i'm totally getting something like this. it's a Rans S-10



cruise 120+ mph, acro (6g rated), burns maybe 4.5 gallons/hour, 2 seats, and you can pick one up for $15k or so.

that or a midget mustang, EAA Biplane, Smith Miniplane, etc...but i'd like the fact that the Rans has 2 seats and is a little faster than the biplanes (the midget mustang hauls ass, but it's a single seater. they make a 2 seater, but it's more expensive.)

10/19/2005 12:11:52 AM

damn, nice...I've always been interested in a plane like that. They really aren't as expensive to buy as most people think but I haven't done much research on the maintenance requirements yet.

10/19/2005 12:16:04 AM

what is the useful load?

10/19/2005 12:17:32 AM

^^yeah, operating costs are a bitch.

but i wouldn't be opposed to co-owning it with someone.

^ 500 lbs. http://www.rans.com/s10spec.html

[Edited on October 19, 2005 at 12:20 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/19/2005 12:18:52 AM

$15k is pretty cheap

What about fuel and ground costs?

10/19/2005 12:26:50 AM

they kill you on the options

it is a cool plane though

10/19/2005 12:30:08 AM

well, i'm going by seeing them for sale already built. i don't have time to build an airplane (i mean i guess i could, but i'd rather spend it doing other stuff), and i doubt i'll have a place suitable to do it. there's one on http://www.barnstormers.com for like $15,500 right now, but it has an expired annual. you know he'd come off the price some, too. i'm sure you could get a nice one for less than $20k, and maybe around 15k.

i think the Rotax engines just use regular automotive gas, so figure $10-15/hour in fuel...not much. the insurance, hanger fees, annuals, overhauls, etc are what add up.

10/19/2005 12:35:44 AM

Must be a huge engine if it runs on regular vehicle octane gas.

10/19/2005 12:37:58 AM

why do you say that?

10/19/2005 12:39:30 AM

well, to my knowledge, aviation fuel is atleast 100 octane.

So if you go lower on octane, you basically reduce the compression ratio, and increase the displacement to get the same HP.

10/19/2005 12:40:30 AM

^why, a tiny plane like that doesnt need much power

10/19/2005 12:41:18 AM

gargs, they are rocking 65-100 hp

read the specs

the damn thing only weighs ~ 1000 lbs

10/19/2005 12:43:45 AM

yea

word

I am just saying that the shit would be smaller if it used aviation fuel

Chill, niggas

10/19/2005 12:45:14 AM

yeah, most piston engined airplanes burn 100LL (100 octane, low-lead). there is also 80 octane, but you don't see many planes burning it these days (and i don't know if i've ever seen it for sale, either. lots of planes meant to burn 80 oct have had the engine replaced and now use 100LL. you can use higher than needed octane, but long-term use of THAT much higher octane was actually damaging the old 80 oct engines).

at any rate, there isn't THAT much difference between 93 oct and 100LL in terms of how much power you can extract from a given displacement. bumping compression ratio is a diminishing returns deal. plus, since Rotax (and most light aircraft engines) are air-cooled, you aren't gonna get that crazy with CR, anyway.

i don't know that much about aviation engines, or anything other than the basics about avgas, but i don't think it would be that big of a deal.

if you wanna look up the specs, the largest (100hp) engine for that airplane is a Rotax 912s.

[Edited on October 19, 2005 at 12:47 AM. Reason : yeah, 1000 lbs fully loaded and gassed]

10/19/2005 12:46:25 AM

Times like this I realize I should have spent my money on an airplane rather than a degree.

10/19/2005 12:47:54 AM

hard as hell to make money with an airplane!

costs a lot to learn to fly...costs a SHIT TON to learn to fly enough to make money doing it...costs a ton to have an airplane that you can make money with...most flying jobs don't pay SHIT.

it isn't a cost effective means of going ANYWHERE. driving is a lot cheaper and not much slower if the trip is short, commercial is usually cheaper and way faster unless it's a fairly short trip.

it's sensible for medium distance trips (like where it would be a 5-10 hour drive) if you don't mind paying out the ass. any longer, it's gonna be faster (and way cheaper) to fly commercial, since the time wasted boarding/claiming baggage/etc will be offset by the fast that an airliner will fly so much faster than you can.

[Edited on October 19, 2005 at 1:01 AM. Reason : asfd]

10/19/2005 12:52:51 AM

Quote :

"lots of planes meant to burn 80 oct have had the engine replaced and now use 100LL."

i've got a friend with a single engine cessna and the 80oct. req. was one of the reasons he got it. so he could technically land on a highway somewhere and pull into a gas station .

makes enough money using the plane to cover the expenses of owning it. pretty sweet deal.

10/19/2005 1:27:54 AM

y0 duke lemme whip that shit

i've never flown but i play a lot of flight sims!!1

10/19/2005 1:28:09 AM

^^what is it? a 150?

how does he make money with it?

10/19/2005 1:31:59 AM

i dunno what model it is, i'll ask tomorrow.

he flies people/things around. photographers, journalists, carries packages, etc...

it's not like he makes a great profit for him, but it's enough to pay for his toy.

[Edited on October 19, 2005 at 2:00 AM. Reason : he does it in his spare time.]

10/19/2005 1:59:27 AM

how about a stunt plane? I wonder how much..

10/19/2005 8:46:42 AM

you should run drugs in it. they never suspect a thing.

10/19/2005 9:22:30 AM

i mean, you prolly weight what, 190-200?

thats 300 pounds of coca every couple days

shit man
we've all seen Blow

10/19/2005 9:54:34 AM

not on 4-4.5 hours of fuel

10/19/2005 9:56:41 AM

That Rans reminds me of a wider version of the Stephens acro. Is it rated to +-6g or some combination like +6g/-3g? Does it have a composite prop for some lomcevak action?

I've always been a fan of the Pitts S1-S and S1-T. S2-A (Or a Christen Eagle) could also be a lot of fun if you wanted a two seater but didn't want to spend the $ for an S2-B.

I think my first airplane will either be a Citabria, Pitts S2-A, or a Pitts S1-S. I want performance, but I think two seats (And non-experimental) is a higher priority for me.

Quote :

"Roll Rate. 100° /sec"

Quote :

"**+6-3 at or below 800 gross weight"

I dunno about that roll rate. I was much happier flying something with 300+° /sec.

[Edited on October 19, 2005 at 12:34 PM. Reason : Did I read that it has a rotax?! ]

10/19/2005 12:28:45 PM

you could land in the brickyard with that thing

10/19/2005 1:19:23 PM

Was that really gargs posting?

10/19/2005 1:34:09 PM

^^^i can't remember about the g rating. the +6g is only at like 800 lbs or less, too, so you can't do it at max gross weight. the specs are provided in that link if you really wanna know.

a Pitts would be sweet, but the only one you could get for anywhere near the price of a Rans is the 90hp model, which doesn't have even the XC ability of the Rans. I might have a Pitts one day, but i think i'd rather have something that cruises a little faster, and to be perfectly honest, I would want a pretty fair amount of stick time before I bought a Pitts (even the 90hp model). It's the sort of bird that could get you in trouble pretty easily.

The engine is a Rotax, but it's a 4-stroke.

and yeah, that roll rate isn't exactly eye-popping, but we're not talking about an unlimited class aerobat, here. we're talking about an exceptionally cheap, fairly forgiving, sport plane that can do some moderate aero.

[Edited on October 19, 2005 at 3:27 PM. Reason : and i have no desire whatsoever to pull -6g, anyway. to hell with that.]

10/19/2005 3:26:20 PM

seems like a pretty irresponsible thing to waste money on

10/19/2005 3:27:16 PM

no different than a jet ski or sportbike.

plus, since i want to fly for a living after i get out of the Marines, there's a practical reason for me to fly a lot...i need to have lots of hours in my logbook.

___________________________________

i'm not really aware of any 2-seat aircraft with both serious aerobatic capability and enough speed to be viable XC platforms except for some really expensive stuff. most biplanes are too slow, RVs/Mustang IIs/etc only have moderate aerobatic capability, Extras/CAPS/Sukhois/etc are expensive as hell. for that matter, there aren't really many 2-seat serious acro platforms to choose from at all.

i will probably ultimately end up in a partnership in something like an RV-4. i think that, for my purposes and my money, they're kind of the jack of all trades. not awesome at anything, but good enough at everything i need. that'll be down the line even more when i have a little more money and more hours under my belt (nobody will want to get into a partnership with me until i have a decent # of hours)

10/19/2005 3:37:08 PM

can you not fly without purchasing your own plane? lots of people do it

and a plane is more expensive to maintain than a bike or jet ski

10/19/2005 3:38:58 PM

oh, no doubt.

you can fly, but not really any cool airplanes. i haven't crunched the #s on how much you have to fly to make it worth owning your own airplane.

i do know that renting is expensive as hell. at some point, buying (especially a half or third share) is the financially reasonable thing to do, never mind the convenience and the fact that you will be able to fly what YOU want to fly, configured how YOU want, etc.

10/19/2005 3:45:53 PM

move to NC, want a third of a plane

10/19/2005 3:53:12 PM

there is about a 50/50 chance that i will be stationed at Cherry Point. i don't want to, though, because i don't want to be a Prowler ECMO. i want to be a Hornet WSO at Beaufort.

10/19/2005 4:00:54 PM

i know nothing of the language you speak

10/19/2005 4:02:07 PM

Cherry Point is down east in Havelock, NC. Beaufort is near Savannah/Charleston/Hilton Head.

Prowler=EA-6b. it jams radar and electronic shit. kills all your male sperm and makes you have all daughters. doesn't blow up as much stuff, and isn't as fast or maneuverable as the Hornet. ECMO=Electronic Countermeasures Officer

Hornet=F-18. "D" model, in my case. fighter/attack airplane. WSO=Weapons System Officer...basically "Goose" from Top Gun.

10/19/2005 4:06:33 PM

i heard

kills all male sperm and topgun

i'm gonna have to go with the second one

[Edited on October 19, 2005 at 4:25 PM. Reason : if it said kills all sperm then well then maybe i'd say pick the first one ]

10/19/2005 4:18:37 PM

Quote :

"a Pitts would be sweet, but the only one you could get for anywhere near the price of a Rans is the 90hp model, which doesn't have even the XC ability of the Rans. I might have a Pitts one day, but i think i'd rather have something that cruises a little faster, and to be perfectly honest, I would want a pretty fair amount of stick time before I bought a Pitts (even the 90hp model). It's the sort of bird that could get you in trouble pretty easily."

I guess they are a bit short, so ground maneuvers can be nasty. I figured if you can afford to operate the plane, you might be able to afford a single seat pitts. Of course, I'm not saying to jump in over your head or something of that nature...

Quote :

"The engine is a Rotax, but it's a 4-stroke."

Not too bad then.

Quote :

"and yeah, that roll rate isn't exactly eye-popping, but we're not talking about an unlimited class aerobat, here. we're talking about an exceptionally cheap, fairly forgiving, sport plane that can do some moderate aero."

I know, I was just giving you shit about it basically. I doubt a citabria rolls any faster, but it's still plenty of fun.

Quote :

"and i have no desire whatsoever to pull -6g, anyway. to hell with that."

Yeah, prolonged negative g's suck, but tailslides, torque rolls, and lomcevaks are fun.

I wouldn't do much of that type of thing in that airplane, but I think I'd be fine doing a lot of it in a Pitts (Maybe not the tumbles so much....). I like more than just basic aerobatics. Don't get me wrong though, even just having light aerobatic capability is great. Like I said, I'm considering a citabria for my first plane. I absolutely would not consider buying a plane that wasn't aerobatic though.

[Edited on October 19, 2005 at 4:58 PM. Reason : ]

10/19/2005 4:54:30 PM

it's not so much that a Pitts (especially single seat) is expensive...it's that it's a little more of a handful than i want to tangle with for a while...and again, i think i'd want something with 2 seats and some XC capability.

10/19/2005 5:14:48 PM