Atlee Dodge oversize elevator question

[Dan M]

Running a Certified PA-18, W/180 Horse (So its nose heavy), with a lot of mods to include Vortex Gen, but standard wings/flaps. during slow flight I can generally go to full aft stick and do a falling leaf type stall. I have no real trouble with directional or pitch control in any phase of flight with the standard elevators. Just wondering if I have to get a replacement rudder is it worth going to the "Oversized" Rudder/Elevators from Altee Dodge.

My question to the group is what feedback is there from people that have changed over to the Atlee Dodge Oversized Elevators and Rudder for the PA-18?

Dan M.

 

[Charlie Longley]

I was wondering the same thing. Happened to be in Atlle Dodge last week and looked at their oversized stuff.

 

[txpacer]

I called Dodge about it a few years ago. They told me it would be a big help for 180hp on floats. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[KevinJ]

I’ve heard guys in the know say they could take or leave the oversized elevators but would not be without the oversized rudder. The 320 cub I’m having rebuilt will have both. I’ll report back.

 

[BC12D-4-85]

Seal the elevators and rudder first with CCrafter's kit

Gary

 

[cubdriver2]

Why not play with some lead and balance what you have

Glenn

 

[fishhook]

Oversize rudder helps a lot. My build currently is using exp square oversize tail surfaces, same area or close to the atlee oversize just not the stock round surfaces. Haven't flown them yet but all my friends swear by the oversize stuff and gap seals on the tail also.

 

[Bill Rusk]

Here is a link to a post that might help. Discusses the size difference, weight difference and performance test flight. These are Javron oversize but I am confident the Atlee Dodge would be almost identical.

https://www.supercub.org/forum/show...g-a-Javron-Cub&p=717193&viewfull=1#post717193

Hope this helps

Bill

 

[DENNY]

I’ve heard guys in the know say they could take or leave the oversized elevators but would not be without the oversized rudder. The 320 cub I’m having rebuilt will have both. I’ll report back.

Wow I thought it was just cold in Alaska this year, but apparently Hell has also frozen over!!! You are adding weight to a cub to make it fly better. Welcome to the Dark Side Young one!!!
DENNY

 

[Steve Pierce]

Best thing I have seen for the nose heavy 180 hp Super Cub is the Sensenich ground adjustable prop. Take 22-25 lbs off the nose from the 1A200 McCauley and performs way better.

 

[skywagon8a]

Best thing I have seen for the nose heavy 180 hp Super Cub is the Sensenich ground adjustable prop. Take 22-25 lbs off the nose from the 1A200 McCauley and performs way better.

An interesting comparison would be to ballast (lead in the tail) the same airplane with the 1A200 against the Sensenich conversion. Both being flown at the same CG. Taking the 22-25 lbs off the nose moves the CG aft to what CG? CG is the big key. What is the difference at the same CG?

 

[KevinJ]

Wow I thought it was just cold in Alaska this year, but apparently Hell has also frozen over!!! You are adding weight to a cub to make it fly better. Welcome to the Dark Side Young one!!!
DENNY

Ha! 1* in Amarillo this AM. Hell is trying to freeze!

 

[Dan M]

FWD CG and weight is not the issue at all I am still within any CG limits, so adding weight is not the issue or concern. It's all about controllability and if the "Oversized" rudder is worth the effort/cost.

Not that money is no object by any means, but if I do go oversized Ill probably do Elevators and Rudder. Hopefully get some money back by selling the old ones.

One other question, not that I'm planning on selling anytime soon but; If you were in the market to buy a Cub, would you consider the "oversized" Elevator and Rudder a "Benefit" in turn raising the value of the plane? any thoughts?



Bill
Thank you for the link to the other discussion very helpful.

 

[RedOwlAirfield]

One other question, not that I'm planning on selling anytime soon but; If you were in the market to buy a Cub, would you consider the "oversized" Elevator and Rudder a "Benefit" in turn raising the value of the plane? any thoughts?.

Mr Dan;

I would consider "oversized" tailfeathers a huge positive. But then I've always thought the tailfeathers on most Super Cubs are way too small. I've flown too many that need some power "to get some air over the tail" at low speeds. To me that means that AC doesn't have enough control surface back there.

I know I will be in the vast minority on this one, but it's always been a big negative about super cubs for me. An aircraft built for the low end ought to have full control down to and beyond stall - without resorting to "special tactics."

Just my 2 cents. I don't know anything. I'm sure all the rest of you guys are right. No need to tell me how stupid I am; I know; I've been married a long time. I don't think people who hold differing opinions are bad people, or stupid, or any other negative thing. Y'all are swell I'm sure. But that's my opinion. And dude did ask.

 

[Steve Pierce]

Is there a particular engine you had issues with tail feathers being large enough on?

 

[G44]

Running a Certified PA-18, W/180 Horse (So its nose heavy), with a lot of mods to include Vortex Gen, but standard wings/flaps. during slow flight I can generally go to full aft stick and do a falling leaf type stall. I have no real trouble with directional or pitch control in any phase of flight with the standard elevators. Just wondering if I have to get a replacement rudder is it worth going to the "Oversized" Rudder/Elevators from Altee Dodge.

My question to the group is what feedback is there from people that have changed over to the Atlee Dodge Oversized Elevators and Rudder for the PA-18?

Dan M.

Keep in mind, with bigger elevators that gentle falling leaf type of stall may turn into a full break stall. Something to keep in mind.

 

[skywagon8a]

Mr Dan;

I would consider "oversized" tailfeathers a huge positive. But then I've always thought the tailfeathers on most Super Cubs are way too small. I've flown too many that need some power "to get some air over the tail" at low speeds. To me that means that AC doesn't have enough control surface back there.

I know I will be in the vast minority on this one, but it's always been a big negative about super cubs for me. An aircraft built for the low end ought to have full control down to and beyond stall - without resorting to "special tactics."

Just my 2 cents. I don't know anything. I'm sure all the rest of you guys are right. No need to tell me how stupid I am; I know; I've been married a long time. I don't think people who hold differing opinions are bad people, or stupid, or any other negative thing. Y'all are swell I'm sure. But that's my opinion. And dude did ask.

Your observation is accurate. However remember the times when these airplanes were built. The J-3 was an improvement on the J-2. The world was recovering from a worldwide depression and war, money was tight. Each improvement/change was done as economically as possible under the then in effect CAA regulations. So, one little mod at a time ended up with the PA-18-150. Piper kept their costs as low as possible and managed to stay in business, while many other small plane manufacturers did not survive. Now fast forward to modern times....we are still making one little "improvement" at a time. A little improvement here, a little improvement there.....what do we have? I'd wager very few of those accumulated little "improvements" have been tested collectively to the max as much as a full new TCd airplane is tested. An example....How much testing was done with 3" or 6" extended landing gear? Are the tail feathers large enough to compensate for the extra low down drag from moving a set of 35" tires 6" lower from the vertical CG? Are the elevators big enough? What are the spin recovery characteristics?

 

[BC12D-4-85]

MTV might comment, but I believe his former employer in Alaska tested large tires on their Cubs, and maybe other mods? Someone tested the 2000# kit and the results would be interesting to read. Look at what Steve and others went through to get the Sen GA prop approved. FAR Part 36 noise alone plus whatever today it takes to get an STC.

Gary

 

[RedOwlAirfield]

Is there a particular engine you had issues with tail feathers being large enough on?

Mr. Pierce;

I remember it on the only 180 Horse I ever flew, but I also experienced it with 150 Horse super cubs too. But yes it has been the bigger (heavier) engines.

I would love to try a 90 horse super cub. I am told they are the most perfect plane ever.

 

[RedOwlAirfield]

Your observation is accurate. However remember the times when these airplanes were built. The J-3 was an improvement on the J-2. The world was recovering from a worldwide depression and war, money was tight. Each improvement/change was done as economically as possible under the then in effect CAA regulations. So, one little mod at a time ended up with the PA-18-150. Piper kept their costs as low as possible and managed to stay in business, while many other small plane manufacturers did not survive.

All of which is certainly the crux of the situation. The base aircraft was designed for much less weight and power, so the original tailfeathers were wonderful. But bigger engines, more weight and such: the tailfeathers haven't kept up. I understand them using them to begin with - because they do work. They are functionally adequate. More importantly from a business perspective if you've got a bunch of something that will work, use it. And if it works and you already have infrastructure to produce, it would be financially irresponsible to create a separate piece to design, manufacture and carry in inventory. So the reasons its like this are all very rational and based in practicality. But it's still a quirk that I don't like. It's obviously not unsafe. Thousands of examples continue to function flawlessly daily. It's just my personal preference.

 

[Steve Pierce]

Mr. Pierce;

I remember it on the only 180 Horse I ever flew, but I also experienced it with 150 Horse super cubs too. But yes it has been the bigger (heavier) engines.

I would love to try a 90 horse super cub. I am told they are the most perfect plane ever.

I have noticed it on some of the 180 hp Super Cubs I have flown but not the 150/160 hp so was curious. Thanks. Yes, the 90 hp Super Cub is probably the best balanced and nicest feel in my opinion. Only draw back is if you load it up.

 

[RedOwlAirfield]

I have noticed it on some of the 180 hp Super Cubs I have flown but not the 150/160 hp so was curious. Thanks. Yes, the 90 hp Super Cub is probably the best balanced and nicest feel in my opinion. Only draw back is if you load it up.

How about Density Altitude? How's the 90 do up high?

(My home field here is 4900 Feet actual elevation - and it does get hot 'round here. So it's always my first consideration when evaluating an aircraft)

 

[mvivion]

How about Density Altitude? How's the 90 do up high?

(My home field here is 4900 Feet actual elevation - and it does get hot 'round here. So it's always my first consideration when evaluating an aircraft)

I operated a 90 hp PA-11 for five years, based out of Southwest Montana, with a field elevation of 4500 msl. I roamed around much of Central Idaho and western MT with that plane. Density altitude has to be constantly on your mind, but frankly, that SHOULD be true even if you’re flying a 180 hp Cub. You definitely learn to find lift…..a glider pilot would do well in one of these in the mountains. Loading is the bigger issue. You can definitely feel a load in one of these planes, even though there may not be a lot of weight involved.

BUT, while you don’t have a lot of horsepower, you still have that big fat Cub wing. I came out of Butte (5800 msl) one day, with an experienced pilot in back. DA was over 10K, and passenger asked how I was going to get over Homestake Pass (~7000). I pointed out a nice sunny hillside, we cruised over there started an orbit and two turns later we headed over the pass, with height to spare.

These airplanes are great teachers.

MTV

 

[Steve Pierce]

How about Density Altitude? How's the 90 do up high?

(My home field here is 4900 Feet actual elevation - and it does get hot 'round here. So it's always my first consideration when evaluating an aircraft)

Only flown it down here at 1120 feet but have flown it at 100 degrees at those altitudes and it is doggy like anything. It is all relative.

 

[kestrel]

I would love to try a 90 horse super cub. I am told they are the most perfect plane ever.

Not in my experience. You can get the same HP in a J-3 or PA-11 at a lower empty weight. I found the 65 HP J-3 to be more enjoyable than the PA-18-95. I've never flown one, but a 90 HP PA-11 may be the ticket.

 

[Paul Heinrich]

A bigger rudder probably helps a lot on floats if you aren't using a ventral fin. Larger (heavier) horizontals offset a little of the heavier engine, in addition to providing greater control authority.

Even given as fact larger tail feathers provide greater control performance, wouldn't most Cub enthusiasts be reluctant to pay a premium for a Cub that doesn't look like a Cub. Larger squared off tail feathers ruin the classic lines and shape we love. For a working airplane it shouldn't matter, but for our personal pride and joy, it does. IMO.

 

[KevinJ]

You hardly notice the larger, round tail feathers over standard unless you’ve got two cubs parked next to each other.

I don’t really like the look either of the square surfaces unless it’s on a big square wing cub.

I don’t think the bigger round surfaces are that much heavier as the oversized rudder is only a few oz. heavier than the standard without cover. Elevators can’t be much more.

 

[Dick Williams]

Does the oversize tailfeathers refer to STC SA589AL? If so, does that STC call for 4130 construction which would exempt it from the proposed AD?

 

[Steve Pierce]

I don't know of anyone stocking mild steel tubing. Everything I am aware of is 4130.

 

[OLDCROWE]

An interesting comparison would be to ballast (lead in the tail) the same airplane with the 1A200 against the Sensenich conversion. Both being flown at the same CG. Taking the 22-25 lbs off the nose moves the CG aft to what CG? CG is the big key. What is the difference at the same CG?

If the CG were the same, then the prop option easily wins with better thrust plus a significant weight reduction (lighter prop weight and likely less or no ballast to get the CG where you want it).