• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

SC vs. 7GCBC ?

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
 
kase said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
skywagon8a said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
skywagon8a said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Clint, that may not be a cub but it's a nice looking ride. Somebody will get a good airplane.
 
Super11XP said:
...1 pitch control is fine, the original builder installed gap seals.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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".
images

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.
 
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.............................
338.JPG

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
 

Attachments

  • 338.JPG
    338.JPG
    78.7 KB · Views: 412
Last edited:
skywagon8a said:
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".
images

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cub junkie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
skywagon8a said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

MTV
 
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.
 
:)
Super11XP said:
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.
Click to expand...
Me too Clint
 
jwmusgrove said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
supercrow said:
With some minor structural improvement seaplane doors make so much sense on a Champ; just too expensive to get approval now.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sj
Mark Baker Named President And CEO Of The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Replies
16
Views
5K
ER Upgrade
E
C
Alaska's Bush Pilots
Replies
16
Views
6K
Scruffdog
S
Steve's Aircraft (Brian)
SR-71 Blackbird, Brian Shul's memoir
Replies
27
Views
44K
mvivion
mvivion
Lowflybye
Training Wheels or Tailwheels?
Replies
16
Views
5K
Lowflybye
Lowflybye
Gunny
COMMENTS OPENT UNTIL 14 SEPTEMBER Proposed 3rd Class Medical Exemption COMMENT NOW!
Replies
12
Views
8K
Gunny
Gunny
Back
Top