PDA

View Full Version : SC vs. 7GCBC ?



RBM
10-05-2006, 12:37 AM
Contemplating purchase of near new 7GCBC,would be great to hear some real world opinions based on experience in both types...are they similar enough to even make inteligent comparison? My understanding so far: the Citabria will not be near the short field performer that the SC is, the SC is not aerobatic (nor is it intended to be).Depending on mission profile, is one as much fun as the other? Thanks in advance for the education I'm about to recieve!

Arctic Flyer
10-05-2006, 01:58 AM
I owned a 7GCBC before I bought my PA-12. My PA-12 has a 150hp, flaps, 18 gear, 18 tail, borer prop, 29" gar aero's, etc. It's not an 18 but for comparison purposes in this conversation it's pretty close. Keep in mind I am not johnny bush pilot, but I do get to go out and do some fun off airport stuff.

These are some of the differences I remember:
1) The GCBC is a fast plane, even faster than the PA-12. It's fast all the time including short final, so I don't think it makes a very good short field aircraft.
2) The GCBC couldn't carry very much. Mine didn't have ext baggage or anything special. I climbed out once with a passenger, some winter gear, and full fuel and it didn't seem to want to fly, compared to the PA-12 that will fly with a much, much heavier load. I am very impressed with the PA-12's performance, even around 1900 lbs.
3) I remember doing different weight and balances on the GCBC and I was out of CG pretty quick. I don't remember specific examples, but we were stuck at a buddy's cabin once with nothing else to do :drinking: so we started doing w&b's and I remember it was an eye opener for me.
4) I liked the Citabria but it wasn't the right plane for the stuff I wanted to do, however, if 1 guy and some gear want to do airbatics and ~800' it's a cool plane. I had a 160hp that burned about 7 gal/hr.

My 2 cents...

T.J.
10-05-2006, 02:10 AM
delete

bob turner
10-05-2006, 03:03 AM
I have a J-3, regularly fly three different Super Cubs, and own a Super Decathlon. The Cub is simply different from the Champs - all of them. If you want fun in the pattern, or landing in wierd places, then a Cub is it. If you just enjoy going places, have long runways available, and don't care about flying around with a door you can open and close at will, any Champ will do.

My Super D can fly a decent approach at about 62 mph, but it takes twice the runway of a Cub flown at the same speed to the flare. Don't know about the GCBC. The 180HP Lyc can lift anything you can cram in there, at least at sea level. Don't ask me how I know that. Paperwork limits you to a very light passenger and no baggage, even for normal ops.

JMBreitinger
10-05-2006, 06:28 AM
I have 50 hours in the Citabria and just over 100 in a Super Cub so I am less expert than most here. I love flying them both. If you are flying to and from airports and not carrying a big load, either one will do fine. They are both a lot of fun.

The Champs are still supported by a working factory. Super Cubs are supported by 100s of shops all over the place.

Since owning my Cub, I have really enjoyed flying to off-airport sites and have done some things that have required a load that the Champs simply could not carry. My Cub has an useful load of 850 pounds and the room to hold a lot of stuff.

I miss the aerobatics.

If you are looking at relatively new airplanes, you will find the Cubs significantly more expensive.

HydroCub
10-05-2006, 06:38 AM
I've owned both.

If you want an airplane to go places and roll around when in the mood, buy the 7GCBC.

If you want an airplane to fly and land anywhere... carry all you can cram in it, buy a Super Cub.

The Citabria is faster, warmer, quieter and roomier..... but it is not, and will never be a Super Cub. You can learn to get a Citabria in short and off in a reasonable distance if you want to push the edge of its performance envelope. It's heavy on the controls, but an honest airplane in turbulence and crosswinds. The flaps do help. Watch out for a rear CG if you plan to do aerobatics.

My preference would be a modified PA12 or a Wide Body SC over the Citabria.

Either way, you will have a fun plane to enjoy

Taledrger
10-05-2006, 08:20 AM
Probably the only reason I would chose the 7GCBC is it's aerobatic abilities. I got my commercial in one years ago and have owned both the GCBC and the Decathlon. The type holds a special place in my life. Unfortunately I've also lost two friends in them. One doing aerobatics and one in turbulence. In both accidents "possible" spar failure of the old wood spar was cited.
Also if your considering the purchase of a late model GCBC and your spending enough to also consider the Husky. Near Citabria speed and near Cub capable but also not aerobatic.
I would buy the Cub, a PA12 or the Husky and rent the aerobatic plane.
Just my humble opinion....

Jon B.
10-05-2006, 09:47 AM
Instead of the 7GCBC, you may want to consider the 8GCBC Scout. With 180hp and a CS prop (on some), they will get up and go. If you want to get in short, plan on using lots of power, and drag it in, or you'll run out of elevator. This is true also for really short stuff with the 7, I think.

The 7-series are a hoot to fly but the useful (legal) load is pitiful. They'll carry lots more than is legal but so will most aircraft, including the Cub. It's possible but stupid. Both the Scout and the Citabria are fast - 110 (100 to 105 with a climb prop) for the 7GCBC and more like 125-135 for the Scout; less with a fixed-pitch climb prop, of course.

A newer Citabria, with metal spars, or an older one with new metal spars is exempt from the AD, so that's a good route. They gain weight with the spars, though.

If you won't be needing strips shorter than 600-800 feet, the 7 and 8GCBC will be fine. If you'll be fully loaded and operating out of less, you'll probably need a Cub. There, I said it. I fly a 90-horse Champ, though.

Jon B.

Josh
10-05-2006, 01:12 PM
I have a 7GCBC with the extended Safe Air wings, 1974 model, I also have 800+ in Super Cubs 90 HP 160HP and 180HP. With the experience I have with the both is the 7GCBC is very similar to the SuperCub however the Citibria feels a little heavier in elevator controls and really light with the ailerons cause it has the spades. The Citabria also has the funky spring landing gear wich takes some used to on short landings, The Citabria can be flown as slow as a stock SC with the modified wings of the Citabria. Also I have the split door and windows that swing out and latch to the bottom of the wings wich gives it a great photo platform........ BUT how I long to have myself a Super Cub wich Im in the midst of looking for a Cheap project(oxymoron) with the Paper work I have.

Josh
10-05-2006, 01:20 PM
I forgot to add something, the 7GCBC Citabria is a joke doing Aerobatics, might as well spend your time doing half assed L-shaped loops with a Cessna Aerocrap. might actually do them bettter than the Citabria, however if you want a good performer the Super Decathalon is the Shiz.

kase
10-05-2006, 04:40 PM
Do the spades help the 7gcbc that much? I always thought the Citabrias had heavy ailerons and light elevators.

CraigH
10-05-2006, 04:45 PM
Do the spades help the 7gcbc that much? I always thought the Citabrias had heavy ailerons and light elevators.They make a noticeable difference, but it's still heavier on the controls than a Supercub.

Never owned a Supercub, but had a nice 7GCBC once. ;)

kase
10-05-2006, 04:49 PM
I got a couple hundered hours towing banners with one. I always thought they were kind of a pig. If your going to fly out of 1500 ft grass strips they would be ok.

jnorris
10-05-2006, 06:08 PM
WARNING: Personal opinion follows. Read at your own risk!

Personally, I would walk past a whole row of Aeronca/Bellanca/Champion/American Champion "Champ" variants to get to a Super Cub (or any Cub for that matter). In my opinion, the Cubs just fly nicer. The control feel is nicer (lighter in all axis), they handle the wind better, they get off and on the ground shorter, you can fly with the door open (except the Cruisers and Coupes). And the Pipers look better too!

No Aeronca products (or their derivatives) for me!

Joe

bob turner
10-05-2006, 09:18 PM
I agree. I keep the Super D because I like to do slow rolls and I like to get there this week. I keep the Cub because it is a delight to fly.

Those spar failures: Any of them Decathlons?

Taledrger
10-05-2006, 09:51 PM
Those spar failures: Any of them Decathlons?

Bob,
If your referenceing the ones I mentioned, yes, one was a Decathlon. The airplane was a 1975 (I think) 150hp with C/S. It was about 5yrs old when the accident happened. During a spit s manuver the right wing appeared to give way. The owner/pilot was in the process of renewing his low level airshow waiver with the FAA. They witnessed it from less than a 1/4 mile. In defense of the airplane it had a wing "tap" accident a couple of years earlier and I just don't think the cracks were ever found.
I did my waiver in it the day before and it flew fine....

Greg Smith
10-06-2006, 10:14 AM
One day last winter I went to fly the J-3, but it was already booked. I decided to go flying anyway, and went and rented a Champ. Most of my tailwheel time is in Citabrias and Decathlons, but I had never flown a 65hp Champ.

The Champ has several things over the Cub, but IMHO, flying isn’t one of them. I like the ease of entry and exit, the trim system, the visibility on the ground, and the heater. Getting off the ground seemed to take forever compared to the Cub, and the climbout was anemic. In the pattern it sank like a stone when power was reduced. It just didn’t feel like it enjoyed flying as much as a Cub does, and it was looking forward to being back on the ground.

The Champ (and its descendants) isn’t a bad airplane, but the Cub (and its descendants) is better. Even on the ramp sitting next to a Cub, the Champ looks… well… pudgy, with it’s little potbelly.

Between the two I’ll take the Cub -and when $$$ permits, a SuperCub- because it suits me best. * Determine which aircraft fits your needs and your budget, get it, and fly it a lot.

*My wife’s “love of flying” is different from my own, I’m afraid… For me, “the fun is in the going.” For her, the fun is getting there quick. Ideally, I’d like to own a light, bare bones, mostly stock 160hp SuperCub and a 182.

Snert
10-06-2006, 11:48 AM
Didn't we loose Jim Batterman out of Timmerman and a student in a Decathalon spar failure accident around 1989?

12Geezer2
10-06-2006, 12:29 PM
Have time in both. Both fun airplanes , cubs are my pick for most reasons already mentioned. If you park in a small hanger and put the plane away tail first as I do. Most of the time I simply pick up the tail of my 12 and in the hanger we go----now try the Citabria. My geezerhood really shows up here cuz I can't pick up that heavy tail.

jnorris
10-06-2006, 03:17 PM
Didn't we loose Jim Batterman out of Timmerman and a student in a Decathalon spar failure accident around 1989?

The accident was in 1990, and was actually due to the failure of the strut-to-spar attach fitting, rather than the spar itself. Here's a link to the NTSB report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22874&key=1

Joe

RBM
10-07-2006, 01:14 AM
Thanks to all for responding...large pool of knowledge and experience on this forum!

The plan is a 1500' grass strip at my house, the hangar is under construction (when I'm not on SuperCub.org). I think the 7GCBC will serve my needs as a newbie and be an adequate platform to take some aerobatic instruction in the future. I have no plans on serious aerobatics, just my own enjoyment. The plane I'm contemplating has the factory seaplane equipment which opens the door for future float flying. (I live by a lake) The G.W. is lame, but it helps that I weigh under 150. Not sure what the best choice for tires would be due to those damn pocket gophers augering my field but I'll get some more experienced pilots to size it up before I start using it. Now if I could just learn to land the 7ECA that I'm taking lessons in.......

T-28
10-07-2006, 04:27 AM
Had dinner with Paul Mantz in 1964 at Pensacola. I was a student, he was a master. His story that i remember to this day was of a movie stunt where he flew a Champ into a barn. He recounted that the plane was so strong that he cut the wood spars half-in-two with a hacksaw so that the wings would break away evenly upon impact. He felt that the steel tube airframe "cage" of the champ was the strongest in the business and could keep you alive.
A cub above stall speed kites, a champ above stall speed has a definite "sink-rate." If you learn to use it, you can use the sink rate to come in over the trees to land VERY short.
A champ is not a cub, but a champ has a flight envelope that is very useful, also. Figure out how it flies, then use it that way. It's a pretty good plane. Have fun.. :)

Frenchy
10-08-2006, 08:04 AM
You should fly a CUB before you make up your mind!

Roger Peterson
10-08-2006, 09:26 AM
I learned in a Cub. bought a Champ because I was short of money. Flew it 3 or 4 times and sold it. It was a poor excuse for flying in my book.

kase
10-08-2006, 09:27 PM
One think nice about a 7GCBC is you can just buy it and fly it. Dont have to figure out what kind of prop, tires and cargo pod or aux tanks you need. Biggest mod is figuring out what GPS to buy.

Ron Babos
10-08-2006, 10:40 PM
Roger: You didn't fly it enough. I remember the first flight in myChamp. I thought, man what a piece of sh*t. I'd really have a hard time parting with it now. Like T-28 says, learn to fly it and use the flight envelope.
Ron

mvivion
10-09-2006, 06:29 PM
I think that the single biggest difference here is the $$$$$$ involved.

Personally, I've flown 7AC's, 7 GCBC's, 7KCAB's, 7GCAA's, etc. They are all great little airplanes, and they have a lot of good attributes.

Are they a direct replacement for a Super Cub?? Nope.

But you can buy two pretty good champs for hte price of one pretty good Super Cub.

A lot of the Citabrias now have metal wings. They are heavier than the wood wing aiprlnanes and thus have VERY little useful load.

But, they are honest airplanes, they are fairly fast, economical, and they are fun to fly.

Are they a Super Cub? No.

I'm with T-28--learn to fly the things, and you'll find that they are a lot of fun to fly.

As Adolf Galland replied when asked what his favorite fighter aircraft was during WWII "The one that I was flying at the time".

Some's bettern others, but it's hard to beat that guy's logic.

MTV

aalexander
10-10-2006, 02:01 AM
A lot of the Citabrias now have metal wings. They are heavier than the wood wing aiprlnanes and thus have VERY little useful load.

Mike, how much heavier are the metal spar wings? It doesn't seem to me that there'd be a significant weight difference. Also, if you install the factory aluminum wings, you get a gross weight increase. I don't know how much, but hte new citabrias have a 100 lb higher gross weight (150 for the GCBC)

Do you know for certain that difference in weight between wood and metal spars is greater then the gross weight increase on the STC?

cubhunter
10-10-2006, 02:52 AM
not that big of a difference put milman metal spars in my 7ac conv.115hp champ don't remember exact but not more than 10# per wing if that..

mvivion
10-10-2006, 07:50 AM
I don't know what the increase in empty weight is on a wood wing Citabria, but I know when I was told what it was, I was pretty surprised. Thirty pounds or so seems to be what I heard, but that's guessing.

In any case, if I were rebuilding a Citabria, I'd go with the metal wings.

In fact, the local mechanic told me that AC has a wing exchange program that is, according to him, a LOT cheaper than rebuilding a wood wing yourself. He said he almost cant' afford to rebuild a wood wing for the price that the factory will sell a brand new metal spar wing, covered and painted white.

MTV

m wittler
10-10-2006, 11:07 PM
The 7GCBC is a Real "GOOD" airplane, notice I didn't say Great, I had a old timer tell me the are every bit as good as a SC, Well that depends.

The Big, Flapped Champ does pretty good but just add 100+ feet to everything, take offs, & landings. Guys like Kase and Wilber, And all the Pro pilots up north, Could put one in & out where most average pilots couldn't do with a hot rod SC.

If short IN & Outs don't really give you a woody like me, Then they are a great plane. Cruise is A lot Better, Way more comfortable, and easier to get in and out.

The first Taledragger I owned was a 74 7GCBC, with 750TT, Great plane to learn to Stick and Rudder in, only because you are on the ground longer to Learn!!! I Traded it for a SC Have'nt missed that bird since, except on a Long Flight.

Thanks Matt

aalexander
10-16-2006, 09:38 PM
I don't know what the increase in empty weight is on a wood wing Citabria, but I know when I was told what it was, I was pretty surprised. Thirty pounds or so seems to be what I heard, but that's guessing.

In any case, if I were rebuilding a Citabria, I'd go with the metal wings.

In fact, the local mechanic told me that AC has a wing exchange program that is, according to him, a LOT cheaper than rebuilding a wood wing yourself. He said he almost cant' afford to rebuild a wood wing for the price that the factory will sell a brand new metal spar wing, covered and painted white.

MTV

Mike to follow up, I posted a question about this on the Bellanca/champion forum. I'm interested because I'm rebuilding a citabria at the moment and I'm considering replacing the spars with aluminum. Anyway, according to the responses I got, the milman replacement spars add about 10 lb, and the new Champion wings add about 15 lbs, and you get the full 100 lb max gross weight increase that the new citabrias have. (150 lb for GCBC) One of the guys who responded was an owner of American Champion. He said that the reported large weight increases were because many airplanes had never been on a scale, and they were much heavier than the w&b showed, so when they weighed hte plane after re-winging, it *seemed* like they gained a great deal of weight. After they figured out what was going on, they started weighing the airplanes before the conversion (the ones why converted at the factory) and after, and it was found that the conversion typically added 15 lbs. The reported large weight increases were due to old fat airplanes with inaccurate weight and balance sheets.

regards.

bob turner
10-17-2006, 12:17 AM
Never weigh one of these things. If my wife (110 lbs) and I (195) and full fuel are over gross at computed weight, think of how bad it will be if I weigh the thing!

Jerry Gaston
10-17-2006, 09:33 AM
Heres my 2 cents!! I have owned a 7kcab and have probably 1800 hours in that plane. I have had it to Canada several time on fishing trips and have flown it all over the place in the states. It flew great and was a real pleasure to fly with or without the wife or kids.
I would crawl over all the Citabrias ever made to get to my supercub. It has all the right STCs and can be used with great utility for everything I need. And I got tired of doing acrobatics.

bob turner
10-17-2006, 08:14 PM
Have one of each, like me. I never get tired of going fast, upside down. But I sure prefer the Cub in the pattern.

Bill Cangero
10-18-2006, 06:37 PM
:angel:

OK--so now that we have heard about the Citabria's good and bad points--who would like to talk me out of owning my 7GCAA 150 HP Citabria. (no flaps)

Jerry Gaston
10-19-2006, 11:13 AM
Bill i'll talk to you about owning one... It all depends on two things money and use. What you going to pay for it and what is the use. My motto is that "you can't put and price on fun"
Flaps are or should be optional-who needs flaps on any plane with 150hp my 7kcab didn't have flaps and I never needed them a slip is just as good as flaps.

TurboBeaver
02-05-2015, 07:48 AM
This old thread cracks me up, as with any comparison of airplanes one needs to be fair, first of all anyone reading this is most probably a dyed in the wool cub guy, so of course 85% of the comments are based on "their" favorite airplane. The fellow asked how they compare,
Well to compare them lets keep everything the same, I am guessing most of the comparisons are being based like this, the cubs are striped
Down , ext landing gear and big tires, borer props the airplanes they are usually refering to as Citabrias are for the most part basic factory
Airplanes with a landing gear that provides no where near the correct AOA so your instantly comparing apples to oranges, so unless you have flown a Citabria on 30" tires where it gets the same aoa as the cub that their comparing it to, your down the wrong road already.
Atlee told me 30 years ago, a borer prop is the single one thing that will enhance a cubs performance more than anything else, of course he was right, 99% of folks comparing them are likely comparing cubs with long props? Comparing a cub with a flat borer prop to a citabria with a standard landplane prop is of course, not fair as to how they actually compare in anyway what so ever. I dont know
How long its been since anyone flew a PA18/ 150 on 6:00x6" tires, with a standard 74" /56 pitch prop but upon refreshing my memory , I remember running down to MT to pick up a cub in that configuration, and I distinctly remember thinking , I could be in the air with my cub , before i could get the tail up on that one! A standard cub unmodified in anyway, is a far cry from what folks are usually comparing em to............. I had a friend with a striped down GCBC that he installed Scout gear legs on it at Mel Wicks, with a 80/41 prop ,it also had wings squared off with Scout wingtips and VGs, he did some flying out in interior Alaska
With us one winter chasing wolves around . We both had Landes 2500 skiis, but in this case HE had the AoA advantage, and he seamed to be very capable ,of doing anything the rest of us did in our cubs, the airplane did a hell of a good job. I was very impressed with how it worked, the gear was amazing in drifted snow that was knocking the fillings out of my teeth on cub gear! Now had he had the low gear and short prop, no extended wings and tips , then
That would be a different story..........just sayin.....

RaisedByWolves
02-05-2015, 08:05 AM
I have some time in a 180hp 7gcbc. That was a performing airplane. And would cruse at 135-140mph indicated. They are great all around tail wheels, roomy and comfortable with a great heater. Would probably do everything most of us need them to do..

fobjob
02-05-2015, 11:12 AM
Took aerobatic training in the '70s in a citabria, since I was still young and dumb I then tried all the maneuvers in a cherokee 140..(no snap rolls, however)....I came out of that (alive) with the opinion that the cherokee did better aerobatics than the citabria...the citabria had so much factory built-in headwind to make it relatively safe for training, that it would barely do maneuvers at all.....just my humble opinion...

Roddy
02-06-2015, 02:14 PM
This old thread cracks me up, as with any comparison of airplanes one needs to be fair, first of all anyone reading this is most probably a dyed in the wool cub guy, so of course 85% of the comments are based on "their" favorite airplane. The fellow asked how they compare,
Well to compare them lets keep everything the same, I am guessing most of the comparisons are being based like this, the cubs are striped
Down , ext landing gear and big tires, borer props the airplanes they are usually refering to as Citabrias are for the most part basic factory
Airplanes with a landing gear that provides no where near the correct AOA so your instantly comparing apples to oranges, so unless you have flown a Citabria on 30" tires where it gets the same aoa as the cub that their comparing it to, your down the wrong road already.
Atlee told me 30 years ago, a borer prop is the single one thing that will enhance a cubs performance more than anything else, of course he was right, 99% of folks comparing them are likely comparing cubs with long props? Comparing a cub with a flat borer prop to a citabria with a standard landplane prop is of course, not fair as to how they actually compare in anyway what so ever. I dont know
How long its been since anyone flew a PA18/ 150 on 6:00x6" tires, with a standard 74" /56 pitch prop but upon refreshing my memory , I remember running down to MT to pick up a cub in that configuration, and I distinctly remember thinking , I could be in the air with my cub , before i could get the tail up on that one! A standard cub unmodified in anyway, is a far cry from what folks are usually comparing em to............. I had a friend with a striped down GCBC that he installed Scout gear legs on it at Mel Wicks, with a 80/41 prop ,it also had wings squared off with Scout wingtips and VGs, he did some flying out in interior Alaska
With us one winter chasing wolves around . We both had Landes 2500 skiis, but in this case HE had the AoA advantage, and he seamed to be very capable ,of doing anything the rest of us did in our cubs, the airplane did a hell of a good job. I was very impressed with how it worked, the gear was amazing in drifted snow that was knocking the fillings out of my teeth on cub gear! Now had he had the low gear and short prop, no extended wings and tips , then
That would be a different story..........just sayin.....
Turbo Beaver, you're right on the money with that. Thanks

Bill Rusk
02-06-2015, 03:24 PM
TurboBeaver - there is validity to your post but just for arguments sake, I'm going to offer another consideration.

The Scout will never be a SC because of the airfoil. It does not matter what size landing gear, tires, prop, etc you have or use. If an airfoil will "cruise" fast it will not "lift" slow. If it will lift slow it will not cruise fast. Everything is a compromise in aerodynamics.
Look at a Beaver and a Caravan. One cruises at 100 knots, the other at 145 knots. Look at the airfoil. Beaver is about a foot thick. Caravan about 6" thick. One develops lots of lift at slow speed but develops lots of drag at higher speeds. The other develops less drag at higher speeds but develops less lift at slow speeds.

AIRFOIL IS EVERYTHING!!!

Ya can't have your cake and eat it too with aerodynamics. It's all a trade off.

Bill

TurboBeaver
02-06-2015, 05:54 PM
Bill,
I agree with you about the cub airfoil producing higher lift at lower speed, that is a fact
However, this has been highly exgerated for years by cub guys ( me included), the bottom line
On all this is grab a cub rib, then grab a champ rib, hold them up and look em over
Lay one ontop of the other ? NOw the actual true difference is right in your
Face, you will most likely be surprised how little difference there actually is! If the planes weigh the
Same and same horsepower proping etc, there is no where near the difference folks are always
Crowing about, say you are landing a Cub at 40, and can stop in 250 ft( Valdez. Shows us thats a streach
For alot of guys) Now say your flying a Citabria at 42 mph and can operate in 300ft, what is that actually worth to ya?
I mentioned take offs because that is what guys live to compare, the Champ wing benifits from AOA more than
A cub wing does to begin with however 99% of the Champs or Citabrias I see are sitting so low it is impossible
To know what its capable of................. added Scout gear and a long prop turns them into a completely
Diferent airplane, I am not saying they will get off quite as fast as a SC, but the true difference is no where near
What lots of guys claim because they dont understand the airplane
Case and point here 35 years ago in Greenville there were many takeoff contest on floats between
Cubs and Champs , and of course this AOA advantage was gone involving the short gear of a champ.
Same engines same props , Level playing field.
I had a PA11 /90 in those days with a 74/40 prop on 1320 floats , if there was no wind 7-8 secs
Were common times with the 11 if every thing went right, there was lots of Champs with 90hp
Engines on 1320s so really the only thing that was different was the two "WINGS" themselves,
I remember lots of times watching some of those champs getting off in 8-9 secs all day long...this
Huge difference just wasnt there? If the cub guy messed up he
Could get beat, if his engine wasnt as strong or his prop not
As long or flat they got beat, so that certainly wasnt much difference?
So my only point is, this thread does crack me up ,as its loaded with poor information, nothing will
Beat a cub but another cub , we all realize that. However it gives up everything else, to have the highest lift. That was a huge
Issue as a guide ,for flying off the side of mountain, but like someone else said on this thread there are hundreds
Of guys flying cubs, that have no idea what the airplane will really do.......... I think the Champ wing does a great
Job if given a fair chance, guys that love Colts, often feel a S&W is junk, I dont subscribe to that one either!

wronghand
02-07-2015, 01:10 AM
Contemplating purchase of near new 7GCBC,would be great to hear some real world opinions based on experience in both types...are they similar enough to even make inteligent comparison? My understanding so far: the Citabria will not be near the short field performer that the SC is, the SC is not aerobatic (nor is it intended to be).Depending on mission profile, is one as much fun as the other? Thanks in advance for the education I'm about to recieve!
This is the original post. From the O.P.'s post, his question is "depending on mission profile." I gotta go with Turbobeaver here. I dont know about anyone else, but I have had just as much fun in a GCBC as I have in a cub. Yanking a SC off in 200 feet is a blast, but doing slow rolls and loops in a Citabria is a blast too. Boils down to mission profile.

skywagon8a
02-07-2015, 08:47 AM
I also agree with Turbo on this one. Once upon a time I had a 7GCB (round tailed version of the 7GCBC) with the early Aeronca type landing gear. A friend had a stock PA-18 both had the same 0-320 powerplant. He could always beat me out and in as far as distance went. I modified the Champ with Ferguson drooped wing tips at the outboard rib (did not cut back the spar in accordance with the instructions), 9:00-6 tires and an 80" prop. Then there was very little difference between the two. The Champ was much more comfortable and easier to get in and out of.

ps. I love my Cub but if I had to choose and circumstances dictated I would not reject the 7GCBC. There are things that can be done to it that will do wonders for the performance.

TurboBeaver
02-07-2015, 09:30 AM
That sounds about right Skywagon, the actual differences when your on a level playing field is certainly NOT what a lot of folks think it is ,
Just for fun here is a copy of a 1959 brochure I found the other nite pawing around in some old junk................. of course factory figures can often be liberal, and these figures are for a NON electric version of the then 7GC or 140hp version of a 7 EC, note empty weight of the plane, then check out these published figures ???? Pretty impressive by anyones standards. Especially when you consider you can probably buy the GC plus a modest home for he cost of a cute little PA 18!!!!! lol........................ must keep this all in good fun as I realize how proud all pilots are of their favorite aiplanes! Sorry about the old faded tape in the seam of this old brochure!

S2D
02-07-2015, 09:54 AM
Try as you might, you still cant make a silk purse out of a sows arse!!! the gcbc may be more comfortable and it may get off close to as short or land close to as short, but it doesn't have the cub wing and there is no way you are going to be able to work it alongside a SC.

TurboBeaver
02-07-2015, 10:07 AM
Well very few people could "work" their Super Cub; beside legends like Bill Ellis, or Denny Thompson, but that certainly wouldn't imeadiately qualify theirs as a "sows arse" would it??? Actually I though that was sows ear..... .

Randy
02-07-2015, 11:10 AM
18893
Well very few people could "work" their Super Cub; beside legends like Bill Ellis, or Denny Thompson, but that certainly wouldn't imeadiately qualify theirs as a "sows arse" would it??? Actually I though that was sows ear..... .

Looks are deceiving sometimes....but these Montana boys know a thing or two about "working" Cubs, too.

skywagon8a
02-07-2015, 11:44 AM
http://www.supercub.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=18892&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1423320233

Notice the wing span. It is two feet less than a Cub. It is very likely that this is a major reason for the performance difference.

kase
02-07-2015, 02:36 PM
You should fly both and the decide. Ive flown a Citabria's alot and I don't like the control harmony. To light in pitch and to heavy in roll. Over all good airplane with factory support. However for what a newer one cost I would be more interested in a Husky of the same value.

skywagon8a
02-07-2015, 02:48 PM
However for what a newer one cost I would be more interested in a Husky of the same value.

You would not say this if you were a mechanic. There are way too many screws which need to be turned to look at anything. Read that as $$$$ if you have to pay the bill.

kase
02-07-2015, 03:05 PM
You would not say this if you were a mechanic. There are way too many screws which need to be turned to look at anything. Read that as $$$$ if you have to pay the bill.

Actually I am and still would take a husky over a citabria.

Super11XP
02-07-2015, 04:23 PM
Here is my .02 cents on the subject:
as some of you know, I built a replica pa11 with flaps and a c90 with c85 pistons. It's empty wt was 750. A rancher in WY now owns it, and I miss it a lot.
To replace it, I bought an experimental 7ac champ with the following mods: extended cub style gear with die springs shocks. 0320 a2b 150 hp and Vetterman exhaust. Catto prop, 18 gallon wing tanks, which eliminated the nose tank, swing up entry door, and VG's. The fuselage was beefed up in the same way that the citabrias are to handle the heavier engine, and the empty weight of the plane is 950.
Now of course I thought that this was going to have near super cub performance, but for much less $$$$. Boy was I wrong! While it will cruise at 110 real easy, it simply won't slow down the way a cub will. Flaps would help a lot, but the airfoil just doesn't cut it IMO. You just can't "horse it around" at the slow airspeeds the way you can with a cub.
I tried a Catto 86X37 prop, and that did improve the takeoff, probably close to what a stock supercub would do, but then the top speed suffered, so I went back to the 74X54.
As others have said, define you mission, a champ or citabrias isn't a bad plane, but it ain't the same. It's for sale by the way!

supercrow
02-07-2015, 04:40 PM
Nice looking unit 11XP A lot of time and money goes into a project like that. Well done.

WA L16
02-07-2015, 10:20 PM
I think TurboBeaver has it about right, the differences in wing performance probably wouldn't make a noticeable difference for the average pilot or average mission. There are however more noticeable differences in utility for the off airport crowd such as gear strength, legal useful load, and the previously mentioned angle of attack (or lack there of) that make the 7gcbc less desirable. Without scout gear on the 7gcbc there's just not enough clearance to safely run long props for wheel/ski planes, and my understanding is that getting field approvals for scout gear or a borer prop for that matter, are all but impossible at the moment. Given the lack of STCs available for these aircraft you just don't have as many options to tailor them to your mission profile and for me that weakens their appeal for backcountry flying.

As for handling qualities I would say the super cub wing and control harmony allow lower time or less practiced pilots more comfort, control, and feedback in the low speed end of the envelop but given time and a bit of practice the same comfort level can be achieved with the champ wing.

It's worth noting that the scout is a different beast than a 7gcbc, although the two are often spoken of as being same or similar. Scouts typically have a much higher empty weight (and gross weight ), have more horse power, longer gear, longer wings, and I believe the airfoil is that of the decathlon (semi symmetrical) not the citabria lines flat bottom wing.

Perhaps the closest comparison would be between a 7gcbc and a super cub on edo 2000s with identical props, but I have zero experience with these two planes in that configuration.

jwmusgrove
02-08-2015, 01:39 AM
My 2c worth
I talked to Charles W. Lasher quite some time ago. He relayed to me that crop dusters preferred the Cubs because the Champs loaded did not have "good tight turning characteristics". I have little experience in this so cannot verify. I believe Charlie was employed by Aeronca as an aeronautical engineer.
I also heard that flying the Champs in turbulence was like swimming the English Channel. This I can verify.
Because of the noticeable adverse aileron yaw, you cannot sit there flat footed and jockey the stick, nor can you hold a newspaper and fly with just your feet. You learn quickly to apply coordinated controls or skid all over the place. For this reason, they make good primary trainers.
Early in the morning, they are a delight to fly. In mid-afternoon thermals, you climb to 10,000 feet to keep from getting hammered. If you are trying to go somewhere.
jw

TurboBeaver
02-08-2015, 04:37 AM
WAL16, good post and great obsevations, I do think if you look closer the Scout wing does have the basic Citabria rib though, (with larger openings for thicker spars)and not the Decathlon that you mentioned, both are good airplanes, great comments! The citabria I had mentioned with scout gear, also had the end of the wing modified like we do on cubs where they square the spars up to the very end, that is done on that wood spar, with filler blocks to make the spar full all the way out, you can then
Add full ribs outboard of the last rib and put a buttrib out on the end to accept a scout wingtip, that added
Something like 20" per side of lifting surface, so of course that and his vgs made that plane fly noticeably slower
Than a normal one, as perceived from the ground watching him land vs a normal cub they looked very
Simalar so he was down in that 38/40 range .
I am pretty sure Buzz Wagner held an stc or multiple field approval for doing all that to Champs so folks could
Install his drooping wingtips, so I think that paperwork was handy to get approved for adding Scout tips, on a Citabria............

JW,
As far as lateral stability of aircraft is concerned you may have that backwards, airplanes with more
Dihedral generally speaking tend to fly straighter than airplanes that have less, just for trivia we put
SCOUT struts on a Citabria once to get rid of the dihedral (they are shorter) and I imeadeatly noticed the
Airplane started acting more Cubish, or hunting for a different place to fly in rough air? So not to be agrumentive
But I found dihedral to enhance a smoother ,straighter ride in rough air , jm2cw
Good descriptive video linked below check it out!
Cheers
E

http://youtu.be/m4fnZwSYpmQ

skywagon8a
02-08-2015, 06:46 AM
Super11XP,
If the only reason for which you want to sell your Champ is because of the performance, there are a few things which you can easily do to correct this.

1/ Improve the pitch control by cutting off the stabilizer just outboard of the outboard hinge and weld the parts onto the elevator.

2/ Improve the directional stability by adding the Aeronca fin leading edge extension. This is a bolt on part and a little fabric work.

3/ Increase the wing span as Turbobeaver has suggested. I've done this on a certified 7GCB with a field approval. This also greatly improves aileron response.

4/ Install larger diameter tires. They don't need to be large "bush" tires.

5/ Install a Citabria seaplane prop 80-46. More diameter than 80" will reduce cruise speed with minimal take off/climb improvement. I've tried this.

6/ This is a little more work but would definitely be the ticket. Install flaps. These would be my preference: http://www.performancestol.com/products.htm At the very least a 7GCB or 7GCBC (they are the same) installation would do.

After you complete steps 1 thru 6 you will be removing the "For Sale" sign.

In recent times I have looked at some of the fields which I have flown in and out of with my modified 7GCB. I can't believe that even a Cub would be able to use those fields. I miss that plane, what a joy to fly.

TurboBeaver
02-08-2015, 07:21 AM
Super11,
Check you pm's!
E

RaisedByWolves
02-08-2015, 09:25 AM
I flew my champ all over the place for a few years, didn't think it was any worse than a cub on rough days, one thing is if you want to put it in a bank and take pictures hands off, it will keep righting its self. I sure did learn a lot about flying in that under powered over weight airplane. But with that being said, I wouldn't trade my 160hp Supercub for anything

Steve Pierce
02-08-2015, 09:46 AM
You should fly both and the decide. Ive flown a Citabria's alot and I don't like the control harmony. To light in pitch and to heavy in roll.

I agree, having flown several different models, with and without the spades I don't like the control feel, same with the Husky. My personal opinion based on what I have flown and what I like to do in an airplane.

Steve Pierce
02-08-2015, 09:52 AM
You would not say this if you were a mechanic. There are way too many screws which need to be turned to look at anything. Read that as $$$$ if you have to pay the bill.

I have maintained several Huskys over the years and think it is a breeze to work on. I can take the cowl off in 2 sections without removing too many screws. No need to remove all the outside panels but if needed it is handy like when we put one on Super Cub gear which took a lot of welding and had to do no fabric work. They are good, well built airplanes that need little besides basic maintenance in my opinion. I do like my small Makita screw gun. ;)

Super11XP
02-08-2015, 09:53 AM
Super11XP,
If the only reason for which you want to sell your Champ is because of the performance, there are a few things which you can easily do to correct this.

1/ Improve the pitch control by cutting off the stabilizer just outboard of the outboard hinge and weld the parts onto the elevator.

2/ Improve the directional stability by adding the Aeronca fin leading edge extension. This is a bolt on part and a little fabric work.

3/ Increase the wing span as Turbobeaver has suggested. I've done this on a certified 7GCB with a field approval. This also greatly improves aileron response.

4/ Install larger diameter tires. They don't need to be large "bush" tires.

5/ Install a Citabria seaplane prop 80-46. More diameter than 80" will reduce cruise speed with minimal take off/climb improvement. I've tried this.

6/ This is a little more work but would definitely be the ticket. Install flaps. These would be my preference: http://www.performancestol.com/products.htm At the very least a 7GCB or 7GCBC (they are the same) installation would do.

After you complete steps 1 thru 6 you will be removing the "For Sale" sign.

In recent times I have looked at some of the fields which I have flown in and out of with my modified 7GCB. I can't believe that even a Cub would be able to use those fields. I miss that plane, what a joy to fly.

I guess I really got spoiled with my cub, perhaps that is why the champ seems so marginal to me.
1 pitch control is fine, the original builder installed gap seals.
2 Directional stability is also fine.
3 I'm sure added wingspan would help, but probably won't add to the resale value, and will take lots of work.
4 It has tires nearly the size of 8.50s, bigger would help some but....
5 Already tried the Catto "stump puller" It's impressive, but does nothing to help land shorter. It still wouldn't even come close to competing with my old cub on takeoff.
7 I completely agree with you about flaps. I recently flew a 160 hp Citabria with flaps and spades. The flaps do help a bunch on the low end. I wasn't impressed with the roll rate though. The question for me is weather I really want to do the work. I'm currently building another cub project and would prefer to focus my time and effort on it.
I can admit it: I'm very biased towards the cub line. Thanks for the imput.

Cub junkie
02-08-2015, 10:05 AM
Clint, that may not be a cub but it's a nice looking ride. Somebody will get a good airplane.

skywagon8a
02-08-2015, 10:05 AM
...1 pitch control is fine, the original builder installed gap seals.

When mine was on floats it would run out of up elevator on landing. Changing the stabilizer/elevators solved this issue.

Since you are building a Cub now, I understand your thinking.

WA L16
02-08-2015, 03:59 PM
TurboBeaver, that sounds like a sweet flying 7gcbc. Does anyone have any experience with the citabria crosswind stol kit? I requested some info from them a few years back and never received a reply. There was a flight school out of talkeetna that had a cuffed scout gear 7gcbc for a while. Always wondered if that mod did much for its performance or handling. Although bolting on more stuff doesn't help its useful load issue I suppose a factory metal spar wing could help with that by bumping the gross weight another 200 pounds, but are they ever spendy.

skywagon8a
02-08-2015, 05:16 PM
Here's a Champion 402 with two Continental 0-200s and fixed pitch props built in 1963. As I recall the factory listed the single engine climb speed as a "rate of descent".
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRRYQNQUezWJvPFw3bWMPYAblpb5VCae O_wPoRShD0ApNmSfdr4Xg
There was an STC issued to install a pair of 0-320s. That version might be fun to put floats under. I found 12 remaining on the FAA registry.

TurboBeaver
02-08-2015, 06:04 PM
Cant comment on the stol kit stuff, like Skywagon suggested you might want to investigate doing stuff on back of the wing, like those double slotted flaps? However ,bang for the buck , vgs will do the most for the least, but the extended lifting surface to the end of the spars ,and Scout wingtips are the real secret to waking up a Citabria, the long prop will buy you more thrust but none of it is going to show you the real potential until
You can get the AOA up where it belongs, that is an absolute. Because the champ wing isnt quite as thick, to get it working your
Going to have to get the wing cocked up , we did a bunch of measured TOs with his GCBC before he had Mel Wick install the Scout gear legs.
Lightly loaded it was basically a 300 /325'ft airplane, on Landes 2500 skiis , after he got the longer gear on it was a 200/225' airplane,so like a cub ,you could get it out, of any place you could land it. Though that would not be the case with a standard model, short gear and short prop.
Was it a PA18, ??? Nope not quite, but it sure as heck, a very nice working airplane! And nothing like some of the comments you could hear around the pilots lounge. Here is a different one, a picture of a modified ECA Citabria, with the correct AOA, wings done to include Scout tips and VGs, and the Borer prop, on a 300ft sandbar in Alaska.............................
18917

Here is a guy flying one without any mods just a standard 7GC,[SkyTrac/] no big tires or long prop just plain janer, gives an honest interpretation of the speeds it lands and takes off at for comparision to a cub without flaps landing or taking off?
claiming, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxx-vjSA6VQ

Cub junkie
02-08-2015, 06:50 PM
Here's a Champion 402 with two Continental 0-200s and fixed pitch props built in 1963. As I recall the factory listed the single engine climb speed as a "rate of descent".
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRRYQNQUezWJvPFw3bWMPYAblpb5VCae O_wPoRShD0ApNmSfdr4Xg
There was an STC issued to install a pair of 0-320s. That version might be fun to put floats under. I found 12 remaining on the FAA registry.
My dad had one of those N9960Y. It was serial # 21 out of 25. Sold it to a guy in texas in 1990. I see its in North Dakota now. Was an interesting airplane for sure.

skywagon8a
02-09-2015, 06:44 AM
My dad had one of those N9960Y. It was serial # 21 out of 25. Sold it to a guy in texas in 1990. I see its in North Dakota now. Was an interesting airplane for sure.

Cool! Someone who actually had one. Years ago while stopping for gas in Pennsylvania I found two in the back of a hangar which were partially disassembled. And I saw one take off once. It is different enough to peak my interest. I've always wanted to try one just for the hell of it.

mvivion
02-09-2015, 10:01 AM
Cool! Someone who actually had one. Years ago while stopping for gas in Pennsylvania I found two in the back of a hangar which were partially disassembled. And I saw one take off once. It is different enough to peak my interest. I've always wanted to try one just for the hell of it.

Ah, Pete, don't try to BS us........you're just wanting to build MEL time in your logbook......8)

MTV

Cub junkie
02-09-2015, 10:41 AM
I was gone in the military for almost the whole time my dad had the 402. I got one ride in it. My AME here in Louisville,KY Arthur Shulthise has one in airworthy condition but he doesn't fly anymore himself. I think his son flys it if it gets flown. My dad was a hardcore Champion guy his whole life. He also flew another Lancer when they came out but he didn't own it. I think Champion was trying to get him to buy one. I remember it was around our FBO for several weeks. Plenty of stories about the Lancer, most of them involve being scared. The fake gear switch was cool.

Doug Budd
02-22-2015, 05:40 PM
:-)
I guess I really got spoiled with my cub, perhaps that is why the champ seems so marginal to me.
1 pitch control is fine, the original builder installed gap seals.
2 Directional stability is also fine.
3 I'm sure added wingspan would help, but probably won't add to the resale value, and will take lots of work.
4 It has tires nearly the size of 8.50s, bigger would help some but....
5 Already tried the Catto "stump puller" It's impressive, but does nothing to help land shorter. It still wouldn't even come close to competing with my old cub on takeoff.
7 I completely agree with you about flaps. I recently flew a 160 hp Citabria with flaps and spades. The flaps do help a bunch on the low end. I wasn't impressed with the roll rate though. The question for me is weather I really want to do the work. I'm currently building another cub project and would prefer to focus my time and effort on it.
I can admit it: I'm very biased towards the cub line. Thanks for the imput.
Me too Clint

S2D
02-23-2015, 11:29 PM
My 2c worth
I talked to Charles W. Lasher quite some time ago. He relayed to me that crop dusters preferred the Cubs because the Champs loaded did not have "good tight turning characteristics". I have little experience in this so cannot verify.
jw

just reminiscing today with another pilot that used to hunt in an 85 hp champ. First year I Had my Supercub, I didn't have skis for it but had them on my champ. We go out and shoot a bunch then go back and pick them up in the champ. They were load hauling little buggers to put two grown people and 6 or 8 coyotes in them. But they just sucked in a turn.

DENNY
02-24-2015, 01:59 AM
I think it boils down to how much weight are you going to carry. A stock 135 hp 1950 ag cub had a GW OF 2,070 LBS I have one (160 hp) and it handles weight just fine. I have buddy with a Citabria that flys with passenger and camping gear that lands everywhere I do. If you can fly close to the weight limits and stick strip attitude/limits than bang for the buck a Citabria is a great plane. If you need a heavy hauler/can handle a beating plane than the cub is the answer. I would love to have a Citabria (metal spar)but I am not that good of a stick, married a rich wife and tend to work my plane so a cub is the plane for me.
DENNY

TurboBeaver
02-24-2015, 02:52 AM
Back in the early 50's when Folsoms Air Service was just getting rolling,
The then Chief Pilot Andy Stinson( still kicking at 97 years young) likes to speak
About all the tiny ponds that he and Dick pioneered operating out of, the main
Airplane they used was a 90hp Champ on Edo 1320 floats, Now I am sure
Folks were alot smaller than (pre McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Col Sanders garbage)
But a standard load was hauling TWO hunters or fisherman into dam small places!
Andy claimed until the 125 SC came along the old PA12s were not an option .
Alot of the ponds would make todays modern pilot in his SC scratch his head,
Most required tight step turns and circular takeoffs with spiraling climbouts
With grossly overloaded planes, often in high summer tempertures, and on the
Backside of ridges and Mts with unhelpful down drafts. They used them for
Years as the plane of choice for hauling TWO people and gear.......
Andy later went on to become the Chief Pilot of Maine Warden Service , I am
Pretty sure if he heard a couple of newbie cub fellas , proclaiming the
Merits of how much vastly superior a cub was over a champ under the
Exact same conditions they might get themselves into a conversation
They would have no bussiness in? A Super Cub is a wonderful airplane
And is a very forgiving airplane , gives fantastic short field performance,
However owning one, does not mean your a bush pilot , or you are capable
Of difficult tricky flying that only years and years of pratice will cover.It takes
Alot more than a borer prop and a set of big tires to hold that title.

pak
02-24-2015, 01:13 PM
Turbo, I agree with your last comments regarding buying a cub and being a good pilot. I also remember that a lot of those pilots ended up in the drink. Additionally, as the SC became available all the old choices took a back seat. I agree that stick time is the best mod you can buy. The laws of physics have not changed and not a single pilot has been able to operate contrary to those laws even though it might appear that way at times. The envelope on most planes is larger than where most of us operate, but the edges get fuzzier the closer we get to the edges. Operating at the edge requires experience and time. I know a lot of pilots(you do also) who crossed the edge and spent time, money and energy recovering from injuries and pulling planes out of the bushes.

TurboBeaver
02-24-2015, 04:09 PM
Well said Pak,
And one should always remember when your flying someone elses airplane and things go wrong , pioneering places to land, whats to short
And what isnt, even though the lesson is learned it isnt the same as learning "the hard way" , (out of your own checkbook!) I was very fortunate to have been in Alaska at a time when the profit margin from a bear hunting was such that, bending a prop or a gearleg, was
A very common event, but that was at the "lodges" expense. I know there will be lots of guys on here that unfortunatly have had to pay for
All that out of "their pockets" and sometimes that can be brutal......... of course flying around alot of the old great "polar bear guides" didnt
Hurt your chances either if you would listen, there was a wealth of knowledge in the older guys that had gone before you, when I stop
And consider the guys that had been fooling around in S Cubs since the early 1950's even back when I first got my paws on one in mid
1970s they had already plowed up about all the ground you could with one! And like you said there is them that have done it, and those that
Still have it all in front of them! Fly safe thats the most important thing on here.........
E

pak
02-24-2015, 05:23 PM
This thread has drifted from the original title however it is going in a very interesting direction. When you mentioned polar bear it raised a lot of memories for me. I grew up around several guys that would head North in February to hunt polar bear. I had no appreciation as to the challenge required for that kind of flying until I started flying and got a SC. I admire the pathways these guys pioneered with flying skills and innovations. I remember when large tires were 24x11x4s and the props were turned back in pitch. I recall a friend doing some flying with one of Roger's props in order to get it approved. Man, was he excited about that prop. Same excitement with the airstreaks.

TurboBeaver
02-24-2015, 05:56 PM
Well of course that prop of Rogers, and those tires you mentioned, were and still are the "two biggest things" to ever hit town , in the world of Super Cubs. When I first got to Alaska in the late 70's , I had never even seen except in a picture, a set of Airstreaks !!!! They were not something you saw in the lower 48 very much then. Sorry about letting the thread drift off into another directions................. guess we are lucky the internet police, didn't tune us up for being naughty boys on here.................. LOL , guess your from that same era Pak, I flew for years for SeaAir's outfit out in Non Dalton[ The original Alaska Safari Inc ] and old Ward Gay always refered to the old cruise props we had laying around, that were either 74/58 or 74/60s as "Polar Bear Props" as he and Ray Lochee Ron Hayes, Don Johnson , Bob Curtis [inventor of the Curtis Jerk] all used them from either Teller or Kotz , to get all the way accross that ice, over to the coast of Russia , where the big ones were !!!! Ditto on any cub from that same era
That had 4 tanks all 18 gals, we always refered to them, as "polar bear cubs".....they all had been rigged
Up with HF radios, and many still had the antenna reels in them long after the radios were long gone.
I can still hear Bob Curtis calling " WGG 97 -Tickchik Lodge , 698TK over"
Nowadays everyone thinks satellite phones are all the rage, but we could sit out on the lower Yukon River , or up on the Northside of the Brooks Range ,in the late 70s ,and call Trident radio, in Anchorage on 5mhz during the day and make a phone patch, anywhere in the world back then, only problem was everyone in Alaska was listening to every word you said!

Cheers
Earle

WanaBNACub
02-24-2015, 07:17 PM
This is a very interesting thread to me as I bought a Citabria 7GCBC a little over 2 years ago to learn to fly in. In that time I have amassed 340 hours and have done some pretty darn cool stuff. Almost all of those hours are off airport to let me enjoy my first passions of hunting, fishing and photography. And the best part of that is the fact that it fit in my budget. There is no way I could have afforded a cub and still had the money to do what I have done with that airplane. I flew with lots of cub drivers and my 7GCBC could do at least 90% of what they were doing. I am just barely starting to push the limits of what my Citabria is capable of and I have found numerous places that I would like to get into but hesitate because of the gear limitations. Now in the past few months I have retired from the military and landed a really good job that will allow me to get the cub I have been dreaming of since I first wanted to fly and hopefully a hanger in the next year or two.
If money is a limiting factor then I would not hesitate to recommend a 7GCBC or 8GCBC to anyone. Especially if you are a new pilot learning. You won't be able to tell the difference between the handling characteristics of a cub and a citabria for quite a while anyway and you will be able to afford to get out and enjoy the places an airplane will take you and burn lots of fuel. Whatever you decide to go with just make sure that you budget for lots and lots of avgas and make friends with the oldest bush pilots you can find. You will learn an awful lot just buying them a cup of coffee and listening to their amazing flying stories from the good old days!

pak
02-24-2015, 09:37 PM
Wana, The 7s and 8s are very good planes. They are faster, roomier(probably not a word), warmer and quieter than most cubs. If you live around Anch, faster is good for getting away from town. You are quite correct that a 7 or 8 properly set up will do at least 90% of what a cub will do. Cubs just give you a bit more margin for error.

don d
02-24-2015, 11:02 PM
After rebuilding a few rag wing Pipers and then a Scout I' m not wild about the Aeronca construction. A lot of weird fittings and that wood in the fuselage just sucks. Piper is a lot simpler, lighter and easier to repair.

skywagon8a
02-25-2015, 05:37 AM
If you are going to put it on floats, the Cub has a far more ridgid fuelage structure. I had a 7GCB which wiggled so much when in rough water that the door would pop open. The later 7GCBC is a little more ridgid, but the fuselage frame still wiggles. Don't know if this is a long term negative or whether it even matters. I like the Cub door better for when on floats since the Champ door blocks moving forward on the float. Also if hand starting you need to close the door in order to get back in the cockpit.

TurboBeaver
02-25-2015, 06:02 AM
19104

skywagon8a
02-25-2015, 06:13 AM
Yes Turbo, however that is a modification. Most Champs do not have this.

supercrow
02-25-2015, 07:21 AM
True; and though a good mod, only a few I have seen are legal by field approval. Many are illegal, too bad no STC for that mod. The front of that door area is a notorious weak spot for ski and float use. Makes it difficult in a wind on floats to get away from a shore and make entryl with the front hinged door; same on PA -12's. With some minor structural improvement seaplane doors make so much sense on a Champ; just too expensive to get approval now.

skywagon8a
02-25-2015, 07:47 AM
With some minor structural improvement seaplane doors make so much sense on a Champ; just too expensive to get approval now.

There is nothing about the Champ door or it's attachments which should require a major alteration. It seems to me that approval should be just a minor alteration with just a log book entry. Wouldn't just a piano hinge at the top and a latch at the bottom be suitable? This change should not require either a field approval or an STC.

WWhunter
02-25-2015, 10:11 AM
Not sure if this is still a viable STC for the 'Seaplane' door on the Champ series. I had this type of door on the Champ I recently sold, but it was done with a 337. I seem to recall that there was a guy that had an STC that would advertise on BS.

STCNumber SA3-322 (Click To Print Record)
Manufacturer AMERICAN CHAMPION AIRCRAFT CORP
MakeModel 7 Series
TCNumber A-759
Description Door modified to seaplane door.
Status Issued
ACO CE-C
STCHolder E O Kunde, Personal Air Service, Mahtomedi MINNESOTA 55115 UNITED STATES

supercrow
02-25-2015, 10:41 AM
The one I owned years ago was with field approval; trying to do it since was told engineering would have to be done? As to my comment on structural, I wasn't referring to that in ref to either door; just have seen several broken and would be a simple fix to improve it. I have repaired a couple that gave out at the bottom front of the door, and seemed like such a large door opening could use some improvement.

skywagon8a
02-25-2015, 11:55 AM
I looked this SA3-322 up. There is no reference as to whether it is multiple use or one only. For someone who is interested it would be worthwhile to either find Mr Kunde or to contact the Chicago ACO.

Incidentally I used to work for an engineer who worked for Aeronca when the Sedan was designed. He told me that he was instructed to design the Sedan around the use of the Champ door. It seems that Aeronca had a large supply of doors in inventory to use up.

RaisedByWolves
02-25-2015, 01:16 PM
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/25/8dbe08d7be74e35dfa69110bb9b32bfd.jpg

Works great! Can fly with it open and everything.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/25/1e27f4925961667c75126423d8c87d8b.jpg

TurboBeaver
02-25-2015, 01:26 PM
19105Pete, I saw on another site where Mr Kunde has past away .





Here is another one quite nicely done.................. Great pictures Tom thanks for posting. Is that your machine?

skywagon8a
02-25-2015, 01:35 PM
Tom,
How does the paperwork address your door? FA on a 337, STC, minor alteration in the log book?

RaisedByWolves
02-25-2015, 01:40 PM
Tom,
How does the paperwork address your door? FA on a 337, STC, minor alteration in the log book?

Field approved in the mid 90's if I remember correctly. They also put a left side citabria window and citabria heater too.

skywagon8a
02-25-2015, 01:49 PM
...Pete, I saw on another site where Mr Kunde has past away .
In that case one needs to look up an heir and/or go to the ACO.

Dody Evenson
02-25-2015, 05:33 PM
I agree with the apples and oranges thoughts.
I fly a 7GCB with Scout gear on it and an 82/41 Borer prop. I will be the first to admit it's not a SC. However I have about 50k less invested in my Champ! It still does a great job on wheel, skis or on Edo 2000s and I have been able to haul the same loads, or darn close to, the Guys with the SUper Cub,

So if we're comparing a $100,000.00 Sc to a $40,000.00 Citabria or Challenger like I fly you're not being fair to yourself.
Now, if I had 100k to invest in an airplane, I'd own a Cessna 180, and that will definitely haul more than a SC.

But, you're still comparing apples and oranges!!!!

So I guess it comes down to whether you like apples.................. Or oranges! Lol

TurboBeaver
02-25-2015, 06:38 PM
Dody,
That sounds like a very nice outfit, you got a nice light airplane , you got the flaps, the good gear and the right prop. What you cant do , that can be done in a SC is really getting into splitting frogs hairs.............. like someone said earlier in the thread , a champ rib is not a cub rib and it does NOT develop as much lift at low speeds , however it is pretty easy to get totally carried away with that line of thinking; As really the sorta person that needs that type of utility; and the ultimate STOL performance, is certainly not the avg owner, When I see guys landing on dead flat 800ft sandbars, on 35" tires that you could easily land twice with that GCB on 8:50s, it does crack me up.
Ditto on landing in 3-4" of snow and calling it a foot, again with $4000 tires and a $200.000 Super Cub; and I am thinking gosh a guy could do that in a $12,ooo Tcraft on 6:00 x6 tires , it gets a little silly . When I was guiding I HAD to have a Super Cub, because we were always pushing, what even the cub was capable of doing , However if your not doing that , the fact of the matter is, you certainly don't need a quarter of a million dollar Cub to land on a sandbar with $4000 tires on it. Granted it is one hell of a cool looking outfit, and if you can afford one , I am "all for it", Hey just the pride of ownership; would be great.. But it sure as heck doesn't mean that is the only aircraft that is capable of landing there ....................... Champs have always been a really good compromise airplane and have some great attibutes. I think they are fantastic bang for the buck and offer a lot of performance for the money, pretty much unbeatable for the dollar spent. If your a dyed in the wool Cub guy that's great too, weather you need one or can really fly it, isn't evidently that important at all , its an image thing and I understand that completely,My only gribe is these lounge pilots hanging around the airports , comparing airplanes that they know very little about either one ??............... unfortunately they are entitled to their own opinion......................

Dody Evenson
02-25-2015, 07:57 PM
TB,
Youre right on the money with your opinion.
Its like two guys going to the Fleet Farm store. One says I only buy slip on boots. The other guy says I only wear lace up boots! Or I only like this shot gun or that rifle!

Well, they made plenty of Super Cubs, and they made plenty of Champs!
Theyre not all still sitting at the factory so someone must have liked them! Lol

RaisedByWolves
02-25-2015, 08:08 PM
I put almost 300 or more hours on my 7ec 90hp champ. I could go most places my cub buddies could go. Getting out was the hard part. Oh and you wanted to carry something besides myself. Haha that's funny. I learned a lot about flying. I have a 160 hp Supercub now. I can go everywhere I could in my champ, but with all my camping gear and someone else. It's gets really fun when I have nothing in the cub. Two totally different airplanes. I had a lot of fun in the old champ. Doesn't like two people and full fuel in the summer. Climbs better with the doors and windows closed on that day.

It was amusing landing on sandbars and hills on 800x6's where the super Cubs on bushwheels landed.

In my eyes the big thing is practicing in the airplane you're flying. I could take the champ in the places some people couldn't get there Supercubs into but I was flying a lot, slow flight and spot landings weekly.



I couldn't take the champ where I take the cub now, and I love my super cub. Champ is still fun to fly. You get used to power and performance of the cub.

TurboBeaver
02-26-2015, 04:26 AM
Tom,
Just for interests sake, how do you think your old 7EC
Would perform if you took your 160hp engine and Borer
Prop and bolted them onto the face of it?? Now add a set
Of 30" tires , do you think you would struggle to get out
Then, or have trouble hauling a passenger and camping
Gear? I had one rigged up that way in Alaska and it got
Off light in 150' and would hold the vsi right at 1500fpm
Until the cly head temps , said knock it off! If you back up
To apples to apples and flew yours against a Pa 18/95 with
Regular prop, elec system so you both weighed the same ,your
Going to find a lot of similar limitations...........

RaisedByWolves
02-26-2015, 01:09 PM
I have a little time in a pa-18-105 same empty weight as my champ and same tires too. The 105 flew like my 160, just didn't get off as good or climb as good. Defiantly did better than the champ. I only have a few landings in the 105 but from those, it did better than the champ. For the most part people are not using sc's for getting in and out of tiny places, and a gcbc would do fine. I have a bunch of time towing banners in a 7gcbc with a fixed pitch 180hp. Got off pretty short and cruised at 130-140 depending on how much power you wanted to push in. And it would get in and out pretty good. Not as good as the cub but close. Was nice to be able to cruise down fast, set up the banner pull it slow and haul ass back home. Only had 36 gal tanks which was good for 3 hrs and you better be on the ground. That's if you leaned it.

RaisedByWolves
02-26-2015, 01:14 PM
One other thing to consider is legal mods to a certified airplane. Want to put an extended baggage in a -18? No problem, multiple options. Citabria? Good luck. Extended gear? Who do you feel like buying them from, cub crafters, atlee airframes, citabria? Want to put a cargo pod on? What do you want, firman, airglass fuel/ cargo, or straight fuel. Citabria, again out of luck. It all boils down to what do you want to do with the plane.

TurboBeaver
02-26-2015, 03:36 PM
Good post Tom , there are very few airplanes that offer the latitude as a Super Cub when it comes to mods, from that respect it would be impossble to beat a cub. I think the extended gear is still a go because American Champion offers it as a kit to upgrade to Scout gear legs. But for mods the PA18 has more than any plane I can think of . Good point. Funny even with all the mods available so many guys that own cubs are moving over into
the experimental ones to get away from the legality of flying a certified airplane. Too bad it has come to that . Over regulating general aviation is what pretty much killed it in Canada and looks like we are well on our way here as well. I my lifetime I have seen the time when 500 signatures would get a lot of attention, I think that the AOPA and EAA have around 27,000 signatures now on their latest endeavor and looks like in todays climate in Washington that doesn't mean squat................... had a fella tell me yesterday, if that number was 270,000, they would react exactly the same as they have. I guess its come to the point they don't have to answer to anyone, seams like Senators and Congessmen cant seam to even control them at this point.................... looks like they run this government depts. the same as Hoover ran the FBI for years. [However he wanted to] Doggone shame it has to be this way.

RaisedByWolves
02-26-2015, 07:39 PM
Now a days, experimental is the way to go in my opinion, seems like the faa and local FSDO don't want to help with anything, if I had no intentions of flying for "hire" I would have experimental. Wouldn't be bad if they were willing to help with field approvals. Thread drift over..

TurboBeaver
02-26-2015, 08:28 PM
THREAD POLICE :peeper
After todays anouncement on the new bill II, maybe 27,000 signitures do count. How about that part were they got 180 days and if they dont Like it , it becomes law anyway!!! Getter done! :flag

skywagon8a
02-27-2015, 06:39 AM
Now a days, experimental is the way to go in my opinion, seems like the faa and local FSDO don't want to help with anything, if I had no intentions of flying for "hire" I would have experimental. Wouldn't be bad if they were willing to help with field approvals. Thread drift over..
Do you mean to tell me that Pierce doesn't have the local FSDO wrapped around his little finger yet?

RaisedByWolves
02-27-2015, 07:58 AM
I have gotten one field approval, which is one more than I have ever got before

pa12drvr
02-27-2015, 06:29 PM
"In my eyes the big thing is practicing in the airplane you're flying."

^^^^^ tru ' dat

mike mcs repair
02-27-2015, 09:27 PM
...Want to put an extended baggage in a -18? No problem, multiple options. Citabria? Good luck. ...

just make it a clamp in mod.... minor.. did it with my PMI's direction even moved battery to firewall (Scout, later factory model moved batter, referenced their blueprint).. only field approval he had to do was for the battery itself SBJ16 or whatever...