Opinions on the Rans S6S Coyote?

TerryD1023

TerryD1023

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
14
Display Name
Display name:
TerryD
Hey all,
I'm a 172 guy considering a 2008 Rans Coyote (100 hp). I love what I read on paper but cant seem to find one in my area to get a closer look. How does this bird handle? Is she capable in moderate winds? I'm not a hard backcountry flyer by any means but love grass strips!

Any pros or cons would be appreciated.

Thanks!
Terry
 
Look up GravityKnightFlying on YouTube

Great info on the Rans S-6S and back country flying in Colorado. I think his plane is still for sale also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TerryD1023 said:
Is she capable in moderate winds?
Click to expand...
Coyote II is phenomenal in winds, like you wouldn't believe. I know because I was once stuck with strong crosswinds at Mustang Island. While I was sitting in the FBO, waiting for the winds to die down, I saw an older gentleman take his friend around the pattern in an S-6ES with an nosewheel. It looked effortless. Meanwhile, a CFI from an academy in Corpus just couldn't do it in a 172. He made a couple of approaches and eventually just plopped it in with a crab. The tail of the poor Skyhawk wagged so much, I was amazed tires stayed on their rims.
 
A friend had an S-7 for a couple of years. He also has a PA-22/20. He never bonded with the Rans so he sold it. I remember flying out right after him from Lake Hood strip on what may be the roughest day I ever had there and I'm sure glad I was in my 180 and not his Rans. He wished he was in my 180, too. He got the snot beat out of him. The physics of an 1800# airplane vs an 800# airplane.
 
zaitcev said:
Coyote II is phenomenal in winds, like you wouldn't believe. I know because I was once stuck with strong crosswinds at Mustang Island. While I was sitting in the FBO, waiting for the winds to die down, I saw an older gentleman take his friend around the pattern in an S-6ES with an nosewheel. It looked effortless. Meanwhile, a CFI from an academy in Corpus just couldn't do it in a 172. He made a couple of approaches and eventually just plopped it in with a crab. The tail of the poor Skyhawk wagged so much, I was amazed tires stayed on their rims.
Click to expand...

The Rans may or may not be good in a crosswind, but your example sounds more like the result of pilot skill than airplane capability. Swap airplanes and pilots and I bet the results would have been similar.
 
RussR said:
The Rans may or may not be good in a crosswind, but your example sounds more like the result of pilot skill than airplane capability. Swap airplanes and pilots and I bet the results would have been similar.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sounds as if the CFI hasn't done an upwind wheel landing (says the man who did a three-point in high winds, if you count the nose gear, the propeller, and the wing tip.)
 
I can't speak for RANS airplanes, but I own several RANS bicycles, and they're great. I can speak for the Rotax 912 engines. They are pretty bulletproof and reliable, as long as they've received appropriate maintenance (like any engine). For that Coyote, I'd want to know if it's been run on 100LL or at least 91 octane mogas for most of its life. If it's mostly been run on 100LL, then check the oil change intervals. The Rotax prefers mogas, so if it's been run predominately on avgas, then lead build-up can be a problem if the oil isn't changed at 25-hour intervals (50 hours is the normal interval). I would also want to know if the hoses and rubber goods were changed out after 5 years or 500 hours.
 
ETres said:
I can't speak for RANS airplanes, but I own several RANS bicycles, and they're great. I can speak for the Rotax 912 engines. They are pretty bulletproof and reliable, as long as they've received appropriate maintenance (like any engine). For that Coyote, I'd want to know if it's been run on 100LL or at least 91 octane mogas for most of its life. If it's mostly been run on 100LL, then check the oil change intervals. The Rotax prefers mogas, so if it's been run predominately on avgas, then lead build-up can be a problem if the oil isn't changed at 25-hour intervals (50 hours is the normal interval). I would also want to know if the hoses and rubber goods were changed out after 5 years or 500 hours.
Click to expand...
What do oil changes have to do with lead usage in the fuel?
 
How does fuel get into the gear box? They are 4 strokes, aren’t they?
 
Salty said:
How does fuel get into the gear box? They are 4 strokes, aren’t they?
Click to expand...


I'm guessing from combustion leftovers...thus contaminating the oil on the surface of those metal parts. Valves, cylinder heads, walls, etc..
Same as carbon.
IF they are 4 strokes that is..
 
4 stroke it is ... here is the official sales pitch
 
Salty said:
How does fuel get into the gear box? They are 4 strokes, aren’t they?
Click to expand...
Same way as it does in every other engine.
Combustion by products leak past the rings - commonly called blowby. Remember your last annual? Your #3 cylinder had a "compression" of 72/80? That's because there is air supplied to the cylinder at 80 PSI through an orifice, but inside the cylinder the pressure was lower (72 PSI) because it was leaking mostly past the rings. (And, yes, I just made that number up).

Those combustion products contain a lot of crap - lead (if you are running leaded fuel), unburned hydrocarbons (fuel), soot, water (lots of water - that's why you don't want to just ground run your engine.) And, all that crap ends up in the oil and everywhere the oil goes.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Same way as it does in every other engine.
Combustion by products leak past the rings - commonly called blowby. .
Click to expand...
Every aircraft manufacture has proven that wrong.

the valves are the biggest leaker.
 
Engine oil scavenges lead, and this same oil lubricates the gear box.
 
ETres said:
Engine oil scavenges lead, and this same oil lubricates the gear box.
Click to expand...
The say way it does in any gearbox and the main gears, and accessories. Lead is soft substance does not harm to gears
 
Too much 100LL use in a Rotax 912 coupled with too few oil changes will result in lead sludge being deposited all over the engine, especially in the oil reservoir and the gearbox. That's why 91 or above mogas is recommended. The engine in that Coyote is over 10 years old, so I would want to ensure there's no significant lead build up.
 
Tom-D said:
The say way it does in any gearbox and the main gears, and accessories. Lead is soft substance does not harm to gears
Click to expand...
None the less, Rotax tells you to change the oil more often and to tear down and inspect the gear box more frequently if you use leaded fuel.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
None the less, Rotax tells you to change the oil more often and to tear down and inspect the gear box more frequently if you use leaded fuel.
Click to expand...
all manufacturers would like you to do that.
the old radials provided sludge traps to help this. but I haven't seen any proof it helps.
 
Stewartb said:
A friend had an S-7 for a couple of years. He also has a PA-22/20. He never bonded with the Rans so he sold it. I remember flying out right after him from Lake Hood strip on what may be the roughest day I ever had there and I'm sure glad I was in my 180 and not his Rans. He wished he was in my 180, too. He got the snot beat out of him. The physics of an 1800# airplane vs an 800# airplane.
Click to expand...

My comment is a bit late, but I have to agree with @Stewartb 's friend. I sold a Cessna 185 and a Bellanca Scout when I moved from Alaska to New Mexico a few years ago. After deciding I didn't want to live without an airplane, I researched the RANS S6 and Kitfox, thought they would be fun but also cheaper to buy and to operate than my previous birds. A nice looking taildragger S6 was for sale a few hours drive away, so I went to see and fly it. Luckily it was a turbulent day with a 15 knot quartering crosswind. I flew the thing with the owner about 30 minutes. I didn't "bond" with it at all. It really seemed to flounder in the turbulence and I felt like it needed more control authority, especially the ailerons. Cabin was quite crowded with a couple of medium size guys, but that is to be expected, I guess.

My best advice- spend a little extra time in one of these before pulling the trigger. It might just be me. I ended up going for something heavier. Bought a Grumman Tiger first, then sold it and got an RV9. Enjoyed both of those.
 
Tom-D said:
all manufacturers would like you to do that.
the old radials provided sludge traps to help this. but I haven't seen any proof it helps.
Click to expand...
No offense tom, but how much experience do you have with rotax? Capt thorpe has a bunch and everyone that I know, including Lockwood, says exactly the same thing. It a procedure you must follow or expect gearbox trouble.
 
Thanks everyone for your thoughts on the Coyote. Thought I wanted to go light sport but I've decided it's just too light for what I'm really after. I've since moved moved on and after jumping around a bit I am now considering a Cardinal. Big change for sure but I've already had two 172's. I do like the Piper 180 but just don't want one door.
 
edo2000 said:
Bought a Grumman Tiger first, then sold it and got an RV9. Enjoyed both of those.
Click to expand...

What did you like/dislike about the Tiger vs. RV9?

sorry, not trying to hijack the thread, just thought others might be interested too,
 
Skyrys62 said:
What did you like/dislike about the Tiger vs. RV9?

sorry, not trying to hijack the thread, just thought others might be interested too,
Click to expand...
I liked the Tiger a lot, I especially liked sliding the canopy back for aerial photos which I did a lot. But my home base in New Mexico is above 6,000 ft msl and my son & granddaughters live across the Rockies from me, near Denver. The Tiger didn't perform as well as I hoped at higher altitudes. Its service ceiling is 14,600. The Tiger has 180hp/fixed pitch prop. The RV9A I found has 160hp/fixed pitch. Its service ceiling is 24,500 and it climbs much better carrying the same load as the Tiger. It also is 25kts faster on less fuel. The ability to use experimental avionics is a big plus.
 
Yeah it would be hard to dislike either of those I'm sure.

How did they compare in crosswind and\or turbulence?
Also interior room\comfort?
Again, sorry... Those two have always been on my short list.
 
High wing Rans are cool.

Add a few VGs on the wing and tail and they are great for back country flying!
 
Skyrys62 said:
Yeah it would be hard to dislike either of those I'm sure.

How did they compare in crosswind and\or turbulence?
Also interior room\comfort?
Again, sorry... Those two have always been on my short list.
Click to expand...
I don't mind. And I guess the OP doesn't either, since he is thinking of a Cardinal now. :)
Both the Tiger and the RV9 have extremely quick and precise controls, and are great in crosswinds. They both handle like sports cars compared other aircraft I have flown, but the RV is quicker and more precise. The Grumman is heavier and has heavier wing loading, approximately 17 lbs/ft vs. 13 lbs/ft for the RV. This makes it a bit calmer in turbulence but it's not a huge difference. Both have fairly spindly nose gear(the Tiger's is sturdier) so neither is great for unpaved runways, IMO. Cabin width "felt" very similar between them, possibly a bit more room in the RV. Obviously the Tiger has 4 seats and the RV has 2 + a baggage area. At my homebase's altitude and runway length, the Tiger back seats were more or less unusable. Side and forward visibility is fantastic in the Grumman, you sit a bit lower in the RV, so the view out is not quite as unrestricted, but still excellent. Both airplanes have canopies, so you enter by stepping over the fuselage lip onto the seat and then sitting down. The lip on the RV is higher, so ingress/egress is slightly more difficult on the RV.

Both are simple, Lycoming powered, very low maintenance aircraft. I would love to have a constant speed prop on my RV, but that adds cost, weight and complexity, and the beautiful airplane I found when I was looking had a fixed pitch. I wanted an RV7 for occasional aerobatic fun. Had a Citabria for years and enjoyed flipping it around sometimes. But 7's are considerably more expensive than 9's, and the efficient wing design on the 9 seemed like a great thing for the high altitude airports that I mostly use.

My opinion: both airplanes are great choices for fast, efficient, fun, comfortable, flying (if the people aboard are not large...). If you like aerial photography, the Tiger is great for that. The 160hp RV9 is 20 to 25kts faster, burning a gallon or two per hour less. And as I mentioned, the high altitude takeoff and climb performance is considerably better on the RV, even with less power. If you decide to upgrade avionics, the non-tso'd glass panels and autopilots for experimentals are much less expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top