ksecub; maybe it's me that should apologize. And yes, I'm pretty sure I fully understood what you meant from what you said. I didn't mean to sound so picky, but its possible someone might learn something wrong (and surely someone else would have hammered you no doubt).
Big AK; Biggie, be specific. I never said long legs and tire tires didn't change the "performance" of the Cub. I said "flying characteristics" and I put in a (much). Surely a higher angle of attack in ground effect or in the air will result in increased low speed performance. Up to the point of too hign an AOA. But I also didn't mention the effects on stall with Baloneys on the axles. Even now I'm not saying good or bad one way or the other. The point was meant in regards to the discussion on angle of incidence, no more. So sorry, but there just isn't any source for argument there. But you hit the other part right on the head. Everything you do to an airplane design is a tradeoff. I don't think I was Flaming when I said "I like the way mine flies." But I'm not in a never-ending quest after 20ft takeoffs or 450mph cruise speeds. If I really wanted more performance in those areas, I'd own a JetRanger and a Gulfsream. And my fixed gear piston popper would still be a ragwing Piper. I didn't realize the 2+2 used the Wagabond type trim system. Now THERE is something I'd look into if I were building one- the jackscrew instead of a tab!
Okay, Jerry; As long as we're being CORRECT, what Piper did right was take one Jarbonneau fella onto his payroll. That's the man that brought into being Taylor's pretty good design and brought that aeronautical knowlege over to the Piper plant. And others came, too. I sure didn't mean Ole Man Piper did the hands on design work all by himself. But a dollar says if if the Ole Man didn't like the way it flew for the mission it was on, it wouldn't have gotten built. Another dollar says Taylor may have THOUGHT the Super Cub was the airplane he wanted to build in the first place. But he didn't. I think I've heard the rumblings about what you are hinting at about this STC you mention. But I think youre right, it won't change the way I feel about the airplane I own right now. Already lots of people leave me in the dust. Just understand this. It doesn't bother me. Maybe I'll try it, and maybe I'll even like it. Agreed, Piper wasn't always right. He shortened the wings and made a better airplane (for a different mission, now) and then he put a training wheel on it and wasted it. But that don't change what a Super Cub is, has been, done or gone. One thing funny about engineering progress. You might invent a ceramic coating to keep a oilburner tailpipe from melting and get more push with more heat. You might invent some spaceage fabric that when covered with epoxy goo does the same or better job than aluminum. By all the technology was figured out sixty years ago. Very little is new. All that changes is the application (there's the trade off) and the physical limits (there's the technology). Will there ever be a better airplane than the Super Cub? Sure. No doubt. But I might be getting too old for new tricks, so them new and better ideas may all just pass me by one right after another. And I'll give every one a friendly wave. But I'm not worried about anybody taking me out back and putting me out of my misery, cause I've gone flyin.
I was blurry eyed when I posted that, I meant to say "horizonal stabilizer". The rear mount with connecter tube is mounted to the the upper longerons and moving the longerons up and down effect the amount of trim you have. On the PA-12/14 the upper longerons slope up 3/4" from the last cluster to the tail post. The PA-18 they slope down 1 1/2" to the tail post. You first level the plane like you would for rigging the wings, then hang the stabilizers with the trim system assembled. Run the trim all the way up and all the way down checking both ways with a Smart level. Make it match the PA-18's. This is something you would only do on an experimental. Crash
