Shooter pulls the trigger

I did some additional fitting today in preparation for covering the fuselage. I installed pulleys, cables, the front seat, brake assembly under the seat and the right horizontal stab and elevator. I will have put this thing together ten times by the time its finished.

Nice size Cub!

Mine is 28" inside too but only 7' in the cargo area but long enough to sleep in with the rear seat removed. I actually did sleep in it once with a 30" wide 3" thick Thermarest pad in the back but I need a tapered pad 'cause the pad sticks out the side of the tubes. Mine's only about as long as my 170 but a lot lighter for sure.

I'm using Kydex for the interior down low and fabric half way up and no ceiling...thought that would be quieter than alum but a bit heavier.

I'm building from plans and out of my head so I'll watch your post like I have Bill Rusk and others to learn along the way...this is a great site to learn how to build an flying machine!!

When my airplane is at gross weight of 2000 or maybe a bit heavier I find that when at landing configuration I run out of forward nose trim. This with the belly pod full up to around 100 pounds, upper and extended rear baggage compartments at 15lbs each, at least 50 lbs behind the seat, and a 135 pounds in the rear seat. You might find that the super extend baggage is very limited in weight capacity because of the limited trim range at slow speeds. I limit my super cub to 30 pounds beyond the standard rear baggage compartment, this is 15 upper and 15 lbs in the extended baggage area and I'm concluding even this is too much as previously described. Could be particular airplane. but any weight added is aft c of G. I think at weigh in my tail was at 78lbs to give you a base line with all other things being equal. Perhaps a fabric floor for all surfaces beyond standard baggage would of been adequate because nothing heavy goes there anyway. 016 is certainly the correct approach.

Shooter, Where are the extra two feet in the fuselage? Is this a one time special for you or has Backcountry incorporated the stretch in all of their Cubs? Have others been built with this stretch and if so are there any flight reports available? This is the first fuselage stretch of which I have heard. The extra leg room in front will be appreciated.

I'm also 6ft and modified the factory type seat for 2 additional inches. Basically it slides back 2 more inches. Added additional seat stops in fron of the seat rails in addition to the seat level indexing stops. The rear stick just touches the map pocket back of front seat in the full forward stick position. So a slight adjustment to the turnbuckle/stick position would help.

C.G. range is a major consideration with the long fuselage. Lot's of room for light bulky stuff in the aft compartment. I will take photos tonight and post to illustrate the extension. I will be using a larger engine, IO-382, 200 Plus horsepower. The extra weight up front will help. Additional changes include a flattened floor forward of the front door post. The floor does not taper up to the lower firewall as on a standard SC. This greatly increases foot room. Toe brakes are standard.The modifications are unique to the Backcountry Super Cub Gen II. Several are under construction at this time but none are flying. The aircraft is an enhanced and modified SQ-2.

I think the extra leg room will be nice for sleeping in but don't think I will be putting much back there. As far as I know there are only 3 of these eating built as of now. A forth is set here in a month or so. I too am going with the .016 aluminum. My engine arrives next week and the real progress will really start taking shape. Anyhow, here's a couple shots before it left the factory showing the length. I also don't foresee using the third seat. This is Ranchpilot laying in there. He is 6'3"

Great photos showing the length. I think it's over gross with Bruce and the other two guys. Is that the way they give a thumbs up in Wyoming? Les Field of Cody Wyoming is building one. He has his wings covered and waiting on his fuselage. What engine are you using?

After a lot of considerations, weight, power to weight ratio and simplicity, I am going with the O-360 - 9-1 forged, hallow crank, magnesium ring, magnesium sump, EarthX, Pmags, 60 amp Alt, Lean Carb jet drilled (MA4-5) and a 86/40 Catto on the nose. Garmin G3X covers everything inside keeping it light. Interior is the same as you with the .016 aluminum and lightweight boards for the flooring. Hoping this beast will come in at or under the 1200b mark.

AKT

Sounds familiar. I'm running a IO-382 hollow crank, magnesium sump, fuel injection, aerovoltz or earthX, probable light speed plasma 3 with hall effect and one mag. For STOL work a Catto 86/38 and for cross country a Catto 84/46. I will also utilize the Garmin G3X package. I have chosen Ceconite and the Air-tech finish process as my prior experience with it using 2 coats of primer and finish as opposed to the recommended 3 coats results in a very light finish. I too hope to final at 1200 pounds.

Sounds like the Aerosport Wildcat? That engine will be 20+ lbs heavier and I am curious if the weight to HP is really that big of a deal. Fuel injected and constant speed also adds weight. Betting I have you beat for at least 40lbs... Just ruffling feathers is all...

AKT

I'm building it at Superiors facility in Coppell Texas. I will be able to test run and dyno it when finished. Aerosport does the same engine and calls it the Wildcat. I spoke to them at Oshkosh but could not get a call back from them when I decided to purchase. I called them several times. I went direct to Superior. I understand the extra weight, but, you can't have too much horsepower or too fat tires. It a STOL aircraft. I love a challenge. We will see what the scales say.( you will probably win, I'm throwing in comfort items for the wife and my old tired body)

The lighter they are the better they perform.
http://youtu.be/-QZURE21mBM

Your 100% correct. However, when your a card carrying senior citizen who's abused their body for over 60 years, the extra weight of a few creature comforts off sets the minimal decrease in performance especially on those LONG cross countries in a 85-95 MPH airplane. If the intended landing spot is so short that 20 pounds is going to make or break the landing and eventual takeoff, my old testosterone level will not allow me to land there. I'm not bullet proof and invisible anymore. And I certainly don't bounce and heal like I used too. Let the young guys and girls have at it. I'll be duly impressed as I watch from above and find me a spot 50 feet longer.The power to weight of a 1100 pound aircraft with 180 HP is 6.11. A 1222 pound with 200 is 6.11. A brick can fly if it has enough thrust acting upon it. My aircraft will have full span slats, a 38 foot plus wing span and 4 inch extended chord. LOTS of wing lift area as compared to a standard SC wing. I am using the same airfoil. Lift is a factor of surface area providing the lift, thrust and other factors. I think I'll have above average performance at about 1200 pounds. Time will tell.

Shooter, I hope that you are going to use the Keller slotted flaps.

I'm thinking about the Keller flaps but they are pricey $$$$$$. I guess you can't take it with you. I'm at least two months from the wing project. We will see if Santa brings them to me.

Sorry for the hijack Shooter but this is about all I can think about! Kellers for me!! That what makes this plane the plane it is. Betting Santa brings them to ya Shooter!

If it were me and I had to chose just one, it would be the extra long Keller flaps. Though the combination of the flaps and the slats will make a well balanced STOL performer without having to have the nose pointed at the sky which is necessary for just the slats alone. The extra cost would be but a very small percentage of the final number for a much larger percentage of performance. In my opinion.

Good luck in that 1200 pound weight. Start bribing, errrrrr, communicating, with the owner of the scales now.....you may need all the help you can get.

MTV

It appears that a little clarification is needed as many on this website take all statements literally. The aircraft is under construction. It is a new aircraft. No one has built one nor flown one. There are no stats or infrormation available for the finished product. There is no build manual. There are no known's, only unknowns. The benefit of an experimental aircraft is that the builder has the ability to make changes as they see fit. Changes and choices from builder to builder will meet the individual personal preferences of that builder for his/her mission statement. My aircraft will be used for general off/on airport and improved, unimproved backcountry strips. I will not use it as a competition aircraft. It will be built for utility use and cross country flight with appropriate creature comforts for myself and wife. We are both senior citizens. It will meet the needs of our magazine to represent to other pilots and non-pilots the format of a STOL aircraft. It will be our STOL centerpiece at fly-ins and airshows. My friend and brother in flight, Aktahoe, is much younger than I with a different mission statement. As friends we will harrass each other about our individual builds. It's part of the fun and I welcome his comments. The 1200 pound number is a goal. I doubt seriously if I will make it with what I am adding to my build, but it is still a goal to strive for. This aircraft can be rated 2400 gross. Even if I come in at 1300 pounds with the large wing, full span slats, possible Keller flaps and 200 plus horse power, I think it will perform well. I will have a 1100 pound useful load. At my expected 210 HP I will have a power to weight ratio of 6.19.That beats the heck out of my Cessna 180 at 10.87 and a 1200 pound 180 Cub at 6.67. Thanks very much for the comments and suggestions. As always they are all appreciated.

Dennis, when you cover your frame with airtec weigh all the stuff you get before you use any of it and then think about what your going to do. I mean absolutley nothing buy this statement, just something to consider.

I'm weighing everything. I'll let you know the numbers when I get there. I have used Air-tech previously on my J-3. I am extremely pleased with the outcome. The aircraft weighed 697 pounds at completion or 17 pounds lighter than it left the Piper factory. I appreciate your concern and input.

OK weight watchers, I did some initial investigation on my weight. Here's the numbers. I loaded everything into the airplane. This includes airframe, primed and painted but no cover, brakes and 26 inch wheels installed with shock system, covered but not painted tail feathers, all pulleys cables and springs, all floor panels stained and polyurethane. All interior panels, primed and painted from rear seat back. Unpainted from rear seat forward. Front and rear seats with foam, no upholstery. All windows, doors, window frames, door frames, and all nuts and bolts. All of this weighed 382 pounds. The wings with out cover or tanks but otherwise ready to go weighed 222 pound including the steel rack. I'm knocking of 20 for the rack so say 200 pounds. The tanks are about 14 pounds each. I estimate 24 pounds for cover not including paint.

So here is what I guestamate.

Fuselage with all stuff added 382 pounds

Wings with tanks and cover, no paint 256 pounds

Avionics 22 pounds

Engine 365 pounds

I need to add struts, exterior paint, windshield, boot cowl and cowling.


This is a big bird. Much larger than a standard Super Cub, 4 inch wider, five inched taller, two feet longer and 3 1/2 more feet of wing. I'm officially revising my completion estimate to 1300 pounds. That should give me a power to weight ratio of 6.5 to one. Still not bad.

Don't want to rain on your parade but 1300 is a good number for a 180hp Supercub with all the goodies in it. Saw a really nice one today, high twelves. I bet those Oregon aero seats he had are comfy.

I hope you crush the 1300 empty weight. There is no better feeling then coming in under your goal weight.

I don't care what it weighs, it's going to be a cool project and as said, it's a cruiser for senior citizens and comfort.(I'm there too on age)

Tom, never any rain on my parade. I live in Texas. It NEVER rains in Texas. With my estimate, its time to get weight critical. I have the figuring down to the aircraft that I want. It's now a matter of building it and keeping it under the goal weight. It will be interesting to see how Aktahoe, Ken Field and other do on weight as they progress along. I am interested in seeing some of their numbers as I have nothing to compare to. I can look at a standard Super Cub but it really is a different much smaller aircraft. The standard Cub's numbers just don't add up to this much larger airframe. I'll strive for 1300 and see where it goes.

Friend of mine build a stretched pacer that is 4 inches taller in the cabin than a normal Pacer plus 0-360, stamped Taylorcraft airfoil wings with Cessna 172 flaps... Lots of other mods to boot.. It came in at 1320... So, that being said, I think your 1300 weight is very realistic...

Brian

Thanks Brian. Excellent information. Gives me a reference point.