Rans Incorporated Archives - Page 3 of 3

Rans Incorporated

Website: http://www.rans.com

Email: rans@rans.com

Phone: (785) 625-6346

Hays, KS 67601 - USA

Rans S-6S Coyote II

By Dan Johnson || February 16, 2004 7 Comments

As the dawn of the sport pilot rule changes approaches, Kansas-based RANS Inc. is one of the most successful kit aircraft manufacturers in the light aviation industry. Randy Schlitter, RANS’ boss and founder, is now a seasoned veteran of the kit airplane business. Over his years in business, he has created several popular aircraft designs that have found favor in the United States, Europe, and about 50 other countries around the globe. Of the broad RANS line, the one model that has most revved up buyers is the S-6S Coyote II. Despite competition from hundreds of other aircraft, the Coyote line has sold an impressive fleet of 1,500 aircraft. The single-place version, S-4/5, first flew 20 years ago and has also sold reasonably well, but it is the Coyote II that has become the single most successful RANS design. The two-place Coyote II is available in two models—the S6-S and the S-6ES. Both models offer side-by-side seating and a choice of tricycle or tailwheel landing gear, and both will accept engines in the 47- to 110-hp range. The S-6ES II, the second generation S- 6, was introduced in April 1990, with an extended wingspan over the original S-6, which was introduced in 1988. The ES model features ultralight-like Dacron covering and comes in three different wingspan options. S-6S II, dubbed the Super Six, was introduced in 1993 and features standard aircraft covering. While more labor intensive and heavier with the added weight of paint, the doped covers promise longer life and offer slicker surfaces than the Dacron (although Dacron treated with Mylar can be very competitive). It is this aircraft that’s captured the most attention. A Little Tweaking After two decades in the business, Randy is too savvy an aviation entrepreneur to radically overhaul the Coyote. In the traveling I am privileged to do, I see RANS Coyotes at many airports and airparks in many countries. I’ve also seen several copies of the design, a sure sign the aircraft is perceived to be what customers want. But, anyone who knows Randy knows he’s constantly refining his aircraft to improve the designs and increase his factory’s productivity. In his refinement of the S-6S, Randy altered the upper tail fuselage deck of the Coyote II. This had been a flat surface that Randy admits gave builders some challenges during assembly, especially in the jig building to ensure a square fit. As part of this modification, RANS also increased the S-6S II’s tail surface area. RANS also changed the Coyote II’s main aft fuselage so it is now a razorback, resembling its single-seat sibling, the S- 4/5, and giving it more flowing lines. Randy indicates this change, along with more pre-drilled junctions, makes it easier to jig accurately. RANS also cleaned up the Coyote II’s belly. The flat area under the cockpit transitions more smoothly to the tail cone, which improves airflow movement across the tail. Another popular feature for kit buyers is RANS’ folding-wing option. For about $500, an older Coyote II can be retrofit with the new option. The retrofit kit will include several new hardware parts that allow “one person to fold the wings in a matter of minutes,” according to RANS. Buyers of new kits can order folding wings as an optional accessory. No Wonder It’s Popular Before you enter the S-6S Coyote II, you’ll appreciate how the seats fold forward to give access to the cargo area. That space behind the seats can hold 50 pounds of gear, and it can be accessed while aloft. The cargo area is a fabric pouch running the width of the airplane, and it’s about 1-foot deep from front to rear, allowing some bulkier items to be carried with you. RANS also provides a compartment outside of the cabin that can accommodate up to 30 pounds of cargo. Its door is located directly aft of the cockpit. While the folding seats aid access to rear storage areas, easily moved seat cushions allow closer inspection of vital components like control linkages. About a decade ago, RANS invested in equipment to make molded plastic panels. Today’s Coyotes reflect extensive use of molded plastic interior panels. These smooth panels hide the guts of the airplane (cable or push/pull linkages, wires, and support members), creating a modern appearance, but sometimes they hide important parts from easy inspection. Sitting in the Coyote II, especially the taildragger version, most pilots will find forward visibility has been improved by the airplane’s flatter deck angle. I found flight visibility to be enhanced by the big door windows and the overhead skylight. With no detail left out of its continuous redesigning, RANS also changed ordinary components like rudder pedals. Newer Coyotes have a little angled portion at the base of the rudder pedals that allows your feet to sense position before operating the brakes. Since they now tilt forward like Cessna aircraft pedals— combined with a nosewheel-disconnect feature—I felt the rudder pedals were quite intuitive to operate in flight, though I found them on the stiff side while taxiing. Stable Flight Characteristics Despite the structural design changes, the S-6S II’s flight characteristics were largely left the same with only minor improvements. One of the most notable affects rudder control as mentioned above. All wheels had large fairings on them, and Randy reported getting the same cruise speed with 200 rpm less power, thanks partly to the wheelpants. Of course, correctly shaped fairings should help a plane slip through the air, but this result is diluted when a large nosewheel fairing turns sideways. This happens on many planes when the rudder pedals are employed to coordinate a turn. Now, like a few high-end general aviation airplanes, the S-6S does something about that sideways nosewheel fairing. The Coyote II’s nosewheel drops down on liftoff, and its fork centers itself in a cam that keeps the wheel pointing forward. When you work the rudder pedals in flight, the nosewheel and its fairing stay fixed. Consequently, the rudder pedal feel is better because you aren’t pushing harder to deflect the nosewheel with its large wheelpant. In the past, Schlitter says the tail had to work harder just to offset the turbulence created from the large, sideways wheelpant. Thus the enlarged tail area of the new Coyote can be employed to improve flight characteristics rather than simply offset the effect of the nosewheel fairing. On landing, the weight of the aircraft pushes the nosewheel fork back into the steering cam, giving the pilot nosewheel steering control again. Like the folding-wing option, RANS is also offering a retrofit kit for the dropdown nosewheel. The “Nosewheel Disconnect System” kit is available for about $200. Always Something New To be honest, I couldn’t tell much difference in control feel because of the larger tail surfaces. However, over many years and many pilot reports, I have become a supporter of large tails. Many designers feel you just about can’t have too large a tail. Airplanes with big tail feathers seem to be more stable and more controllable, a great combination any pilot can enjoy. Nonetheless, I really liked the nosewheel disconnect feature. I found the rudder pedals were rather stiff on the ground, but as soon as you lift off and the nosewheel slips down, the pedal pressure gets lighter, resulting in better overall coordination. The S-6S Coyote II, with standard wing, 1,010-pound gross weight, and 100-hp Rotax 912S engine, has lively speeds for takeoff and landing, just as we’ve found in European-built fiberglass light-sport aircraft (LSA). Seventy-five mph is a good speed for approach and takeoff, but you can slow down to 70 or even 65 mph, I found. Sixty mph is starting to get too slow. Many genuine ultralights use 50 mph for approach, and that number often has a generous margin of safety. The Coyote II’s numbers translate to longer approaches and longer ground rolls—which many LSA will exhibit—but these faster speeds are helpful in crosswinds when more speed and control are valuable. Higher speeds and the crisper controls that accompany faster speeds guarantee that the Coyote II has plenty of control authority. The Coyote’s faster speeds don’t hurt its overall performance, and those speeds are what many are waiting for in LSA. But the slightly lighter Coyote II has some advantages over heavier fiberglass LSAs with smaller wing areas. Randy says his Coyote II has a glide ratio of about 9-to-1, which can be crudely estimated by the amount of float in ground effect. Even with power at idle thrust from well out on approach, I floated well down the runway. Such an evaluation of glide angle isn’t scientific, but I did measure sink rate on several occasions, seeing 300 to 500-600 fpm with overall average as low as 400- 450 fpm. I found this a good improvement over several fiberglass LSAs that use heavier weights and smaller wings to assure faster cruise speeds. Randy recommended that I use two notches of flaps for normal takeoffs and landings, and indeed this produced good results. A third notch of flaps is available for use on the shortest or softest field, and it adds perceptibly to drag. Because of Randy’s advice, I never tried a takeoff or landing without flaps. Given the speeds of the Coyote II with flaps, I suspect speeds might rise unnecessarily high without flaps. Flaps change stall characteristics considerably, confirming their value. Stalls with no flaps had a pronounced though easily controlled drop of the nose. When two notches of flaps were added, the stalls became benign. Because you are advised to use two notches for takeoff or landing, the incidence of a departure or approach stall should pose few problems. Stalls fell modestly to one side or the other, but none was consistent, and the problem raised by this is minor. Leaving Well Enough Alone The venerable S-6S Coyote II has long enjoyed market success, and it became a major influence on light aviation when the two-seater complemented the older and onetime Part 103-eligible single-seat Coyote S-4/5. Outside of the United States, the S-6 Coyote II line is likely the most popular light plane in the world, while Van’s RV series of aircraft obviously captures that title in the United States. As we see more and more fiberglass LSAs from abroad, it is obvious that Coyote —without changing what it is today—will continue to have great appeal. If you have a pilot certificate and valid medical, you have no reason to wait for the SP/LSA rule changes to become law before you start building or flying. Even given the refinements mentioned in this article, RANS mostly left well enough alone with its highly successful Coyote II series. Under the 51-percent rule, Randy and the rest of his company’s engineers can continue to tweak Coyote to make it even better…and the same will be possible under LSA rules as long as the developer tests to industry standards and employs accepted quality control procedures. The complications and costs associated with making changes to Part 23-certificated aircraft won’t apply to LSA. While we await LSA, RANS remains a major veteran player in the light aircraft industry because models like Coyote II and its regular improvements still have enormous appeal. Whether the company jumps on the LSA bandwagon or not, Randy Schlitter and his Kansas staff still have plenty of tricks up their sleeve. Their quick-build kits are some of the most refined in the industry while still being completely 51-percent compliant. As Randy says, “Customers have given us their wish list for quick-build kits, and we’ve tried to give them what they want while still being legal. Our ‘12 Easy Pieces’ kit for the S-6S is a great example. The kit actually has only 12 major pieces that need to be assembled, yet by the time the builder does all the assembly and connections, it still meets the 51- percent rule. We feel a responsibility to protect our privilege to build light aircraft, so we work hard to keep our kits compliant.” The S-6 Coyote II series is priced well below $30,000 even with the Rotax 912 and other desirable equipment. At half the price of last month’s CT2K—and many other fiberglass creations like it— Coyote II is sure to continue to make sales. And buyers like you can go ahead and purchase today, building under the 51-percent rule and flying with your FAA certificate and medical. When the sport pilot rule changes are final, you can choose to fly under the provisions of that new pilot certificate with no change to your aircraft’s certification status or its maintenance requirements. That’s the best of both worlds.

Published in Experimenter Magazine

Seating	2, side-by-side, 42 inches wide
Empty weight	600 pounds
Gross weight	1,010 pounds
Wingspan	34.5 feet
Wing area	155 square feet
Wing loading	7.1 pounds/square foot
Useful Load	500 pounds
Payload (with full fuel)	392 pounds
Height	9 feet
Fuel Capacity	18 gallons
Max Speed	120 mph
Cruise speed	95/100 mph/*
Stall Speed	36 mph
Rate of climb at gross	1,000/1,400 fpm /*
Takeoff distance at gross	200 feet
Landing distance at gross	250 feet
Notes:	* Variable figures based on use of 80- or 100- hp Rotax 912/912S engine. ** RANS also offers a 116-square-foot wing that changes speeds and climb rates. With a gross weight of 1,200 pounds and cruise speeds of 105/110 mph, this model may also meet light-sport aircraft requirements.

Rans Stinger

By Dan Johnson || January 10, 2004 2 Comments

BRAND-NEW - Flown for the first time on September 10, 1999, the S-17 Stinger is the newest design from prolific producer RANS.

FEET FIRST - Your toes are literally the first to arrive but this merely helps support the design's aim. The foot pedals are designed to hold your heels very securely.

WELL-SECURED - Not being accustomed to sitting so exposed in one of his designs, Randy Schlitter called for a super-secure belt system in the Stinger. I was also glad to have the added assurance.

SLICK 'N SLOW - This Stinger has a 40-hp Rotax 447 on it, but a Part 103-compliant one will require the 35-hp 2si 460F-35 2-cycle engine some ultralight manufacturers choose for reduced weight.

MAZE OF TUBING - Look at that mass of junctions where the struts meet the boom tube. RANS' modern welding shop is well-equipped to perform this kind of craftsmanship.

S-14 TAIL - RANS' final Stinger cops its tail from the company's successful S-14 Airaile single-seater.

RADICALLY CHANGED - Except for the name and logo, not much remains from the prototype Stinger. However, the tractor-engine original still flies, though much differently from the final Stinger (pictured here) flown for this report.

COMBINATION RANS - Stinger is made up of the wings of an S-4 Coyote, the tail of an S-14 Airaile, and RANS welded fuselage finished in the perfection of most RANS factory aircraft.

BEEFY STRUCTURE - RANS' master welders have plenty of experience to achieve this kind of complexity. The resultant structure is strong and fairly light.

LIVELY LOGO - Maybe the buzz is like that of a bumblebee, but flying the Stinger is certainly a lot less erratic and the creature is far more enjoyable.

PROTOTYPE STINGER - With a tractor-mounted engine and far shorter wingspan, RANS says the prototype Stinger flies quite differently from the final version featured in this report.

The original concept and final design Stinger appear to share only two things. First is the name - S-17 Stinger - and the second is the little bumblebee logo. In every other case I could discern, the finished Stinger is a totally new design from Randy Schlitter's original idea. Stinger version two flew for the first time on September 10, 1999. Barely a week later, I found myself aloft in the new ultralight. Normally, I'm not anxious to jump into a manufacturer's brand-new design. I much prefer waiting until they have the design fully worked out. However, Randy Schlitter has an excellent reputation for airplanes that seem to fly right off the drawing board (or out of the CAD program these days). He'd put some hours on the Stinger and had given it his blessing. I observed him fly it first and by all measures, it appeared to be ready for evaluation flying. I leaped at the chance. I'd flown from St. Paul, Minnesota in my Cessna 150/150 for the annual RANS fly-in. Hays, Kansas appeared to be a pretty remote spot, located way out on the endless Midwestern prairie. But I knew the Stinger was ready, and Ultralight Flying! editor-in-chief Scott Wilcox asked if I would make the trip. Since I'd never seen the RANS factory and considering the company is one of the most successful in the ultralight or kit business, I was happy to take the chance to see it all at once. I even got to put in some time on the company's recumbent bicycles. It was easily worth 8.9 hours clocked on the trusty Cessna. Radically New The original prototype Stinger sported a tractor engine, short-span wing, high boom, tri-gear and windscreen - a fairly hot-performing ultralight. The final Stinger has a pusher engine, longer wingspan, low boom, taildragger, open cockpit (at least for now), and modest performance. The two bear little resemblance to one another. Randy invited me to fly the prototype and I would have, but the experience would have only lent more basis for comparison. It would not have been meaningful to evaluate the final Stinger just as driving an Edsel doesn't tell you anything about driving a modern-day Ford sedan. I never took the chance to fly the prototype Stinger in my short 24-hour visit to RANS and Hays. The new Stinger makes use of the wings from a single-seat S-4 Coyote, and the tail from the also single-seat S-14 Airaile. The cockpit weldment is brand-new. Unlike the first prototype, this new Stinger evokes a comparison to other ultralights, and some of these are quite useful to understand the bird. Several of the 100 or better pilots attending the RANS annual fly-in perceived the Kolb UltraStar when they looked at the Stinger - an analogy easy to understand. Like the older UltraStar - before pods were added to Kolb designs - the Stinger features an ultralight where the pilot is seated well forward of the plane and is supported by a welded steel structure. The RANS structure looks to be quite substantial, however, I didn't measure anything and this is only an image in my mind. In the UltraStar's case, I am not aware of problems related to the pilot's feet being the first to arrive after a hard landing. You simply are not supposed to fly airplanes headlong into immovable objects like the ground. If you do, something is going to yield and injuries are probable. This is no condemnation of the UltraStar or Stinger designs; it is a simple fact of flying. A tractor engine, tri-gear airplane that smacks something head-on is also going to result in significant problems. Given the need to land normally, I didn't feel at all threatened by the Stinger's feet-first seating environment. Perhaps more so than Randy, I looked forward to a flight in the Stinger. My background is loaded with flights in aircraft that offer little reference to airframe structure in order to determine the airplane's attitude in the sky. I love the Drifter and Talon with their far forward seating (even though both now use a pod to give the pilot some illusion of a cockpit around you). The Stinger is merely the newest iteration of such designs. To me and to many ultralight enthusiasts, contact with the air is part of the mystique that makes ultralights different. Yet that won't change the fact that some pilots fret over the lack of forward enclosure. If a thin fiberglass wall around you or the presence of a few aluminum tubes at your side make you feel more secure in an aircraft, then the Stinger may not interest you. Of course then, neither would you be interested in a number of other designs like the Quicksilver MX series, Drifter, M-Squared models, Talon, Air-Bike, Weedhopper, Merlin's E-Z Flyer, many trikes, most powered parachutes, and all powered paragliders or hang gliders. In my (possibly old-fashioned) mind, "real" ultralights are open cockpit machines with little surroundings. Other ultralights that look like "little airplanes" may fly similarly but isolate the pilot from the smell and feel of the air, and they block visibility to a greater extent. The Stinger seats the pilot forward of the wing with a center-mounted joystick and throttle to the pilot's left, leaving right-handers with the joystick in their preferred grip. The simple seat is surprisingly comfortable, no doubt benefiting from RANS' long work with recumbent bicycles (for which they claim to be the country's largest builder). Takeoff is quick, climb is strong with the Rotax 447, handling is good if not fast, and speeds are definitely ultralight-like. What look like flaps on the inboard trailing edge are actually fixed surfaces. Staying within Part 103 (not with the Rotax 447) did not demand flaps (as it did on Kolb's FireFly with Rotax 447), and the linkage to make them work might push the Stinger over weight limits. I felt they weren't needed unless you have an impossibly short runway with a difficult approach, a situation you can avoid with good planning. The Stinger is not really a taildragger, even though its nosewheel is in the back. Note the flat "deck angle" by comparing boom tube to the ground. This means the likelihood of the tail coming around in front during ground roll is most unlikely. Given the slow approach and touchdown speeds, I don't even see how you could ground loop unless you completely quit paying attention. Lesser Changes to Stinger The throttle arrangement is different than the prototype Stinger... and much better in my opinion. The prototype Stinger used a twist-grip throttle. I was much happier with the present one as I don't believe twist grips are universally accepted like push-pull throttles that have long been standard on most aircraft. The joystick got simplified in the final Stinger and its front-side brake lever is far enough away not to interfere in flight, while allowing easy-enough access when you need some stopping or slowing power. The instruments are located a little farther away and switches on that panel would be too far to reach with the seat belts tightened about you, so RANS moved kill switches overhead to a place not easily bumped in flight. The Stinger uses a pull-start system that must be done outside the cockpit, meaning no in-air restart is possible. Schlitter says the pulleys to allow in-air restart capability force too many tight turns, so the option may not become available. Keep your maintenance up-to-spec and you shouldn't need such in-flight restarting. With a tiny little tab placed strategically, RANS added a parking brake to the hand brake lever. This isn't the first I've seen - some trikes use something similar - but it helps when you start the Stinger from outside the "cockpit" and not have the ultralight creep forward on you. My feet didn't fit in the rudder "stirrups" very well, but that should be something you could adjust yourself. I'd also change the angle; the ones on the Stinger were aimed back at me a bit too much for my taste. The stirrups are needed as you have no other place to rest your feet. The Air-Bike is similar and solves the need with a wire loop that hangs down and can hook around your shoe heel. I think I prefer the Air-Bike solution, but this is something an owner could adapt according to his personal preference. Since I did not take the chance to fly the prototype Stinger, I didn't experience how challenging it was on the ground. However, Randy indicated it could tip too easily and touch a wing if you weren't on top of proper taxiing technique. The final Stinger had none of this unsettling tendency. However, the final Stinger needs taller main gear to help lift the nose a bit for landing touchdown since it's common to touch the tailwheel first. Randy had forewarned me so I wasn't unduly critical of my landings, which were exactly as he predicted. The Stinger is very controllable throughout the landing process, so on one of my landings, I went to an extreme to attempt the preferred three-point taildragger touchdown. This resulted in my touching the mains first with a pretty firm bounce. My impromptu test of the landing gear strength showed no deformation, so RANS engineers' confidence in the gear robustness appeared reasonable. Randy said, "Expect to tap the tailwheel first, which is `normal' for the present." He plans to investigate taller main wheels and feels that will solve the dilemma, a worthy effort as he also acknowledges that whacking the tail regularly can't be good for the aircraft. Stinger In Flight Randy also said he didn't find the controls particularly fast. I think he's become spoiled by the instantaneous response common to RANS' designs like the S-10 Sakota. Indeed, some RANS planes like the S-16 Shekari are so responsive that a couple of fly-in visitors I overheard said, "I sure wouldn't want to fly this plane in instrument flying conditions." Perhaps Randy has forgotten the more typical ultralight controls that seem "sluggish," a sensation that is more likely tied to slow flying speeds than any shortcoming of the control system. While I agree the Stinger isn't a fast-handling aircraft, it never left me in any doubt and I imagined I could handle the ultralight in a vigorous crosswind without any concern. RANS indicated some adjustment may also be made via linkage adjustments so as to increase control forces slightly to quicken response. This may be desirable but is not critically necessary in my experience with the Stinger. Delightfully, I found almost no adverse yaw in the Stinger. When I applied significant stick movement with no rudder input, the Stinger hesitated briefly and then turned in the desired direction. It did not wander off the wrong way first as is common with many ultralights. Certainly the outboard ailerons (versus full-span ones) account for some of this. Schlitter also mentioned the control differential that puts one aileron down less while the opposite goes up more. Another related area where I think Randy has become accustomed differently is cruise speed. His 2-seat Coyote II, S-9 Chaos, S-10 Sakota, and S-16 Shekari are all pretty speedy airplanes, good for cross-country flying. By comparison, the Stinger is a slowpoke. "From our factory to [Hays Municipal] airport seems like a cross-country flight," says Schlitter, whom I believe is simply spoiled by regularly flying his racy S-16 Shekari. However, he loves the way their newest creation flies and I do also. The Stinger operates at ultralight speeds. You may not want to take one across the U.S; but it cruises in the speed realm that makes ultralights interesting to many of us. For a long time, I felt "ultralight" may be the wrong word for our type of aircraft. If we had started calling these machines "ultraslow," we might have better identified what it is they do that makes them unique and desirable among all aircraft you can fly. The current Stinger had no vertical speed indicator (VSI) installed, but Randy reports he has timed 1,000-foot climbs numerous times to arrive at a 900-fpm climb rate in the 40-hp Rotax 447-powered model. Instrument work is still somewhat ongoing. For example, the static port for the airspeed indicator (ASI) wasn't quite right. All numbers read a little high. Randy has since remedied this and says stalls come in about 25 mph, a figure that agrees with my sense of speed. All my checks of stability issues were benign. Stalls were slow (even given the ASI inaccuracies when I flew it). Stinger wandered a bit at incipient stall - like many other designs - but even when left uncorrected, the stall was brief and normal flight resumed very quickly. My series of pull- or push-and-release tests of stability were positive, although you have no in-flight trim to adjust for pilots of different weight. Randy and I are similarly sized so I expect it felt good as I was in the weight range of the designer. Lack of aerodynamic trim isn't a problem unless you regularly let pilots of very different weights fly your Stinger. If you look closely, you can easily see the Stinger is equipped with a massive restraint system. In addition to padded shoulder belts, Randy used dual lap belts with a cinching system to tighten one of them. You could get them so snug that you could cut off circulation in your legs, but you sure wouldn't fall out of the plane. In truth, the Stinger was a new experience for Randy who hasn't spent much time recently sitting out in front of the plane he's flying. This is one of those designs that fits a favorite expression of mine: "Sitting on a lawn chair on the edge of forever!" When you sit in the Stinger, your head is ahead of the wing and all airplane parts except the slender welded steel structure on which your feet are resting. To me this exemplifies ultralight flight and I truly enjoyed it. Some of you will not love this. For those of you who want some protection and forward structure, RANS plans a windscreen setup probably much like that used on the prototype Stinger. Randy says to figure about another $1,000 to get a forward fairing and windscreen, but it will be fully built for this cost. Stung by the Stinger? On September 27, the Stinger entered production, reports Randy. The final phase of documentation is nearing completion and this work is being done with the fully equipped model, so you will have instructions covering optional equipment as well as the basic airframe. "Parts are going together in the welding shop," adds Randy. By the time you read this, you should be able to order and get a Stinger. Should you? Well, there's a lot to be said for the Stinger. I had a ball flying it and I think many ultralight pilots would, too. You have to determine your own preferences but I feel very good about recommending this brand-new design - something I don't do everyday. RANS is a company I think you can expect results from and I find the boss to be a solid citizen in the aviation community. I'm sure a few bugs will need to be cleaned up, but if you were the very first to order a Stinger, I think you'd be very pleased with your decision. The Stinger as evaluated is the base model. This includes the Rotax 447, brakes, instruments, 4-point seat belts, and presewn wings for $10,995. For clear-coated wings add $500 more. I haven't covered all the options or details, but Randy assured me all this could be found on the company's Internet Website (www.rans.com). I encourage wired pilots to examine the details for themselves. To obtain a Stinger compliant to FAR Part 103, you'll have to deduct some hardware found on our test aircraft. Lacking a truly popular lightweight engine, many companies end up like RANS, building an aircraft that is certainly 103-like in spirit but which still misses the mark by a few pounds. Randy listed the changes needed to make the Stinger fully comply to Part 103. For starters, you have to swap the Rotax 447 that comes standard in the base price for the 35-hp 2si 460F-35 2-cycle engine as used on other ultralights such as the Aero-Lite 103 and Kitfox Lite, for example. Despite some valiant efforts by supporters and entrepreneurs, this engine does not enjoy universal acceptance yet. Randy has not tested the 2si engine on the Stinger, nor has he made any plans to do so. Nonetheless, it can be installed and some buyers will do so to stay within Part103. Other changes needed to make Stinger Part 103-compliant include using a 2-blade IvoProp propeller (versus three blades on the test plane), a lighter tailwheel (a "roller skate wheel," says Schlitter with a grin), no shaped ribs in the tail surfaces, and no clear coating of the wing (an option that adds a surprising 10 pounds). In addition, you'll have to swap round struts for the streamlined ones (faired ones are heavier), you'll have to do without brakes (hardly needed on turf), plastic main wheels, and no instruments ("Just a Hall meter," says Randy). Even further, he alluded to possibly having no seat cushion and using a lighter fabric for the wing and tail covering. Will all this discourage some buyers? Yes. Some pilots will scoff at the Spartan nature of the Stinger that fits Part103. However, you'll still have a terrific little ultralight that is strong, flies very nicely, looks contemporary, and is supported by a successful and popular company.

Published in Light Sport and Ultralight Flying

Empty weight	290 pounds
Gross weight	527 pounds
Wingspan	29.5 feet
Wing area	127 square feet
Wing loading	4.1 pounds per square foot
Length	17.3 feet
Height	84 inches
Kit type	Assembly
Build time	100 hours
Standard engine	Rotax 447
Power	40 hp at 6,500 rpm
Power loading	13.2 pounds per horsepower
Cruise speed	(75% power) 55 mph
Never exceed speed	(Vne) 95 mph
Rate of climb at gross	900 fpm
Takeoff distance at gross	100 feet
Landing distance at gross	100 feet
Standard Features	Removable strut-braced wings, center-mounted joystick, outboard ailerons, 4-point restraint systems, 2-blade IvoProp propeller.
Options	Drum brakes, 3-blade prop, instruments (airspeed indicator, altimeter, tachometer, temp, hour meter), aluminum wheels.
Construction	Aluminum tubing, welded steel, Dacron® sailcloth.

Design

Cosmetic appearance, structural integrity, achievement of design goals, effectiveness of aerodynamics, ergonomics.

Pros - Second version of all-new RANS Stinger is also the company's newest aircraft. Done in the tradition of other company aircraft using components from other models. Good all-around capabilities rendered as an ultralight aircraft should be. Stout design, felt good in air and on landing approaches. Should satisfy many buyers.

Cons - A few minor points need to be worked out yet (although the design will surely see the usual Schlitter refinements). Cannot fit under FAR Part 103 without some significant changes compared to test aircraft. Enclosure and side walls to comfort some buyers would render the aircraft less ultralight-like.

Systems

Subsystems available to pilot such as: Flaps; Fuel sources; Electric start; In-air restart; Brakes; Engine controls; Navigations; Radio; (items covered may be optional).

Pros - Test Stinger had brakes (even a parking brake). Engine access is good (though a small step would be helpful). Nice space for instrument deck; if small gauges used, could hold many. Stinger's simplicity is among its virtues; hopefully buyers won't load it up. Throttle is now standardized; first prototype utilized a nonstandard twist grip.

Cons - No flaps, in-flight starting (pull or electric), remote choke, or trim. A radio would require a wired helmet headset and a pocket or bracket somewhere to hold the radio. Fuel filler on wing top is not particularly convenient. Brakes are unidirectional only.

Cockpit/Cabin

Instrumentation; Ergonomics of controls; Creature comforts; (items covered may be optional).

Pros - Reminiscent of Air-Bike (step-over seating) or UltraStar (not much in front of you). Delightful open cockpit experience for those who like such aircraft. Entry doesn't get much easier. Small but comfortable seat. Superbly secure seat restraint (though this will change from that tested).

Cons - Rudder heel brace is needed as nothing else keeps your feet off the ground; supports were small around my shoes. No cargo area. Some pilots will dislike the lack of any side walls.

Ground Handling

Taxi visibility; Steering; Turn radius; Shock absorption; Stance/Stability; Braking.

Pros - Steering is very good on hard or soft surface (though a smaller tailwheel is needed on Part 103 version). Visibility doesn't get much wider than this; you can see everything. Brakes are effective enough that you can use the park-brake tab while pull starting from outside the Stinger. Adequate clearance for most off-field landings.

Cons - Tight taxi turns are difficult (same for most taildraggers without differential braking). First Stinger prototype reportedly quite a handful on the ground (problem solved with the final Stinger). No suspension other than tube flex and air in the tires; light enough to not require much, however.

Takeoff/Landing

Qualities; Efficiency; Ease; Comparative values.

Pros - Takeoff and landing are level-attitude tasks; you don't rotate nose skyward on liftoff, "levitating" instead. Very straightforward launch characteristics. Good control authority for crosswind operations. Visibility on takeoff or landing approach is huge. With slow flying speeds, most short runways will be easy to use.

Cons - Needs more nose height (steeper deck angle) to allow three-point landings; tends to touch tailwheel first as is, however, Stinger's posture also reduces need for taildragger skills. Slips won't be too effective due to little vertical area and no flaps, though neither is hardly needed for short landings.

Control

Quality and quantity for: Coordination; Authority; Pressures; Response; and Coupling.

Pros - Remarkably little adverse yaw, thanks partly to differential movement and outboard ailerons (as opposed to full-span designs). Dutch rolls went well to good angles very quickly. Control harmony appeared to be very good. Control power is good enough to fly in winds to 25 mph or so, and enough for most crosswind conditions.

Cons - Joystick range is adequate although you may want to trade lightness for greater control surface deflection when building your own Stinger. Rudder pedal position was not optimal for me (pedals angled too far back).

Performance

Climb; Glide; Sink; Cruise/stall/max speeds; Endurance; Range; Maneuverability.

Pros - Strong climb with 40-hp Rotax 447 at 900 fpm, says RANS. Takeoff and landing distances are less than 100 feet. Max cruise is 55 mph. Did very well in low-over-the-field flying. Slow flight characteristics - enjoyed by many enthusiasts - are excellent.

Cons - Max speed isn't swift enough for some (though they should then be looking at other aircraft). Rotax 447 won't be used on Part 103 model; 2si will be required but has not yet been fitted. Took better than 5,000 rpm to hold altitude, suggesting fuel economy may be low.

Stability

Stall recovery and characteristics; Dampening; Spiral stability; Adverse yaw qualities.

Pros - Stalls were mild with only a modest wandering of nose. Power-on stall never broke. Longitudinal stability appeared to be fine, although you have no control to fix any trim problems. Extremely robust seat restraints installed in test Stinger. Adverse yaw is very minimal; hesitates without moving, then turns correctly.

Cons - All stalls wandered a bit at the top of a stall; tended to fall gently to right (though this may have been due to my power setting and P-factor). Power-up tends to lower nose as on many top-of-wing pusher ultralights.

Overall

Addresses the questions: "Will a buyer get what he/she expects to buy, and did the designer/builder achieve the chosen goal?"

Pros - Newest RANS model is now in production; company's strong reputation should assure many sales. Customer support, manuals, refinements, and accessories will surely be as good as for the rest of the company's models. At under $11,000 complete, price is competitive with many ultralight singles. Build time expected in 100-hour range. RANS dealers are located all over the world.

Cons - Stinger is so new, it has not yet established a market. Part 103 model popularity yet to be determined given diminished equipment list (compared to test model). Not for those who require full enclosures to feel protected.

The original concept and final design Stinger appear to share only two things. First is the name – S-17 Stinger – and the second is the little bumblebee logo. In every other case I could discern, the finished Stinger is a totally new design from Randy Schlitter’s original idea. Stinger version two flew for the first time on September 10, 1999. Barely a week later, I found myself aloft in the new ultralight. Normally, I’m not anxious to jump into a manufacturer’s brand-new design. I much prefer waiting until they have the design fully worked out. However, Randy Schlitter has an excellent reputation for airplanes that seem to fly right off the drawing board (or out of the CAD program these days). He’d put some hours on the Stinger and had given it his blessing. I observed him fly it first and by all measures, it appeared to be ready for evaluation flying.