gregrobertson Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Now I am embarrassed, but I do try hard to make sure all my clients are happy. Do I succeed? you would have to ask a Skyranger or Nynja owner. Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lark Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Can you get dual control sticks for the skyranger, or is it centre stick only? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Can you get dual control sticks for the skyranger, or is it centre stick only? If you look in the Aircraft section of the site you can see images of the Nynja with dual sticks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lark Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Don't know how I missed that pic, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hihosland Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Now I am embarrassed, but I do try hard to make sure all my clients are happy. Do I succeed? you would have to ask a Skyranger or Nynja owner.Greg. This client is very happy with the plane with the local agent with the international Skyranger e-community 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 The dual control sticks on the rangers are the most robust I have ever seen on a U/L. I think they are both good aircraft and stronger undercarriages than most. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregrobertson Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Can you get dual control sticks for the skyranger, or is it centre stick only? Both the Skyranger and the Nynja are available with dual sticks. This is a no cost option. Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Both the Skyranger and the Nynja are available with dual sticks. This is a no cost option.Greg. You may or may not be aware that, in New Zealand, every aircraft goes on the same register. There is no separate 19-xxxx style registration. The CAA even groups every kind of aircraft together on their register. This happens to put Best Off aircraft slightly ahead of New Zealand's Boeings, salubrious company for the five NZ Skyrangers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 I carried out the structural testing of the Xair Hawk (H/Hanuman elswhere) for the UK section S approval and I fly one. You would be surprised at the loads an apparently simple bolted tube airframe can actually handle. They are also easily repairable unlike welded tube or composite airframes.Some checks you can carry out to compare the two:- If you get a chance, have a look at both airframes in the nude with no covers. Check out the way the various tube ends are terminated and bolted. Grab hold the prop (near the spinner of course!) and try to move it sideways. Push and pull on the horizontal tail planes and look at the fabric on top the fuselage. You should notice distinct differences between the two aircraft. A personal opinion - the Skyranger does exactly what it says on the tin, but the Xair is a stronger build which will handle turbulence better. Ref comments above, the Xair undercarriage is very robust and will handle "firm" arrivals with no problems. It will also take a lot more than 80 hp, I have flown 912 and D-Motor versions with 90+ hp and they were both very good, the D-Motor being even better due to the much lighter installation. Nick EI-ECK It seems as if the X Air "H" or "Hanuman" now comes with a 100hp Rotax option confirming what Nick wrote in his post. These are the engine options given on the United States based dealer's website: http://www.carolinaus.com/xair-pricing.htm Xair-H Engine choices Rotax 582, 65hp B gearbox /manual start Rotax 912, 80 hp 4 stroke /2.29 gearbox Rotax 912S, 100 hp 4 stroke /2.43 gearbox Jabiru 2200A, 85 hp 4 stroke /direct drive Xair H $21,500 $21,500 $21,500 $21,500 Engine * See note below * See note below * See note below * See note below Radiator/Cooler 751 640 640 224 Exhaust 704 704Included Engine setup/mount Included Included Included Included Instrument package 750 1250 1250 1250 Wood prop na NA NA 420 3 blade prop 490 (IVO UL) 490 (IVO-Patriot) 840 (IVO-Med) na Electric start 655 Included Included Included Add for E Gearbox w/elect start 1,066 NA NA NA Wheel pants Included Included Included Included Oil Injection 190 NA NA NA Folding Wing Standard Standard Standard Standard *NOTE: Prices for engines will have to be quoted at the time of sale due to the fluctuation in the value of the US dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I carried out the structural testing of the Xair Hawk (H/Hanuman elswhere) for the UK section S approval and I fly one. You would be surprised at the loads an apparently simple bolted tube airframe can actually handle. They are also easily repairable unlike welded tube or composite airframes.Some checks you can carry out to compare the two:- If you get a chance, have a look at both airframes in the nude with no covers. Check out the way the various tube ends are terminated and bolted. Grab hold the prop (near the spinner of course!) and try to move it sideways. Push and pull on the horizontal tail planes and look at the fabric on top the fuselage. You should notice distinct differences between the two aircraft. A personal opinion - the Skyranger does exactly what it says on the tin, but the Xair is a stronger build which will handle turbulence better. Ref comments above, the Xair undercarriage is very robust and will handle "firm" arrivals with no problems. It will also take a lot more than 80 hp, I have flown 912 and D-Motor versions with 90+ hp and they were both very good, the D-Motor being even better due to the much lighter installation. Nick EI-ECK Didn't Hawker use bolted tubes in the Fury, Hart, Hind, Hurricane ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Didn't Hawker use bolted tubes in the Fury, Hart, Hind, Hurricane ? Yes, I do know that Hurricanes are bolted frames. From http://www.spitfiresocietyeastern.org.uk/form 51.html: "In a hangar adjacent to the airstrip three Hurricanes are concurrently being progressed to airworthy status. G-HRLI belongs to Hugh Taylor and saw RAF service as V7497, construction number 41H-136172, built in 1940 by Hawker Aircraft Limited. The aircraft was shot down over Kent in August 1940. All Hurricane airframe components are joined together using bolts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 [ATTACH=full]28035[/ATTACH] Yes, I do know that Hurricanes are bolted frames. From http://www.spitfiresocietyeastern.org.uk/form 51.html: "In a hangar adjacent to the airstrip three Hurricanes are concurrently being progressed to airworthy status. G-HRLI belongs to Hugh Taylor and saw RAF service as V7497, construction number 41H-136172, built in 1940 by Hawker Aircraft Limited. The aircraft was shot down over Kent in August 1940. All Hurricane airframe components are joined together using bolts." I think it was a Hawker specialty - I believe they machined tricky multi-spigotted tube ends, which were rivetted into place. It avoided de-heat-treating the structure by welding, gave spaceframe structural efficiencies, and made them rather faster to repair from battle damage. Does anyone know how Shorts / Fairey fastened their polygonal stainless steel tube structures? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I have had a look through this "Skyranger verses X Air Hanuman" thread so far and a summary of comments are as follows: Skyranger pluses: Low cost ...but which of the two is lower cost? Easy build ...but which of the two is easier to build? Ability to operate almost anywhere ...but which of the two does this better. Won more design and performance awards than any other aircraft in its class. Cheaper than a Foxbat but does 98% of what a Foxbat can do. Quality of service from local suppliers. Straight tubing, all bolted. 188 cm tall pilot fits. Big doors: easy entry and exit. When trimmed, flies hands off easily. Excellent short field performance. The Swift model can be a tail dragger. Bolt together cabin frame. Easily repairable. The Australian distributor is a gentleman in the aircraft industry. Extensive international Skyranger community. Robust dual control sticks. Stronger undercarriage than most aircraft like this. Available with engines up the the Rotax 100 hp 912 ULS. Skyranger minuses: Fuel tank set up, fumes in cabin after fill. Head hits overhead bar. Seat cannot be lowered enough to gain sufficient clearance. X Air H pluses: Low cost ...but which of the two is lower cost? Easy build ...but which of the two is easier to build? Ability to operate almost anywhere ...but which of the two does this better. Instruction manual very clear. More detailed instructions available on the net. Many extras included in the purchase price. Best value for money for the style of aircraft. Fits a tall person 183 cm. Fits the larger person easily. Bolt together cabin frame. What is included in the X Air kit are optional extras for the Skyranger. Easily repairable. Very strong after strength tests in the UK section S approval. After having seen both frames “in the nude”the X Air is a stronger build. Handles turbulence better. Available with engines up the the Rotax 100 hp 912 ULS. Undercarriage very robust and handle ‘firm’ landings well. X Air H minuses: An ownership change and factory move have just taken place causing a supply backlog. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozbear Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I think the Skyranger has a very good supplier backup and service a very important factor in my books . Can you expand on the factory and ownership changes with the xair 80k 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 At the risk of reviving an older thread, what sort of skyranger are you talking about here. Is it the Swift or the Nynja. My biggest problem is weight. With the minister for war and finance and myself we come in at 200 kgs. Finding and aircraft to carry us both and still have room for fuel is difficult. All the ones that I have looked at have a much higher empty weight than the specs would suggest. Does anyone have actual empty and mtow for completed aircraft in each of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Does the skyranger need the 100 HP Rotax? I would think the 80 HP is enough for most pilots. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregrobertson Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 These and other questions answered in another thread comparing the Cheetah bush cat and the Skyranger/Nynja. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 These and other questions answered in another thread comparing the Cheetah bush cat and the Skyranger/Nynja. Which thread Greg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExJourno Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Nev.... maaaaaate.... I'll answer your question with another. What plane doesn't need more power, always? In fact, why wouldn't the Skyranger *need* a 114 or even 120hp donk? It would push it through VNE in cruise, you say? Nah... .they can set it up for climb and add blades commensurate with power until it is optional whether it gets registered as a chopper or a plane. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
microman Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 As someone who has built both the Skyranger and the Xair I can say that both went together easily ( and I have very limited skills) - possibly the Xair has a small edge. My Skyranger had the 92hp Simonini 2-stroke engine and while it had lots of power, it was also noisy and vibrated a lot. This made cross-countries a bit of an endurance test. Would have been much better with a 912. Climb rate however was out of this world - with a 72 inch Thompson prop it climbed at 1700 ft/min. The empty weight of 230kg helped. The Xair kit had a better quality of finish (all tubing powdercoated), whereas the Skyranger kit had non-aircraft hardware - some of which had evidence of surface corrosion a couple of years later. Both flew hands off after appropriate trims were fitted. In summary both are excellent value. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Adam I did a fair bit in one with a 58 HP HKS and a Kiev prop. At no stage did I think it was underpowered. I think the prop did a fair bit for it, but an 80 HP Rotax should do better. As you can pick up these motors fairly cheaply second hand it might suit somebody a bit short on coin. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now