• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Cubs vs. Highlander/Rans/Kitfox

For my own knowledge, why is that? I don't have time in either plane.
Not sure anymore what the wing loading was on either but even when trimmed in smooth air you pretty much have to fly the airplane continuously to maintain straight and level. A lot more tiring. Average groundspeed between Spearfish, SD and Tok, AK was about 15% slower in highlander than 150 hp super cub with 42 pitch borer and 31" BW's although fuel burn was less on highlander (obviously).

Oh, and the heater, don't leave for cold temps in the highlander without all of you cold weather gear!
Ray
 
I have been flying since I was old enough to solo and have always wanted a Super Cub. I bought a PA18A-150 in May and have never been happier in an airplane. A friend of mine owned a Kitfox and he did not have too much good to say about it. ("Never ground looped a plane until I had a Kitfox, and it nailed me twice in one day!") The Super Cub is a great plane. It flys great, hauls a good load, can get in and out of any place you need. (Need is different than want.) I must admit that the S-7 has intrigued me.
 
I know an S-7 with the Rotax on it. Well over a 1000 hours on it with no trouble.

I put that 1000th hr on it for him :) Great engine, great plane. My go-to plane lately is a CC Sport Cub S2 but I would take either one, both great flyers and fun. The Rotax has some great features that are definite improvements over traditional air-cooled aircraft engines, namely more even cooling and reduced cracking of cylinders and associated components. They use solid state ignition modules which are generally more reliable than mechanical magnetos. Most people who distrust the Rotax have developed their opinion from here-say, or have known owners who abused or were ignorant of how to care for a 2-stroke Rotax (they're less dummy-proof), which is understandable. The 4-strokes are more reliable, and while the higher RPM sounds scary, there is no reason it would reduce reliability. Harder to hand prop with the PSRU, but these little props are like machetes anyway, hard to grab. I plan to buy one.

ohio%20bush%20planes-graham%20field-2010-77.jpg


I'm 6'1", 200 lbs. I fit very nicely inside the S7 (that's me in back), they are roomy. I flew with Deadstick Steve in his Highlander, same thing. Very comfy and roomy. The cub I fly now is just a little tight for leg room up front, I am at the limit of comfort on long XC's.

ohio%2520bush%2520planes-graham%2520field-2010-40.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm one of the RANS guys since I recently purchased one. My reasoning was along the lines as several have already stated, I looked at the mission I wanted another plane to fufill and the S-7 filled that mission. I have always wanted a SC and have been very close to buying different ones over the last 10 years but then common sense rears its head and lets me know that I can accomplish my mission with spending much less money. I realized I can own several planes with different missions for the same amount of money I would have in a nice SC.
I looked at the Just Highlander, even visited the factory, RANS, and Kitfox. All three are very close in performance and I just happened to get a good deal on an S-7 but would have been just as satisfied with either of the other two I mentioned. I will say I wanted the S-7 more due to my prefernce to tandem seating.
In reference to the Rotax, well it is taking a little time for me to get used to after flying 25 years behind Lycs. and Cont. I think the first few hours I scanned the instruments as much as I looked out the windshield, wasn't used to the high RPM of it but have gotten a little more accustomed to it now. As for performance...its a blast!!! It'll get up, climb fast, and cruise at a good speed for little fuel burn. In regards to room inside, it is very similar to my Champ. Actually I think my S-7 may have more room in the front seat than my Champ does.
The S-7, as stated by wefly4u, has a much lighter wing loading making it much more susceptible to rough air. It is a delight to fly and very responsive but if you are used to say a Cessna 172 or something similar you will notice the bumps a lot more.
I am hoping to take a long cross country next summer and I may end up taking the S-7 instead of the 172 just for the pure fun of flying it. It cruises a few mph slower but burns half the fuel and since this will be solo I really don't need the extra room of the 172.
One more thing Greg, where are you located? I am sure you could possibly find someone that has the different craft you are looking at and bumm a ride.
Keith
 
Wow, I guess ignorance is still bliss, I have been a Super Cubber my whole life, till 4 years ago and went over to LSA, check it out, my airplane was the one features on the Micro Aero VG poster. Had all the bells and whistles, had to flip over to LSA ( Not due to finances at all! ) and purchased a J-3 rebuilt by Charlie Aileron, great airplane and a real showpiece! got it home and it was not a Super Cub...
Ordered and had built a Rans S7s with a 912ULS after extensive research and comparisons!
Great airplane and the most trouble free engine I have ever flown behind! Keep in mind the Rotax claim to fame was in and is still in the Predetor 1's operated by the USAF for hours upon hours of continued operation!
Emflys in dead on! We take these birds into more places that you can get a Legend or Sport Cub in and out of! It is built well with new inovations that keep it durable and a solid performer.
All you guys check out Greg Swingle's videos, he has been more places and done more in his S7s than 95% of the Super Cubbers on this site!
Quit putting down Rans S7s the are nice airplanes, check with my buddy BigBen on this site we have flown many places together and he has watched me land whenever and wherever I want!
Super Cubs are great airplanes, but they are not the ultimate airplane!
I am always amazed how people have passion for flying put down other airplanes without having experienced with them!
Personally, I have been asked what it is like to fly and airplane by a bike company, I always reply I don't know I did not personally know Orville and Wilbur, then I get a kick out of the question " You know that water cooled engine has issues" Well they did pretty well for many air services in their heyday! The Allied forces did fine with them they did well for all the axis and other guys too! I think liquid cooled airplanes have a pretty strong history of reliability! This Rotax has earned its keep! It is 4 Cylinder, 4 Stroke reliable Austrian Built that the USAF places in a spy plane that is capable of lauching missles and taking pictures for days on end in very extreme conditions!..
Keep in mind one camera lens in those aircraft cost more than a fleet of Super Cubs!
I am throwing a challenge to anyone out there come fly in my plane and critique what you want!
It is well built airplane with a very strong airframe!
Also, I dont recall reading about any Rans S7s crashes here and if you check the FAA records the S7s has a lower accident rate than Cubs all the way around!
Get a grip boyz! Flying is flying and quit arguing about whose got the bigger prop!


Sam

8)
 
I bet a turbo charged Rotax could be made to love this.

xx.gif

[h=5]Car & Driver Magazine [/h] « Reply #1 on: Today at 07:55:12 PM »



ethanol-injection-systems-explained-placement-photo-432787-s-original.jpg


Quote


(From Car & Driver)

Thanks to the adoption of direct fuel injection, teaming gas and ethanol has the potential to beat diesel efficiency.

We can hear your groans already: Our federal government’s effort to curb oil imports by lacing gasoline with ethanol has been a boon to American farmers but a bust to the driving public. The problem is simple economics—pumping E85 (85-percent ethanol and 15-percent gasoline) into today’s flex-fuel cars costs more per mile than fueling the same car with regular gas. We’re suffering from ethanol’s detriments without exploiting its advantages.

Ethanol’s balance sheet has been well understood for decades. Because ethanol’s energy density is roughly 66 percent that of gasoline, mpg suffers when ethanol is used as a straight substitute. On the opposite side of the *ledger, ethanol has an octane rating of 100, versus 85 to 100 for gasoline, enabling much higher compression ratios. (Unleaded, 100-octane racing gas is expensive and not widely distributed. Readily available premium gas tops out at 94 octane.) And when ethanol changes from *liquid to gas on the way to combustion, it absorbs 2.6 times more heat than gasoline, a highly beneficial cooling effect. So how do we take advantage of those attributes to optimize *ethanol’s role in modern transportation? The history books are a good place to start.

During World War II, BMW and Daimler-Benz sprayed methanol and water mixtures into their supercharged aircraft engines to forestall detonation (premature ignition of the fuel-air charge). In the U.S., a postwar GM applied similar research in its 1951 LeSabre dream car, which was powered by a supercharged V-8 capable of running on gas or methanol. That paved the way for the 1962 Oldsmobile F-85 Jetfire, the world’s first turbocharged production car, which used “Turbo-Rocket Fluid”—a mix of  water, methanol, and rust inhibitor—to skirt detonation with a then-ambitious 10.25:1 compression ratio and 5.0 psi of boost.​
Good discussion of the state of some new engine technology coming on-line soon.

More at: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/ethanol-injection-systems-explained-tech-dept
 
What is the avg empty weight of a rans with a rotax? I see no X brace in the upper cabin area? Going to cub style gear? Extended wings? O-233 Lycomings? Just sortve curious never been near a S7. doug
 
Most are low to mid 700's. Putting a Lycoming in it would reduce range, reduce payload, reduce duration, and be slower after the cowl was modified for an engine that much then the Rotax. Oh yeah, also reduce the fantastic over the nose viz the skinny cowl with the Rotax offers, real handy when landing off airport of course. It has been crashed real good (so I'm told, not by me) and comes through it like any light plane, the X brace is there, just reconfigured for more headroom, trussed sort of.
 
Rans s-7s

I have flown the S-7S and researched it enough to know that it is a pretty darn good plane, and probably represents the best value around for a LSA-eligible, Cub-type airplane. It is a first class kit with good instructions and good builder support.

But I hate the sound of that engine!
 
I have a newly completed Rans S7S with about 65 hours on it. I selected it after a year of research and decided on it for capabilities, cost, useful load and fuel burn. I looked at just about every lsa eligible plane out there. Side by side was my wife's preference but after trying to get in and out of most and sitting elbow to elbow with little room and minimal comfort. Once I focused on tandem, the costs made the list very short and after a couple of flights in an S7, I was sold. Up like a rocket and land on a postage stamp. There are other excellent planes out there that fit that bill, but none at the cost of an S7.
 
How about the Savage? Anyone here flown it? I like the Rans, but I do love my cubs... I think that the Savage is a real looker and it flies a little like the j3, although roll response is much quicker for the down wind turns. With VG´s on them and 26" Goodyears, you can make some amazingly short landings.
We had one (buddy got bought up with a tree) that we put a modified CH705 Slat on, and with a 70" prop, I have seen him hang then plane on the air like I would not dare to even suggest anyone try... this was all done with a rotax 912, the one I have flown in has a 3200 Jabiru, but I don´t recommend that engine to anyone, all the ones I know that exist (meaning I have been able to come up al look at) have, or have had major leakage on the #5 cylinder.
 
Just wondering, since they are being compared to cubs already, if anyone has ever hauled a moose (or caribou) out in any of these? Not trying to stir the pot:lol:, just curious!
 
Wow! Thanks to everyone for their observations, opinions etc. Lots for me to chew on. I'm still at the info gathering stage at this point, but it sounds like lots of good options out there no matter what direction I end up going.

Cheers,
Greg
 
One thing about it is they will all take about the same amount of time to build with fabric and paint the biggest time consumer. That said the Backcountry Super Cub and the Carbon Cub will have the largest resale value by far and the most performance/useful load. The upfront cost is more for these but a nice one will bring well over what you have in the total finished cost. Might as well be able to recoup the cost plus get paid for your time when it comes to sale time. Don
 
There was this guy ( i think he died in a hail storm finally) but anyway there was this guy who used to show up at fly-ins. He was a little off. He would show up on a magic carpet and set up camp right there on top of it. We felt sort of uncomfortable having him there because he slept in, and watching a grown man go through REM sleep is always odd I think.
He could pretty much go anywhere we would go and beat us there most of the time. The stupid magic carpet didn't make much noise, so as you can imagine he never got laid. We were discussing it one night at the fire--seems like there were about 50 of us guys there. We all agreed he probably never got laid. He did make the most marvelous jerky. We all consumed the hell out of it.

I finally took a ride with him and it was sort of sluggish. It took him four times as long to get off of the ground. He would usually get off the ground in about an inch, sort of hover there, and then pull up hard. It looked dangerous. We all knew he would die someday flying that stupid carpet around.

We let him get in the line for the STOL competition, because we sometimes felt bad for him camping over there, thinking he owned an airplane. Plus he made some hella-good jerky, so it was good having him around... We would just sort of disregard his numbers at the end of the day, because, let's face it guys, he has an 8 ft wing span, and it didn't even have StainMaster® on it. We were talking about making a new line for people with magic carpets, Estes rockets, and helium balloon lawn chairs, but never got around to rewriting the STOLman's constitution. We knew it wasn't the absence of StainMaster that kept him from hauling a Moose around during the STOL competitions. We looked and looked for a dead Moose, but they are so hard to find in the Midwest. We asked around camp, but as luck would have it, nobody had a dead moose in their baggage area. Freaking figures, the one time we need a dead moose and there isn't one around. We made some phone calls and we couldn't' even get our hands on a lion or a tiger anymore. Now that's a real sad story. That guy would have loved a magic carpet ride. Those two would have hit it off...anyway, we look over and he's got a couple of dead groundhogs strapped on with Velcro. I guess hook-n-loop would stick to that carpet pretty good.

My buddy told me he showed up in the middle of the summer wanting to hit all these beaches. It was hot out. My buddy was in an O-7zillion with nitrous, slats, flaps and full country line-dance bar in the back. He hung it on the prop all the way up and down the beaches doing one-point landings and never did overheat the thing, well it was in the yellow most of the time I guess but that A$$h)#!e on the carpet was hurting by the end of the day with a really bad sunburn. Stupid guy was smiling the whole time too. We knew he would die of skin cancer someday. My buddy who does the one point landings is pretty open minded and didn't complain much about his wing-man without the long prop or bungee gear. He just bragged about the beef jerky they made on the beach. -Guess it comes from groundhog. We always wanted to get the recipe from him. My O-7zillion buddy said it seemed really simple to do on the beach.

Anyway, if you want a magic carpet ride go for it, but you probably won't get laid much and good luck finding a mechanic who will work on it.
 
Greg, in Alaska, for a gals chances at love "...the odds are good, but the goods are odd..."

You are one hilarious dude......and why ain't ye in Alasker??
 
Greg, funny stuff! Can´t get enough of your videos man... great stuff on there... and I am not talking just about the flying :D!
 
Hey Guys,
I'm one of the Highlander pilots so I thought I'd put in my two cents worth. I’m 59 years old, 260lb, and 6’5”, those stats alone will cause problems for just about any aircraft LSA, experimental or certified. My goal was to find an LSA plane that had great low and slow handling characteristics, good back country capabilities, baggage capacity for gear, under $100K and last but not least, comfortable for my size! The Highlander, for my type of flying, fit the bill with its adjustable, side by side seating (leg & shoulder room) and great baggage room. Even though I’m not a light builder, I have no problem getting in and out of Idaho back country strips which are generally much longer then most of the areas I fly into around Washington. I’m far from being an expert in backcountry flying or doing the stuff Steve Henry can do with his Highlander but my Highlander has been a great learning tool for me and my type of flying.

I've built two Highlanders in three years, the first with the 100hp rotax 912, and my most recent with the 130hp ULPower engine. I put 150hrs on my first rotax Highlander and never had a problem with it but always wanted to get into a more traditional air-cooled direct drive aircraft engine even though my rotax and all my friends that have the 100hp rotax have had great results with them. I sold the Highlander when I got an offer I couldn't refuse and immediately began on the second Highlander choosing the ULPower 350 for my power. Probably not the smartest thing to do since it was brand new on the market but the UL260 (95 hp) had such good reviews over the last 3 years with the fadec fuel injection and electronic ignition I thought I'd take the chance and go with the new 130hp. Needless to say they are having some growing pains with the engine which is not uncommon with new engines; however, I do feel they will get worked out. I’ve put 150hrs on the engine in about 8 months using a 74” Catto prop and just love it, with the exception of the few going pains.
 
Last edited:
Hey Steve, that was nice of you to crack the seal and post about your ULPower experience. I've heard about you and that rig. Nice paint job btw. It takes balls to put new engines on there and pave the way for the rest of us.
Gracias Spaincub. And Dave, I'd be in the AK now if i could find some warmer boots. These things suck. Also, sorry about the vision-quest with the carpet guy this morning. The guy really should have found some sound effects or something if he expected to hang. Okay, i just blew my 2 internet posts for the week. Check you boys and girls later.
 
My son and I stopped by the Rans factory this fall. I've always been interested in the S7 and thought a stop by the factory would be a good thing to do since we were in the area. We were given a tour through the factory and we were able to see the whole airplane from the wing ribs to fuselages being welded up, covering upholstery, painting, powder coating, etc..

Then our tour guide asked if we would like to fly the 7. Of course. We taxied up the hill to their little strip. The rans takes off quick and really climbs. In the air, aileron control is much better than the Cub(lighter and quicker). Rudders seemed a little heavier than the cub. Stalls power off were benign. It was a great little airplane to fly. Visibility was great. Way roomier than our Cub. Easier to get in than our Cub.

What would I change? Probably a question a lot of kit manufacturers don't like to hear. They all make the perfect airplane, right? I would do away with the left door so the throttle could be where the throttle is on the cub. Don't know how many times I started to grab the door handle instead of the throttle. Doing away with the left door would also allow one to put the flap lever on the outside of your leg instead of between them. One other thing I would have to change would be the way the brakes are on the rudder pedal. I have big feet and I really had a problem keeping my toes from applying the brakes while on the rudder pedals when landing. I know the Rotax has been a good engine but it would really take me quite awhile to get used to it.

All of the things that I would change are probably because I am just used to the Cub or the Bearhawk. If I didn't have a Cub I would really consider building an S7 or maybe a Highlander. It would work great here on the ranch. Would I trade my Cub for an S7. No way.
 
Greg, if you do build a Rans, the users who have already commented on this thread could probably give you a very good list of mods you should consider before you get too far along in the process. I agree about sealing the left-hand door to move the throttle up to Cub-level, which also allows you to move the flap handle to more of a standard Cub location. The list goes on, but that may be a subject for a different thread--depending on how much longer our great Super Cub friends are willing to tolerate all this Rans talk!:)
 
GregA,
There are so many choices and so little time. I agree with you on going experimental for a number of reasons as well. As a few others have said previously, go fly a few of them. A 2000# plus gross weight exp cub is a different beast than the LSA off airport planes. Each has good points and bad. I've flown all but the KitFox that you mentioned. I have no problem with a Rotax 912. I've yote hunted with one in a Rans S7 and had a ton of fun. The Highlander was very impressive to fly and a lot of fun. The S7 and Highlander are two of the better LSA's on the market today for off airport adventure. With the price of fuel and overall cost of operation I would recommend whichever plane could perform to your satisfaction 80% of your missions. There is NO one perfect airplane out there.
With that said, for all out performance, safety, load hauling, hunting, go land on the mountain machine, I'm partial to the Mackey SQ2. And it will takeoff and land short.


Stede52,
Steve D welcome to the sc.org form. I sure liked the paint job on your Highlander. Hope you get the bugs worked out of the UL engine soon.

OhioGreg,
Your carpet story is as strange as some of your videos. And I do like them.
 
The Savage Cub has been really beefed up and is available with various engines. It might be a real competitor for performance to the Carbon Cub with the UL 130 hp engine. UL makes a great engine, and I've flown behind them & liked the UL better than the Rotax 912. And the 912 is a very proven engine. Met up with a guy who is flying a gyrocopter around the world and over a lot of ocean and the 912 has done beautifully. That's just one story out of thousands. It seems a lot of GA folks don't think it is reliable. I think an Australian study showed it was more reliable than Jabiru and a bit more reliable than Lycoming. Can't find the reference, just recall this from an AU forum.
 
Hello
I read a old post about nitrous have you had any luck with it and what system works best. I have a c90 with electronic ignition. Looking to add about 35ho and or whatever is safe. i have a wet system. any ifo would be great.
Thanks,
Scott
 
A local rancher has a Highlander. Doesn't beat it up, but has had several fuselage frame failures. Mostly around the door frames and landing gear attach points. Is this common?
 
I've been around Highlanders (both abused and non abused) for about 6 years and haven't seen issues with the frames. It would be interesting to know all the facts about the airplane; year built, what style of gear, where the failures occurred, etc.
 
It will be interesting to see how these airplanes hold up over the long run. I was interested to see recently that RANS is starting to build a new airplane, using an I-Beam style aluminum spar instead of the previously used tubular spar. One question I've always had about these airplanes is how you would ever be able to inspect the spars for corrosion....

I REALLY like the looks of the new RANS S 20, it has lots of room for people and baggage as well. It's amazing what these companies have done with these little airplanes, and I wish them the best in future. They are coming up with some really good looking and great performing airplanes.

MTV
 
Back
Top