Tweet
Originally posted by Light&Sweet
View Post
Full disclosure, the S-20 I learned in and then the S-21 I was flying were not mine. I had nearly full access at a very low hourly rate, and for that I am forever grateful to a good friend of mine.
So I will start with the S-21 (just 21 from hear on out). I loved flying the 21, it was simple with single knob control behind the Rotax 915. The turbo was fantastic, simple and always dependable in some pretty harsh environments I flew over. I always had near complete (is it ever possible to have complete confidence when flying over the most remote terrain in the lower 48?) confidence in the Rotax. That being said, the 21 weighed 985 pounds and was a light sport, yes you can build them and have a max gross weight of 1800. N4488B is a factory built certified plane that started life as a nose dragger, when my buddy bought it he immediately converted it to a tailwheel. This had some drawbacks, it sported a 70” three blade fixed pitch prop, IF it had the Airmaster “constant speed” and a 75” prop it would be a very different animal. But then it would not be a light sport. I am not a cowboy, I only land I actual strips albeit some in remote areas, some not on charts, and some fairly rough. I am a fly fisherman, and the plane is a tool to take me to great fishing spots. Yes I love to fly and fly a lot for fun beyond fishing, but fishing is the main goal. Landing in cool weather in the morning is a lot different than taking off in hot temperatures and high DA’s in the afternoon after fishing. We have all heard or been told not to land where you can’t take off. I have a personal limitation of double my landing or takeoff distance plus 100’, which ever is longer. As long as I am within that limitation I have no qualms about landing in short/remote areas. I have landed on a 800’ strip and used just over half, but that was a quick stop on a cool morning not a fishing stop that would have necessitated an afternoon takeoff in 80* plus temperatures from 5000’ elevation with DA’s well over 8000’. There is a 700-800’ strip I want to fish out of, and I was never comfortable enough land there in the morning knowing I would be taking off in high DA’s in the afternoon.
My Companion will have a 200HP engine with a 82” STOL type prop, so I expect it to get off the ground in about 2/3rds of the 21 when loaded for a typical fishing day in the backcountry which is 1/2 fuel and light on fishing gear. The companion has 185 sq ft of wing, the 21 has 141 sq ft of wing, and that is a big difference. I expect my companion will weigh about 215 pounds more than the 21. Both have the Ribblet wing. I am a firm believer that a tube and fabric plane is more durable than a 21 style fuselage. And when you consider that Bob Barrows designs the Bearhawk to utility category rather than standard category you are really into a rugged plane.
So ruggedness……
The 21 is a backcountry capable plane, it is not a backcountry plane. The S-20 is a backcountry plane. The empennage on the 21 is just not stout enough in my opinion, we had some issues in the tail section/tailwheel attach area on the 21. I won’t go into detail, but suffice it to say do not put a heavy duty backcountry tailwheel/spring on the 21. It was converted back to the factory single leaf spring after multiple issues. There are tons of Cessna 170’s, 180/5’s that fly the backcountry with spring gear, but I just think oleo style gear is just better for backcountry strips.
The Companion has a max gross of 2200 pounds, and I expect to have about 1000 pounds useful load. At my weight I do not see any scenario when I could get even close to 2200 pounds takeoff weight. I would have to gain 85 pounds and find a fishing buddy that weighs 275 pounds and load the cargo area with the full 250 pounds just to reach max gross. I see that as impossible on many fronts.
In theory my Companion will fly faster in cruise, and slower in canyon configuration. The power to weight is pretty similar between the two, but the larger wing surface bias’ towards the Companion.
(Edited to add: I am basing the similar power to weight ratio on my elevation and DA’s, those at sea level would have a different scenario)
So all of that said, I do in fact think the Companion is a better choice for my needs.
As for my buddy, he flies the crap out of his 21, he has flown twice in the past week to Flaming Gorge to fish. Flies to Idaho multiple times a month to fish. He has put bigger ties on the plane since I stopped flying it and it is really a great tool for him. So why does he have a Rans S-20 on order? He too thinks the 20 is a better backcountry plane. The 20 we flew prior to him buying the 21 had a 100hp Rotax, fine in the winter, but a bit doggy in our higher altitude environment in the summer, especially with two people on board. Several times I had to make spiral turns to gain elevation to clear terrain, never had to do that in the same terrain with the 21’s 915 power. He is going to have the S-20 built with a 915, and is told it will have similar cruise speed performance. The 21 cruises at 125-128 mph TAS. The transition to the 21 from the 20 took a bit of getting used to, you could put in full flaps on the 20 and point the nose down for an approach and it would not gain any speed, do the same thing with the 21 and it accelerated like a rock dropped from a plane. It was unnerving for the first 10 hours before I figured it out, it was a non-issue after that, but I do think the 20 is a much easier plane to fly slowly.
So all that said, every plane is perfect some a mission, the Companion is the best choice for my mission.
Comment