Alex Clark
Registered User
Life Long Alaskan
Has anyone here ever flown a RANS S-7 on floats or amphibs? I was wondering how they have enough usable load?
Flown RANS S7S on aluminum 1500 straight floats about 100 hours. Performance is excellent with 1/2 fuel and one person. Full fuel and two average people you’re over gross but the thing will still perform well. Floats less then 1500s are a little too small IMO. No experience with amphibs.Has anyone here ever flown a RANS S-7 on floats or amphibs? I was wondering how they have enough usable load?
Has anyone here ever flown a RANS S-7 on floats or amphibs? I was wondering how they have enough usable load?
Not a float guy.
We burn closer to 5gal with ours on 29” Airstreaks. Sea level and cooler is much different than the guys getting by on 3.5 at higher altitudes. Of course I’ve always had the slowest plane and dumbest dog. We have big bore cylinders on a 912 and run it at 5200rpm or higher cruise. With the monster gear and big tires that yields a little less than 90mph average.
I cannot imagine it would be a good float plane for instruction. We really like ours, it’s a ton of fun, but it suffers greatly with a load compared to empty. Ingress/egress is not all that convenient for those a bit less mobile and useful load will be an issue with the size people are today.
I also had a PA-11 with a ton of PA18 mods. It was probably 200# heavier than the Rans. There is very, very little performance difference getting off the ground and also getting on the ground. The climb performance on the Rans is better. The extra wing on the -11 is a huge boost.
Got a HacMan leaner GB? They pay for themselves quickly, but at sea level, or near to it, conditions I don't know......I rarely cruise at 5200, but when I do it's 3.7 or 3.9 GPH. I'm clueless on how the thicker air helps or hinders relative to fuel consumption. Thinner air helps I guess. I have no real idea if the 1" induction cross over tubes I have help my fuel burn, but something is. I do realize my fuel burn seems to be lower then most any Rotax other drivers, so much so that I have taken pains to accurately determine it, and I can't quite believe it myself! A gallon an hour less then my first 7, with the Subaru conversion FWIW. I flight plan for 4 GPH, and always err on the plus side, in round numbers.
Not a float guy.
We burn closer to 5gal with ours on 29” Airstreaks. Sea level and cooler is much different than the guys getting by on 3.5 at higher altitudes. Of course I’ve always had the slowest plane and dumbest dog. We have big bore cylinders on a 912 and run it at 5200rpm or higher cruise. With the monster gear and big tires that yields a little less than 90mph average.
I cannot imagine it would be a good float plane for instruction. We really like ours, it’s a ton of fun, but it suffers greatly with a load compared to empty. Ingress/egress is not all that convenient for those a bit less mobile and useful load will be an issue with the size people are today.
I also had a PA-11 with a ton of PA18 mods. It was probably 200# heavier than the Rans. There is very, very little performance difference getting off the ground and also getting on the ground. The climb performance on the Rans is better. The extra wing on the -11 is a huge boost.
Got a HacMan leaner GB? They pay for themselves quickly, but at sea level, or near to it, conditions I don't know......I rarely cruise at 5200, but when I do it's 3.7 or 3.9 GPH. I'm clueless on how the thicker air helps or hinders relative to fuel consumption. Thinner air helps I guess. I have no real idea if the 1" induction cross over tubes I have help my fuel burn, but something is. I do realize my fuel burn seems to be lower then most any Rotax other drivers, so much so that I have taken pains to accurately determine it, and I can't quite believe it myself! A gallon an hour less then my first 7, with the Subaru conversion FWIW. I flight plan for 4 GPH, and always err on the plus side, in round numbers.
Seems like my dad talked with Hal about a Hackman leaner and I believe the consensus was it would be of very little use at our usual altitudes. We got a set of the exchange intakes with the 1” crossover tube plumbing. All I can say is that the quality of workmanship is such that I would not put them on an air boat much less an airplane. Must have been a bad day.
GBFlyer:
My PA-11 was non electric, C-90-8, only one tank, fixed seats, bare bones interior, and lightweight fabric. so she was only 776 pounds on wheel gear. ( weighed) She jumped off the ground here at sea level.
But I will say that my buddy's Long tail S-7 with a starter gets off the ground at about the same place.
I don’t have to imagine. RANS S-7S is a great float plane, especially on straight floats. Two average people and 1/2 fuel makes it a fine training aircraft. (Many pilots were trained in Nova Scotia exactly like this). Double doors are a bonus on floats. Easier to get into and out of, more room then a cub.Not a float guy.
We burn closer to 5gal with ours on 29” Airstreaks. Sea level and cooler is much different than the guys getting by on 3.5 at higher altitudes. Of course I’ve always had the slowest plane and dumbest dog. We have big bore cylinders on a 912 and run it at 5200rpm or higher cruise. With the monster gear and big tires that yields a little less than 90mph average.
I cannot imagine it would be a good float plane for instruction. We really like ours, it’s a ton of fun, but it suffers greatly with a load compared to empty. Ingress/egress is not all that convenient for those a bit less mobile and useful load will be an issue with the size people are today.
I also had a PA-11 with a ton of PA18 mods. It was probably 200# heavier than the Rans. There is very, very little performance difference getting off the ground and also getting on the ground. The climb performance on the Rans is better. The extra wing on the -11 is a huge boost.
I don’t have to imagine. RANS S-7S is a great float plane, especially on straight floats. Two average people and 1/2 fuel makes it a fine training aircraft. (Many pilots were trained in Nova Scotia exactly like this). Double doors are a bonus on floats. Easier to get into and out of, more room then a cub.
Jack Brown seaplane base- they’re training aircraft are J3s on Aqua 1500s. Those aircraft are heavier then the S-7, lack flaps, and, have heavier 100 hp 0-200s which don’t crank up like a 100 hp 912. They’ve trained more floatplane pilots then anyone else. What are we talkin about anyway? Lol. Passing an opinion on the RANS on floats and ya ain’t never flew one on floats. Great info.
Alex, Before you get too wound up with this you should make certain with the FAA that you can use this for regular seaplane rating instruction without being limited to Light Sport.I called the RANS folks.
The factory built S7s are certified as Special Light Sport category ( not experimental ) and it is legal to do instruction with them or rent them out.
Sik, you have yet to reply or email me in regards to a float build CD for Murphy' 1800's.. do you want one or not? #1 son is hard to tack down and for now I'm only bothering him once to do a run for those that want same. You asked.. others have paid and given me all their details, but still nothing from you! Thanks, Wayne
You've wasted my time, and others, by asking about the CD !