylight
We have successfully flight tested the new install, and will be moving as fast as possible to get the new parts, and tech to everyone. Thanks for bearing with us on this unexpected twist in the plot.

Stay tuned, Sun-n-Fun report will be coming soon...RJS










Transmitted from my FlightPhone

Asking for a whole lot in all that list.

I don't think the Zenith quite fits all the criteria, but it might.

If you want a travel bird, why the nose wheel? They cause drag, and restrict you immensely.

What about the Glasair Sportsman? I believe it can be configured as either tailwheel or trike. I've also heard good things about their two week to taxi build program. It'd be worth looking into, I believe.

Or perhaps maybe a Murphy Rebel Elite? I know of an 85% completed kit that will be on the market soon.

Thanks. cubscout

Yea, why a trike????

Well...........just thought I'd jump in here. In response to nunanutpa-12 and aktango reference the Zenith etc. I have built 55 airplanes and the Zenith line is absolutely the worst incapable machine that does not even fly like a normal airplane. Actually saw one land in front of me at Eufala, AL and rolled up into a squashed beer can. NO steel tubing structure to it and I know since I had unfortunately built one for a customer. I had to do so many mods just to make it airworthy and it flew like a piece of crap. Swore I would never build another. Furthermore there is NO company support....nice people until they get your money then customer service is non existent. Besides who wants to fly a square air conditioning duct with pop rivets. A whole lot more to this story as I took a crew with me to China to set up 3 aircraft factories towards building Zenith airplanes. The company is a criminal rip off as they convinced the Chinese to buy 34 Staple Guns to use on the airplane...FOR WHAT????. Zenith listed a tool kit on their website for about $800 but charged the Chinese $3400 for each kit, again a total rip off, and I actually saw the receipts doing inventories. The story goes on and on and I could add more detrimental stuff but don't need to go further. hopefully you get the idea.

But will add this for ELPCUB. I have restored 4 Helio Couriers and of course they far exceed all of of the requirements, but Helio did make a trike version, known as the HT-295. Not quite as good as the tail dragger model, but better than any nose wheel airplane out there for STOL ops. Wish I could find one, but they are rare.

If I wanted to build an all metal E-AB I'd choose a Murphey Moose. A friend built one and it's a very impressive airplane. Not a nose dragger, though. Maybe a nose dragger Yukon with an IO-390? That looks like a promising airplane. With a 390 and a CS prop it compares to a 210hp Hawk XP, and I can attest to that being a good performing and capable airplane.

http://www.murphyair.com/_uploads/_docs/brochure-yukon.pdf

Folks - thanks for all the feedback. Great info to think about. This is a tough find. Again, it has to be a nose wheel type machine.

Shep

There is a real hole in the market for a 2-3 place, which would be better as a 4 place. I think we’ll see a semi-bushworthy 4 place from the Hayes Kansas crew eventually. Basic Med has really helped I think.

I saw the other day he is looking for another welder. Hopefully that will work out and boost production of the cage.

The Sportsman may be a good choice. Tube steel frame up front makes for a rugged airframe and being able to convert it at any time to a tailwheel is a great option. There is allot flying and have good factory support. I do not like the nonsteerable castering nosewheel and a nose wheel is always the weakest link. Learning how to taxi takes some practice. The IO-390 with a constant speed prop really makes it go but there is many other engine prop combinations that preform well in this aircraft.

I'm curious why you're so set on it having to be a nose wheel?

1934A and others,

Fair question about why nose wheel only. The person I am helping has ZERO appetite for tailwheel. So I am looking for a possible nose wheel solution.

Again, thanks for all the replies / post to my question.

Shep

Did you see the Murphy Yukon has a nose dragger option? That looks like a nice 170/172 alternative.

stewartb,

the Murphy Yukon has made our list. Would like something with a little bit better visibility. It is a C172. Search is still open... Something will float to the top.

What kind of world are we living in where a man would rather fly a nose wheel instead of a taildragger??!!! Kinda makes a guy wonder if ISIS might really be winning....... ����

They apparently haven’t seen the Hitler fly out for burgers video. ��

If you come up north you can find some Cessna mafia types that like to spank everyone with a big power 172. Stick a big motor in a 172 add the right wing and you have a monster on your hands!! If you don't need experimental that would be the way to go. The bottom line is the pilot much more than the plane.
DENNY

1934A said:

What kind of world are we living in where a man would rather fly a nose wheel instead of a taildragger??!!! Kinda makes a guy wonder if ISIS might really be winning....... ����

Click to expand...

Most of us here would ask the same question unless at some point of time in our lives we had been involved in teaching people to fly. There are a lot of people with the desire to fly who do not have the ability. Some of these people need to be told to go ride a bicycle. Others, a simple thing like changing from a tail wheel to a nose wheel type can solve the problem. Or changing from a high wing to a low wing. Most all of us have seen people flying at airports and wondered "Who taught that person to fly?". Who was the examiner that issued that pilot a certificate? I've known a few of those. Examples will not be given here.

Also, sometimes the issue may be that the person learning to fly just needs to get a different instructor. Perhaps elpcub's friend does a great job and had a great instructor who trained him well on a nose wheel airplane. Perhaps he tried a tailwheel airplane with that instructor and that instructor was unable to properly train for tailwheel use?

There are a lot of questions and scenarios which could be addressed. The important one is this pilot just does not feel comfortable with a tailwheel. Let's help him out. Once he gets flying and hanging out with us perhaps he will decide to switch over to the dark side.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R1sI8b1NGzU

Rice farmer said:

They apparently haven’t seen the Hitler fly out for burgers video. ��

Click to expand...

Skywagon8a,You are spot on with your comments. That is precisely the situation. Until you have landed on a moving ship and walked away I figure my friend’s judgment call is strong. BTW – he has. So I have ZERO room to question his appetite for nose wheel aircraft. So my search continues. Shep

Even Squids can learn tail draggers. Bender is a good example. I converted three years ago. It's a disease.

elpcub said:

Skywagon8a,You are spot on with your comments. That is precisely the situation. Until you have landed on a moving ship and walked away I figure my friend’s judgment call is strong. BTW – he has. So I have ZERO room to question his appetite for nose wheel aircraft. So my search continues. Shep

Click to expand...

DENNY said:

If you come up north you can find some Cessna mafia types that like to spank everyone with a big power 172. Stick a big motor in a 172 add the right wing and you have a monster on your hands!! If you don't need experimental that would be the way to go. The bottom line is the pilot much more than the plane.
DENNY

Click to expand...

My old Hawk XP was a bundle of fun and would go places lots of Cub guys wouldn't go. A friend with an old straight tail 182 can keep up with good Cub drivers. The snottier the conditions the more the nose draggers shine. They're all just tools. One tool doesn't fit every nut.

stewartb said:

and would go places lots of Cub guys wouldn't go.

Click to expand...

I hear stuff like this often. When working my 180 a 206 driver told me he could work any place I could; he did not wreck, but I was hauling full loads and he had to strip the plane to leave...

Thank you for clarifying your reasoning, it is hard for some of us to understand tricycle gear airplanes. Heck, even Pete needs a special waiver to fly his amphibious 185 to lunch with us!8)

With the limits you have set, you are not going to find it all, but if you are looking for just short, not short/rough/soft you might be ok.

So more questions: how short is short??

At the WAD there is an RV-4 that comes out and follows us all over the place. So with a pilot, and RV nose wheel with big tires would do lots, if you have a pilot.

The 172 with big motor, (180 hp) will go lots of places, but is certified.

As far as handling short and rough, the Zenith has been the best nose wheel bird I have seen. You have more factory knowledge than I.

Is the Chipper coming out with a tricycle?

1934A said:

What about the Glasair Sportsman? I believe it can be configured as either tailwheel or trike.

Click to expand...

A friend has a Glastar, the predecessor to the Sportsman 2+2. I would classify it as closely resembling the Cessna 172 in performance and characteristics. If your friend is a big fellow he may find it a bit tight. Also my friend's Glastar doesn't cruise anywhere near the advertised numbers with a 180hp/constant speed prop.

I have a super cub and love it. My next plane will be a nose dagger. Maybe a Tripacer. Been flying along time and don't need to prove anything to anybody.

Don

SB mentioned the Hawk XP. I’d agree with the excellent performance characteristics of the steroid-enhanced C172s. I have owned a T41B for over 20 years and it is a go-many-places airplane. 210 hp and 1500 pound empty weight combined with a 206 nose gear are great mods. I’ve had mine into some fairly tight places. Places like Salmon Bar and Sluice Creek in Hell’s Canyon and some other places that are un-named but similar.

Plus run it LOP and cruise 140 mph on 9 gph.

It isnt a new kit plane but it fills most of the other requirements your friend has.