Rans S21 VS Carbon Cub FX3

[@donaldjiruska1808]

It is hard to argue with the value of the all metal Rans. Thanks for the side-by-side.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

All metal baby, yes.

[@TheJustinJ]

Aluminum might be the worst material for aircraft imaginable. Plastic, and in some cases Wood, makes for better airplanes.

[@maxbootstrap7397]

@@TheJustinJ : Why so?

[@onedsc1]

I love every comparison you do and that you actually fly them.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

We do when we can.

[@ph5915]

Both GREAT planes! I would think the S21 is a bit lighter than the Cub, but would think the Cub is much sturdier looking, and love the modern ignition system! Of course, the Cub is probably about twice the price or more than the S21. I'd be happy with either one! Thanks Mark! Great video (yet again!)

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Thank you.

[@mjbirdsong21]

Bush planes in my neighborhood, how cool! I've always been a fan of all things "cub". I've watched some videos of Rans builders and I'm impressed by "all metal" and particular the tail configuration with the elevator that runs all the way across.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Now I have a Husky here. Maybe we should get Juan Brown over and see how that goes with the Rans.

[@mjbirdsong21]

@@skywagonuniversity5023 Perhaps a local STOL competition? I'd love to see one in person! BTW...Thanks for all the informative videos. You've taught me a lot about one of my favorite interests.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

I had to be low key and informal because otherwise we'd be running about on the runway with tape measures and that would be frowned upon. A dry lake some where would work though.

[@Bearhawk_Life]

I flew a Rans S-21 with a 915 for quite a bit prior to the start of my build. I am at higher altitude (5637’) and my takeoffs were similar to yours. I measured yours at about 450 and 400’ and about the same stopping. Those are pretty much what I was getting at KHCR. I saw your pickup flight and plane description and sent it to my buddy who is in the market for a plane. That 21 is nicely built. The one I flew had the 30’ wing (early edition) and in my opinion the “production” planes with the 28’ wing is not nearly as good

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

It's a great plane that Rans.

[@robbyowen9107]

Fun stuff! Thanks gentlemen!! and no, I’m not going to pick sides!

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Go on. Who won.

[@robbyowen9107]

Uh…hmmmm… they both won!!

[@SkyRayden100]

I love my RANS S-21 very smooth on the controls, albeit a bit pitch sensitive. I can slow down to fly with Cubs except that on landing they are 10mph slower and can get into rougher spots with more margin due to the tougher airframe/fabric construction. On the top end is where the S-21 shines. I can cruise at 150mph TAS with 27.5 Desser tires (cheaper and more durable than ABW). No comparison on a cross country between a Cub and S-21.

[@maxbootstrap7397]

Yup, hard to beat the cub variants optimized for slow stall speed and short landings when you need to land places you simply cannot get into with other airplanes. However, it appears that unless you pay a great deal of attention to also optimizing those cubs for short takeoff rolls you can get yourself into the pickle where you cannot get off the ground in as short a distance ... in which case you crash and burn trying to leave those super-duper short spots. And there's also the very practical problem of trying to figure out whether you *CAN* get off the ground before you run out of room in these most marginal of all possible situations. Of course the wise bush pilot knows the safe answer to that dilemma ... wait as long as you must until you have a 30mph headwind. Hahahaha. But no joke. :-)

[@marcusnouwens6333]

Please please can you do a video on that 550 180! Would love to see a detailed review and that and see your opinion on the extra weight in the nose. There is nothing on KZbin and it would be awesome!

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

I would but it is not here. The 550 does not weigh much more than a 520 or a 470. The three blade that comes with most 550 conversions is a bit heavier. They wheel land beautifully with a bit of weight up front.

[@marcusnouwens6333]

@@skywagonuniversity5023 thanks Mark! Appreciate it. I enjoy the videos and appreciate you sharing your knowledge.

[@1225drob]

Great comparison and super fun video!

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@davidcampbell2845]

Excellent demo - both very nice and too close to call.

[@ToddWalker-gq3gn]

Love that you got yourself a Rans. The skylight though wonderful is very hot. Kroger sunshades makes a model just for the S-21. I bought on for mine. It’s a game changer. And you can fly with the doors open. Flight manual from Rans says slow below 65 and open don’t exceed 100. My experience says 75 for open max they start to float after that. Again congrats on the Rans

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

It's only mine for a while. Remember I buy planes to sell them.

[@maxbootstrap7397]

Yeah, I don't think it is fair to criticize an airplane because you need a sunshade to keep it cool when the sun is overhead. The obvious answer is a sunshade, which is exactly what you and others with windows above do in many bush-planes. The advantages of a window overhead are very substantial, both for safety and enjoyment.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

@@maxbootstrap7397 It is not a criticism, it is an observation. The Rans is an excellent plane.

Two excellent aircraft !

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Yes they are.

[@sbridge101]

Definitely Scotty. + he's so good looking. @8:50 "just fly the plane"

[@maxskydog9216]

Both excellent airplanes Thanks for the video

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Thanks for watching!

[@innovativeintelligence4172]

Great piloting all around, the toughness of the engine is impressive, from idle to full throttle all the time...

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Couldn't agree more

[@felixtorres1895]

Thank you Mark.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

You are very welcome

[@davidcole333]

Both are outstanding. I'd go with the lower cost model and use the savings for more flying time.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Wise.

[@CarbonCub]

The SS Carbon Cub, along with the EX with the 340 engine, take off and land shorter than the FX3. The weight of the 363(50 lbs heavier) along with the CS prop weight, effect performance. The FX3 takes a bit of power to keep the nose up on landing due to the weight.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

The Rans would have stopped shorter too if it had better brakes. Brakes were not as good as they would have been with smaller tires due to tire radius.

[@Mongo63a]

And the phone makes its appearance after being gone for so long.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

First ever telephone cameo from Don the Camera Guy!

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Yes, Don. Make sure it's off, ha ha ha

[@joshualorenz4665]

Flown both, I think the Rans will fly slower, faster and land and take off shorter at least the one that I flew. Carbon nicer build quality, but man that's a lot of money. Both good machines, neither are Skywagons though...

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

I agree on all points.

[@Captndarty]

Rans will not fly slower than a cub…. Faster for sure.

[@joshualorenz4665]

@@Captndarty the one I flew I was coming down the gate in the high 30’s felt fully controllable. I’ve flown the FX3, EX and EX2. Didn’t seem like I could fly approach speeds that slow but I didn’t take them to the limit.

[@Captndarty]

@@joshualorenz4665my S21 stalls at 41kias several cubs I fly around with are in the low 30’s…

[@TheJustinJ]

Cub are quite a bit slower. Wing loading is in a different category.

[@ronboe6325]

Yup, you guys won! Mark did better on his 2nd take off but floated the landing - in any event; better I could have done. You guys are both on the small side or those planes are bigger than I thought. Those big tires are making them look bigger too.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

We are both about 5,10. The bigger tires do give them a lift.

[@darrellmiller3441]

I have reached out to Mark on this aircraft. He currently has a deposit on it. Very interested if the deal doesn’t work out.

[@FINSuojeluskunta]

Mark has got some pilot skills

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Thanks. I got lucky.

[@erichetherington9899]

liked em both! ty :)

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Awesome! Thank you!

[@djquick]

Full build series of an S-21 here: youtube.com/@outbound300

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Thanks.

[@maxbootstrap7397]

Not much apparent difference in takeoff and landing distances. But I suspect with equal skill and technique the cub *should* land somewhat slower and shorter than the s21. On takeoff I noticed the cub pilot got his tail-wheel up sooner which should be better technique to shorten takeoff roll. I think much greater effort is necessary to accurately compare the takeoff and landing distances of these two airplanes. The cub *should* beat the s21 in both categories, partly because the cub *should* have slower stall speed. However, not all cubs are the same, so my impressions may apply to a different cub variant. The s21 clearly has less drag and thus *should* cruise ~20 to ~30 mph faster.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

The drone was watching and discussions like this is what we wanted. Thank you.

[@FlyingNDriving]

Side by side is the way to go unless you don't like your passenger. Flying is for sharing the joys of the view from above(not your terrible neck hair line)

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Side by side with camping gear in the back.

[@TheJustinJ]

A tandem worth flying is flown from the back seat.

[@Zaephyrs]

Acme 💥 -- loved it!

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Zaephyrs ... Genius!

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Loved it too.

[@FlightSimDude]

👍

[@Salty1952]

IMO the Cub takes off a tad shorter, but the Rans lands shorter. I prefer the tandem config due to about 400 hrs in a Super Decathlon. Left hand for throttle and right for stick is the only way to go!

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

I was very surprised how easily it was to adapt to the left stick right throttle. (like a Cirrus, in which I have one hour)

[@TheJustinJ]

The fighter setup is superior to all the others. IMO

[@RaceMentally]

Good fun !

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

It was great.

[@CarbonCub]

Absolutely no way the CC FX3 is 950 lbs empty weight. At least 100-125 lbs heavier.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

He corrected it to about 1100.

[@bobcfi1306]

Very close. Nod to mark on landings

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Excellent.

[@antonioiozzi9171]

... and...like in good old times... the telefon ring and ring, again!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Like the old days and not planned.

[@tdkeyes1]

I thought that Cub just towered over the S-21. A few inches wouldn't make that much of an impression.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Bigger tires and longer ACME gear.

[@kevinbarry71]

Seems to me both air frames have very little time on them given their age

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Low timers. It's what preferred.

[@txkflier]

I like the Rans better. All metal, side-by-side, cheaper, and looks better.

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Thank you.

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

Better performance propeller on the S 21. 🌏🇦🇺

[@New2Me170B]

Doubtful--they're both constant speed and the CC has a Trailblazer. Cubs are very draggy.

[@tagu2434]

First comment

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Very good

[@FlyingNDriving]

7:01 hell yeah! That's the only reason to cut Scott! we do it "live" like men! Impressive job picking your spot Mark, I think the cub just does a better full stall landing and being done flying. You did what looks like a nice tail low wheeler. Are they both cables for Flight controls?

[@skywagonuniversity5023]

Yes, both cables. I could have done with better brakes. I was down and braking for ages.