@@Captndarty : Ouch! Can you break that down into subsystems? Like "kit", "engine", "avionics", "options" ... or whatever are natural categories for you? Also, what are your best takeoff and landing distances (in no wind, near sealevel, level-runway conditions)? 200ft? 150ft? 100ft? Wishful thinking? :-o PS: One thing I like about putting a 915iS (or now the 916iS) engine in an rans s21 or similar airplane is the 100 pounds of weight that saves!
My S-21 kit is ordered , got about 10 months till delivery. I am looking at the same prop engine choice you made . so far are you happy with the Aircraft performance ? I would like to speak further if you have some time. Dave
Hi Dave, I am very happy with the combo considering the alternatives. Mines on the heavy side as it’s loaded with avionics at 995 empty. It exceeded the factory speed specs but only because they tested with a fixed pitch. I’ve taken mine up to FL230. Trues out at 138kts at FL190 at WOT. I don’t think it’ll climb at 1500fpm at gross as the books says but close with just me in it. 100kts at 50% yields 5gph otherwise I plane 72% 7gph.
@@Captndarty wow too cold for me up top , Hope that heater works good ? but glad to know if I need altitude it will get there. I'm happy down low. I am also loading up with avionics G3x, G5, GMA245, GTR 200, GTR20, GNX 375, GMC 507. My mission is mild cross country and ability to land anywhere , I'm going for the tundra Trike version. 100% going with Airmaster electric CS , Haven't talked to anyone that put a Hyd CS prop on yet, maybe when light sport gets the OK for single lever ,
@@daveg8143 I think Trent Palmer is the only one that had a Hydro CS and he took it off to make it lighter. Heater works well however the airplane is drafty and very thin skinned. My feet sweat yet I can see my breath and I had to get custom seats with heated inserts wear long underwear and a puffy down jacket. That was at -25°F though. In the single digit to teens when the sun is out shining through the top it’s not terrible but it’s probably not as warm as the heat baffled titan. I only went up that high because there was a tail wind of 105kts🤷🏻♂️
@@Captndarty My wife is cold 24-7 anything below 80 and she is complaining, So heated seats may be a good idea at least on the Pax side. you going to Midwest LSA in Mt vernon illinois in sept ?
Thanks! I suspect it’s around 325 feet when I did a Google Earth measurement of the runway. The prop wasn’t pitched right and I was only making 5400 RPM on takeoff until I had some airspeed instead of 5700. I’ve since had that fixed but haven’t done any testing. Being that it’s 60 to 80 pounds lighter than a comparably equipped titan and it has a constant speed prop I’d say it will probably will get off the ground a touch quicker?
@@Captndarty I am close to ordering my FWF for my S-21 and leaning towards the 915 also. Last I knew, RANS didn’t have a factory supported 915 FWF. Did you just by the 912 FWF and then modify as needed for the 915? I figured the 340 would have slightly better takeoff, especially at lower field elevations given that it has substantially more HP (180 vs 141) even if 80 lbs lighter. I suspect with fuel and pilot you are close to 1400 lbs gross so 80 lbs is only 6% weight difference compared to the 26% HP difference. I figure the slight loss of takeoff performance is worth the better fuel efficiency and better performance at altitude, but it will be fun to start seeing some head-to-head performance figures.
@@LTVoyager it all depends on how the tighten prop is pitched. If it’s pitched fine it would probably take off a touch quicker because of the horsepower gain. Rans built mine so they used it to develop the FWF kit. Not sure where that stands. I have zero regrets going with the 915. I don’t see anybody using the airplane to the exact minimum foot for takeoff. Even if there’s a 50 foot difference there’s no reason both engines wouldn’t work. The 915 is so much smoother, quieter and simpler to operate and runs on 91. I know they tell you the Titan will run on 91 but continental won’t come out and say that. Then of course you get the performance increase above 8000. I’ve seen 138kts true on 8 gal up high and down low 52% is about 5 gallons per hour and 100kts.
@@Captndarty I am planning a constant speed prop in either case. The 340 should perform better down low, including takeoff and initial climb, but I am leaning towards the 915 for all of the reasons you mentioned and one that you didn’t - availability.
@@LTVoyager as of now the latest and in my opinion best C/S for the 915 isn’t available for the 340. The Airmaster prop. So you’d likely have to go to a hydraulic which would add a significant amount of weight and CG. I did forget that those Titans are a year or so out for some ridiculous reason. In a world of “chip shortages “doesn’t make sense that we can get a more sophisticated modern engine much more quickly.
Thank you. I’ve had it up to FL230 solo and FL190 at gross. Hard to beat and aircraft with an envelope as wide as this one. 40-135kts 3-7gph or more if you push it.
@@warrengrafton2311 I did the Mt bike thing once. Pain in the rear. Took both wheels and handle bars off then it’s like playing “operation” trying to get it in while laying the seat forward and not dinging the fuselage with the any part of the bike. Then wrapping the tires and frame with blankets so as not to touch the windows and sides. Too much set up and tear down time for me. Won’t do it again. Pax seat would likely have to come out for skis I’m afraid. Wish it was a 10% bigger airplane.
@@plantpower3048 Again what is your point? No one ever said it was a dedicated bush plane. It’s a utility plane and for two people it’s far better than a bearhawk or any other in its category.
@@Captndarty The best of both , I can take off short on my grass behind my house. fly to the limit of my bladder capacity. Get to my destination in a reasonable amount of time. runs on MO gas, Do my own Maintenance. So it is perfect for MY Personal Mission. I'm not landing on sand bars to fish, because I don't fish.
As soon as I saw Rotax, I know this aircraft would be unaffordable for many. That is a big failure of the whole light sport idea, affordability. You have a big company, lots of overhead and share holders to pay off. Rotax have not done the industry much favor. They are also at snail pace at tech advances and HP. some Rotax still have carbs, I wondered do I have to adjust the spark advance and mess with points and condensors as well??!!
You must be living under a rock. This isn’t the 80s and these aren’t two stroke snowmobile engines Albeit all of aviation progresses at a snails pace. This engine is far more advanced than its experimental titan counterpart, and it costs the exact same as said, tractor engine. Two ECUs, two internal generators, turbo charger, single lever automatic fuel injection and an electronic, constant, speed propeller putting out 141hp with a service ceiling of 23,000 feet. Yeah real failure for the industry. The ideal of a cheap light sport aircraft was a delusion. That is why it doesn’t exist. Quality, innovative, Aviation will never be accessible for the common man without great financial sacrifice and struggle. After all, aircraft can’t be compared to motorcycles ATVs JetSki‘s and snowmobile‘s 🤦🏻♂️
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
God, I want one so bad. What was the grand total cost, once finished?
225k
@@Captndarty : Ouch! Can you break that down into subsystems? Like "kit", "engine", "avionics", "options" ... or whatever are natural categories for you? Also, what are your best takeoff and landing distances (in no wind, near sealevel, level-runway conditions)? 200ft? 150ft? 100ft? Wishful thinking? :-o
PS: One thing I like about putting a 915iS (or now the 916iS) engine in an rans s21 or similar airplane is the 100 pounds of weight that saves!
My S-21 kit is ordered , got about 10 months till delivery. I am looking at the same prop engine choice you made . so far are you happy with the Aircraft performance ?
I would like to speak further if you have some time.
Dave
Hi Dave, I am very happy with the combo considering the alternatives. Mines on the heavy side as it’s loaded with avionics at 995 empty. It exceeded the factory speed specs but only because they tested with a fixed pitch. I’ve taken mine up to FL230. Trues out at 138kts at FL190 at WOT. I don’t think it’ll climb at 1500fpm at gross as the books says but close with just me in it. 100kts at 50% yields 5gph otherwise I plane 72% 7gph.
@@Captndarty wow too cold for me up top , Hope that heater works good ? but glad to know if I need altitude it will get there. I'm happy down low. I am also loading up with avionics G3x, G5, GMA245, GTR 200, GTR20, GNX 375, GMC 507. My mission is mild cross country and ability to land anywhere , I'm going for the tundra Trike version. 100% going with Airmaster electric CS , Haven't talked to anyone that put a Hyd CS prop on yet, maybe when light sport gets the OK for single lever ,
@@daveg8143 I think Trent Palmer is the only one that had a Hydro CS and he took it off to make it lighter. Heater works well however the airplane is drafty and very thin skinned. My feet sweat yet I can see my breath and I had to get custom seats with heated inserts wear long underwear and a puffy down jacket. That was at -25°F though. In the single digit to teens when the sun is out shining through the top it’s not terrible but it’s probably not as warm as the heat baffled titan. I only went up that high because there was a tail wind of 105kts🤷🏻♂️
@@Captndarty My wife is cold 24-7 anything below 80 and she is complaining, So heated seats may be a good idea at least on the Pax side. you going to Midwest LSA in Mt vernon illinois in sept ?
@@daveg8143 we will be in Idaho trying our hand at some of the backcountry flying in September.
Looks pretty good! Have you measured your ground roll? Any chance to compare to a Titan 340 S-21?
Thanks! I suspect it’s around 325 feet when I did a Google Earth measurement of the runway. The prop wasn’t pitched right and I was only making 5400 RPM on takeoff until I had some airspeed instead of 5700. I’ve since had that fixed but haven’t done any testing. Being that it’s 60 to 80 pounds lighter than a comparably equipped titan and it has a constant speed prop I’d say it will probably will get off the ground a touch quicker?
@@Captndarty I am close to ordering my FWF for my S-21 and leaning towards the 915 also. Last I knew, RANS didn’t have a factory supported 915 FWF. Did you just by the 912 FWF and then modify as needed for the 915? I figured the 340 would have slightly better takeoff, especially at lower field elevations given that it has substantially more HP (180 vs 141) even if 80 lbs lighter. I suspect with fuel and pilot you are close to 1400 lbs gross so 80 lbs is only 6% weight difference compared to the 26% HP difference. I figure the slight loss of takeoff performance is worth the better fuel efficiency and better performance at altitude, but it will be fun to start seeing some head-to-head performance figures.
@@LTVoyager it all depends on how the tighten prop is pitched. If it’s pitched fine it would probably take off a touch quicker because of the horsepower gain. Rans built mine so they used it to develop the FWF kit. Not sure where that stands. I have zero regrets going with the 915. I don’t see anybody using the airplane to the exact minimum foot for takeoff. Even if there’s a 50 foot difference there’s no reason both engines wouldn’t work. The 915 is so much smoother, quieter and simpler to operate and runs on 91. I know they tell you the Titan will run on 91 but continental won’t come out and say that. Then of course you get the performance increase above 8000. I’ve seen 138kts true on 8 gal up high and down low 52% is about 5 gallons per hour and 100kts.
@@Captndarty I am planning a constant speed prop in either case. The 340 should perform better down low, including takeoff and initial climb, but I am leaning towards the 915 for all of the reasons you mentioned and one that you didn’t - availability.
@@LTVoyager as of now the latest and in my opinion best C/S for the 915 isn’t available for the 340. The Airmaster prop. So you’d likely have to go to a hydraulic which would add a significant amount of weight and CG. I did forget that those Titans are a year or so out for some ridiculous reason. In a world of “chip shortages “doesn’t make sense that we can get a more sophisticated modern engine much more quickly.
Perfect combination with the turbocharged engine you have no problem in altitude.
Thank you. I’ve had it up to FL230 solo and FL190 at gross. Hard to beat and aircraft with an envelope as wide as this one. 40-135kts 3-7gph or more if you push it.
Great panel layout!
I think I saw your plane in some stol demo videos. What have you observed for stall speeds. I’m hoping to lower with vgs
41kts indicated full flaps power on
Hmm, that’s a bit higher than I’d hoped. Hopefully some vgs and wing tips will bring it down a bit
Need to figure out how to cram a mountain bike or skis in it too!
@@warrengrafton2311 I did the Mt bike thing once. Pain in the rear. Took both wheels and handle bars off then it’s like playing “operation” trying to get it in while laying the seat forward and not dinging the fuselage with the any part of the bike. Then wrapping the tires and frame with blankets so as not to touch the windows and sides. Too much set up and tear down time for me. Won’t do it again. Pax seat would likely have to come out for skis I’m afraid. Wish it was a 10% bigger airplane.
@@warrengrafton2311 yeah all the performance specs are extremely optimistic.
not very STOL as a bearhawk
And the bearhawk isn’t as stol as a helicopter. Your point?
@@Captndarty that this plane is a Transbushplane
@@plantpower3048 Again what is your point? No one ever said it was a dedicated bush plane. It’s a utility plane and for two people it’s far better than a bearhawk or any other in its category.
@@Captndarty The best of both , I can take off short on my grass behind my house. fly to the limit of my bladder capacity. Get to my destination in a reasonable amount of time. runs on MO gas, Do my own Maintenance.
So it is perfect for MY Personal Mission. I'm not landing on sand bars to fish, because I don't fish.
As soon as I saw Rotax, I know this aircraft would be unaffordable for many. That is a big failure of the whole light sport idea, affordability. You have a big company, lots of overhead and share holders to pay off. Rotax have not done the industry much favor. They are also at snail pace at tech advances and HP. some Rotax still have carbs, I wondered do I have to adjust the spark advance and mess with points and condensors as well??!!
You must be living under a rock. This isn’t the 80s and these aren’t two stroke snowmobile engines Albeit all of aviation progresses at a snails pace. This engine is far more advanced than its experimental titan counterpart, and it costs the exact same as said, tractor engine. Two ECUs, two internal generators, turbo charger, single lever automatic fuel injection and an electronic, constant, speed propeller putting out 141hp with a service ceiling of 23,000 feet. Yeah real failure for the industry. The ideal of a cheap light sport aircraft was a delusion. That is why it doesn’t exist. Quality, innovative, Aviation will never be accessible for the common man without great financial sacrifice and struggle. After all, aircraft can’t be compared to motorcycles ATVs JetSki‘s and snowmobile‘s 🤦🏻♂️
@@Captndarty : I agree ... but I'm not sure it necessarily needs to be that way. Maybe someday someone will start a new tangent. Or maybe not.