RANS S6 ES
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Lancs
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RANS S6 ES
Hi Looking at buying RANS S6 ES. Posted on FB and got usual rubbish about 'buy a Skyranger', C42, etc so hopefully no repeats of that. Can anyone help me with a buyers guide of some sort please? What do I look for, what are weak points, etc? How is it on soft fields (my field gets soft in Winter, and this Summer at times!)? Can it be flown solo from RH seat? Is there mod to add 2nd throttle and if so how much is it roughly? I assume throttle is relatively to get used to? How's handling generally? That sort of thing. ALL help very gratefully received.
It's 912 engine and I'm happy with 912 'outside' (a Shadow) but not enclosed as in S6.
I'm looking for something that takes 2 people a reasonable distance (250+nm) at reasonable cruise speed (80kts), with some baggage. Don't need comfort of an armchair or Cessna but don't want to feel like I'm in a flexwing either! I currently fly Shadow (Rotax 912) and XAir (582) so a combination of the 2 would be ideal and S6 seems to fit the bill.
Any S6 in Lancs I might look at and chat to owner would be PERFECT!
Many thanks in anticipation.
It's 912 engine and I'm happy with 912 'outside' (a Shadow) but not enclosed as in S6.
I'm looking for something that takes 2 people a reasonable distance (250+nm) at reasonable cruise speed (80kts), with some baggage. Don't need comfort of an armchair or Cessna but don't want to feel like I'm in a flexwing either! I currently fly Shadow (Rotax 912) and XAir (582) so a combination of the 2 would be ideal and S6 seems to fit the bill.
Any S6 in Lancs I might look at and chat to owner would be PERFECT!
Many thanks in anticipation.
I did most of my training in the type, and have only good to report. Although for travelling I would recommend something faster, perhaps a Remos or a CT. The Remos is rarely found second hand, which indicates to me that people who have them will keep them.
I cannot see anything wrong with an enclosed 912. Of the (more than) 50000 built, I'll bet you that at least 60% are enclosed, perhaps even 80%. I fly this config myself, in an Apollo Fox, and my one issue is that I cannot get the engine oil up to a decent temperature; I plan on installing a thermostat during winter.
As for the second throttle I'm afraid I have no recommendation. My own Apollo Fox had it, and I removed it. The construction is with a tumbling bar behind the dashboard, controlled from both throttles, and from which the two cables run to the carburettors.
I cannot see anything wrong with an enclosed 912. Of the (more than) 50000 built, I'll bet you that at least 60% are enclosed, perhaps even 80%. I fly this config myself, in an Apollo Fox, and my one issue is that I cannot get the engine oil up to a decent temperature; I plan on installing a thermostat during winter.
As for the second throttle I'm afraid I have no recommendation. My own Apollo Fox had it, and I removed it. The construction is with a tumbling bar behind the dashboard, controlled from both throttles, and from which the two cables run to the carburettors.
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 5th Sep 2020 at 18:41.
I own an S6-116, much the same inside as the vanilla S6ES, except it has smaller wings.
The builder from original kit may have deviated from, or left out some items.
e.g. There are two throttle levers mounted to the left of the P1's thigh and another between the seats. Very ergonomic and easy to rest ones hand on or close to the throttle in flight.
On mine the constructor did not install P2 brake cables (I've excellent cable/drum brakes). I agree as P2 shouldn't normally need them unless the a/c is used at a training establishment. In any case extra complexity from a cable mixing box !
The engine (80 hp) is excellent too, runs like a car, starts almost like a car if enrichment is set up properly. Mine is a fraction faster than the S6, at 4,900 rpm and Warp Drive ground adjustable two bladed propeller set to my liking for smart lift off, she'll cruise solo at some 95 mph.
If the ASI static is as per LAA suggestion it's using cabin pressure, which falsley enhances one's apparent speed the faster you go. I have, like a few others, replaced that with a fuselage side static which is about right at 100 mph.
Depending on its age the earlier fin is subject to an AD and the LAA TADS have loads of things to check and/or are incorporated.
Solo with 70 litres of fuel in the wing tanks, mine uses approx. 14 litres per hour at 4,800 rpm ie max to dry 5 hours at say true 85 mph ( I have records) perhaps a tad slower for the big wing S6 and my 4 hour distance is 340 miles in still air.
I legally put on fatter tyres as it's a tail wheeler, so an easy thing, can't on nose wheel of course !. Means my clay based grass sod is useable for almost the whole year.
It's a proper a/c, roomy inside, does what it should, and spares available. Simple to maintain oneself too.
The builder from original kit may have deviated from, or left out some items.
e.g. There are two throttle levers mounted to the left of the P1's thigh and another between the seats. Very ergonomic and easy to rest ones hand on or close to the throttle in flight.
On mine the constructor did not install P2 brake cables (I've excellent cable/drum brakes). I agree as P2 shouldn't normally need them unless the a/c is used at a training establishment. In any case extra complexity from a cable mixing box !
The engine (80 hp) is excellent too, runs like a car, starts almost like a car if enrichment is set up properly. Mine is a fraction faster than the S6, at 4,900 rpm and Warp Drive ground adjustable two bladed propeller set to my liking for smart lift off, she'll cruise solo at some 95 mph.
If the ASI static is as per LAA suggestion it's using cabin pressure, which falsley enhances one's apparent speed the faster you go. I have, like a few others, replaced that with a fuselage side static which is about right at 100 mph.
Depending on its age the earlier fin is subject to an AD and the LAA TADS have loads of things to check and/or are incorporated.
Solo with 70 litres of fuel in the wing tanks, mine uses approx. 14 litres per hour at 4,800 rpm ie max to dry 5 hours at say true 85 mph ( I have records) perhaps a tad slower for the big wing S6 and my 4 hour distance is 340 miles in still air.
I legally put on fatter tyres as it's a tail wheeler, so an easy thing, can't on nose wheel of course !. Means my clay based grass sod is useable for almost the whole year.
It's a proper a/c, roomy inside, does what it should, and spares available. Simple to maintain oneself too.
Mike, I'd be much interested in details of your static port installation, seeing as I'd like to add this too, for my altitude encoding transponder.
Did you install one or two? At what location(s)? (some people recommend installing one on either side of the fuselage)
Pictures to share, perhaps?
Did you install one or two? At what location(s)? (some people recommend installing one on either side of the fuselage)
Pictures to share, perhaps?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a taildragger 912 S6. I fly mostly solo with no problems at all. The 912 works very well, plenty of power for the plane. I’ve flown this Rans and also my previous 503 S6 across Europe - touring is easy and comfortable plus I often put my Brompton in the baggage compartment as it fits easily. I fly at around 80mph and low 4000s rpm for 11-12lph.
I have one central pull throttle which is good, too. I’ve had side throttles in the past and flew a Skyranger with them last week and I found the central pull gives me more fine control as I can twist it slightly for a couple of hundred rpm change.
i too have pretty big main tyres. It lands on rough grass and will happily get muddy too (my strip gets very wet at times).
The plane handles very well. It took me about 10 minutes to get used to the Skyranger as they are so similar. The SKR needed more rudder input as the Rans one is huge. That really is the one difference between Rans and SKR - the SKR is very forgiving and will brush off bad flying, especially unbalanced turns, where the Rans likes to see correct input. It’s really not a big deal and coordinated turns in the Rans are easy.
There are literally thousands of S6 flying, many with high hours. They are very comfortable, easy to maintain, easy to fly and a lot of fun. An excellent touring machine with roomy cockpit, good baggage, lots of fuel and you can fly for hours without tiring.
I saw your FB post and a certain person telling you how wrong your choice is. I disagree with him (not for the first time). It sounds S6 is perfectly suited to your needs. Best of luck!
I have one central pull throttle which is good, too. I’ve had side throttles in the past and flew a Skyranger with them last week and I found the central pull gives me more fine control as I can twist it slightly for a couple of hundred rpm change.
i too have pretty big main tyres. It lands on rough grass and will happily get muddy too (my strip gets very wet at times).
The plane handles very well. It took me about 10 minutes to get used to the Skyranger as they are so similar. The SKR needed more rudder input as the Rans one is huge. That really is the one difference between Rans and SKR - the SKR is very forgiving and will brush off bad flying, especially unbalanced turns, where the Rans likes to see correct input. It’s really not a big deal and coordinated turns in the Rans are easy.
There are literally thousands of S6 flying, many with high hours. They are very comfortable, easy to maintain, easy to fly and a lot of fun. An excellent touring machine with roomy cockpit, good baggage, lots of fuel and you can fly for hours without tiring.
I saw your FB post and a certain person telling you how wrong your choice is. I disagree with him (not for the first time). It sounds S6 is perfectly suited to your needs. Best of luck!
Jan & Andy,
Just to the left of photo along the red stripe is my tiny Ali static port pitot 'button'.
This position is set by being about as far back as I could reach to fit the pipe and securing flange nut inside later on
The left fus. side was selected because I'm right handed and thus an easier fiddle.
A double static was installed by the factory on my 1963 Jodel from new i.e. a port each side cross connected & to a Tee going off to the ASI.
In practice one side only on the Rans works perfectly well in S & L and is accurate at 100 mph when compared with GPS in two directions. I've checked that many times and I'm sure. Certainly I like to see the true airspeed & not a fiction produced when the static sees a reduced cabin pressure at cruise speeds. Side slipping heavily on 'finals' seems to give good readings too so I avoided the extra complication, with no negatives.
It's a thin and light ALI 'button' through drilled approx. 1 mm. [Tube and hole size are not critical as as the name suggests there is no actual air flow, it simlply senses 'static' air pressure]. then with very small dia lightweight plastic tube inside so as not to put much load on the fabric. The button entered through a 3 or 4 mm hole burnt in the fabric with a soldering iron tip (as recommended by Rans for makingall their lacing holes). The button diameter is approx 13 mm and thin and flat to stay flat on the fabric. The stem is threaded on its approx. 4 mm spigot to take a home made flat Ali plate of sufficient thickness to take a matching thread and secures the static button so the inside face of the fabric is also held flat. That's quite enough to postion it. The very light plastic tube runs as one finds convenient along the fuse and up to the ASI Tee pieces (I have EFIS and ASI) where with a length of standard fatter tube grafted on its diameter fits onto the standard instrument spigots. A few pieces of stick tight tape help stop the pipe flapping about and the staic position is as close as I coud get to a fuselage cross brac tube so the first sticky tape is there.
The thingis it's unobtrusive and if you don't like it no harm's done. I have fitted it twice without aggro as i renewed my fuselage fabric 3 years ago and simply refitted the button etc more or less as before
Rans Static port
Just to the left of photo along the red stripe is my tiny Ali static port pitot 'button'.
This position is set by being about as far back as I could reach to fit the pipe and securing flange nut inside later on
The left fus. side was selected because I'm right handed and thus an easier fiddle.
A double static was installed by the factory on my 1963 Jodel from new i.e. a port each side cross connected & to a Tee going off to the ASI.
In practice one side only on the Rans works perfectly well in S & L and is accurate at 100 mph when compared with GPS in two directions. I've checked that many times and I'm sure. Certainly I like to see the true airspeed & not a fiction produced when the static sees a reduced cabin pressure at cruise speeds. Side slipping heavily on 'finals' seems to give good readings too so I avoided the extra complication, with no negatives.
It's a thin and light ALI 'button' through drilled approx. 1 mm. [Tube and hole size are not critical as as the name suggests there is no actual air flow, it simlply senses 'static' air pressure]. then with very small dia lightweight plastic tube inside so as not to put much load on the fabric. The button entered through a 3 or 4 mm hole burnt in the fabric with a soldering iron tip (as recommended by Rans for makingall their lacing holes). The button diameter is approx 13 mm and thin and flat to stay flat on the fabric. The stem is threaded on its approx. 4 mm spigot to take a home made flat Ali plate of sufficient thickness to take a matching thread and secures the static button so the inside face of the fabric is also held flat. That's quite enough to postion it. The very light plastic tube runs as one finds convenient along the fuse and up to the ASI Tee pieces (I have EFIS and ASI) where with a length of standard fatter tube grafted on its diameter fits onto the standard instrument spigots. A few pieces of stick tight tape help stop the pipe flapping about and the staic position is as close as I coud get to a fuselage cross brac tube so the first sticky tape is there.
The thingis it's unobtrusive and if you don't like it no harm's done. I have fitted it twice without aggro as i renewed my fuselage fabric 3 years ago and simply refitted the button etc more or less as before
Rans Static port
Many thanks, Mike, that makes for a beginning. I tried to find the port with Uncle Ali but no luck, would you still have their reference? But I can 3d-print it too, not a big issue. Perusing the www, I came upon recommendations for air filters, condense collectors, and what not - did you do anything of the kind? Or just plastic tube plus a T-piece at each instrument?
Sidenote: where are @DAR's thoughts and comments? I'm sure he has some wisdom to share.
Sidenote2: @mods pls feel free to split off this side-discussion about static systems from the main RANS S6 subject.
Sidenote: where are @DAR's thoughts and comments? I'm sure he has some wisdom to share.
Sidenote2: @mods pls feel free to split off this side-discussion about static systems from the main RANS S6 subject.
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 7th Sep 2020 at 13:09.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...MYES_07-17.pdf
G
A review of records revealed that sixteen Rans S6 accidents, involving stalls and/or spins, have been investigated in the UK by the AAIB since 1994. As a result, the Light Aircraft Association (LAA) is conducting a review of accident data, on this and similar types of microlight, and a flight test program, to determine factors that may have contributed to this accident history.
I have some difficulty with this posting of yours, GtE, notwithstanding my great respect for the many insightful and wise comments you have offered on these pages. If the LAA announced conducting a review, could you not rather enlighten us on the outcome, several years later? Or, if there's none, after all these years, that might be saying something, too.
As it stands, I cannot but read your citation as a questioning of the type's intrinsic safety, though of course you carefully avoided stating so. Yet, as I read it, the cited accident report mainly questions pilot training and currency. Nothing to do with the Rans design, which I will keep supporting and advocating.
As it stands, I cannot but read your citation as a questioning of the type's intrinsic safety, though of course you carefully avoided stating so. Yet, as I read it, the cited accident report mainly questions pilot training and currency. Nothing to do with the Rans design, which I will keep supporting and advocating.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've talked at length with Malcolm McBride about this. The LAA conducted an investigation following G-MYES and the fact that they have taken no across-the-board action speaks for itself. The investigation is now largely concluded though there will be other associated work.
LAA found no single factor and instead there were many varied (and often complex) reasons for each accident, not directly related to the Rans itself. There was one theme of some owners flying overweight and not respecting the aeroplane's performance as a result but that's not a Rans problem! LAA have addressed the cultural and pilotage issues that were raised. In short, LAA were satisfied there was no specific problem with the S6.
LAA found no single factor and instead there were many varied (and often complex) reasons for each accident, not directly related to the Rans itself. There was one theme of some owners flying overweight and not respecting the aeroplane's performance as a result but that's not a Rans problem! LAA have addressed the cultural and pilotage issues that were raised. In short, LAA were satisfied there was no specific problem with the S6.
