Opinions, ?? GCBG VS Cub
While not as experienced as many of you, I have "a few thousand" landings in both Pa-!8 105, 150, 180; and 8GCBC, and a few hundred in 7GCBC, 7KCAB, and some other Champ variants.
I like 'em all.
Here's what I've observed on HANDLING, which was the presenting discussion: I think that Supercubs have the nicest balance among the three flight control forces. Even though they WILL stall well, and spin well, if angle of attack is OK they can do things that others cannot.
The 8GCBC, and to a great extent, 7GCBGC etc are about the same as a 'Cub in rudder (enough to handle sane crosswinds, and with luck, insane), heavier in roll (but acceptable), and lighter in pitch; the latter can lead to too-rapid flair, pitch excursions in chop, and Pilot Induced Oscillations, especially with the spring gear, and especially with the Scout, where the gear is much taller and stiffer, about like a C-185 gear, but with 2150 gross. Many taller people have trouble getting their heels into the 'Cub brakes, and stock expander tubes are somewhat ineffective and expensive, but I look brakes as a taxiing aid, and MAYBE a short-field aid, but speed/energy management is the key. With the powerful Cleveland toe brakes on most of the 7GC/8GC series, it's pretty easy to stick the prop (crank, case...), so training operations should look at that, too.
The 7GC series sit lower (flatter) to the ground than the PA-18. For a while, I tended to tailwheel in until I got my butt-clearance and pitch look dialed in. Therefore also, less prop clearance, and some risk of busting a prop/crank/case if it's really dropped in. The 8GCBC sits much higher than the stock 'Cub. I tended to tail-low wheel land until I got by butt-clearance and pitch look dialed in; I still prefer this mode in the Scout.
As mentioned, the 8GCBC gear is really stiff. My personal preference is to do a tail-low, 'back side of the wheels' landing, on the upwind wheel. The same force is spread over half the spring energy. These almost never bounce. Works fine in no-wind conditions, too.
As other posters have noted, the maingear attach fitting has been a problem: I'ver personally broken four, three from flying, and one by looking at it (some previous pilot had broken it....). The original was a bent threaded rod. Looks like a big stress riser on the sharp bend radius: Poor design. The factory retrofit was sort of a forging, slightly flattened. Broke one of those, too. The two "landing" breaks felt just about like a playful tap on my heel; some wouldn't have even noticed. In my opinion, the better setup is the Univair clamping assembly, haven't managed to break one of those yet. [In defense of my "vastly" superior flying skill, there were always lots of other pilots flying, at 5-6 landings per hour on a moderately rough field. This really helped hone my preflight skills. I've broken many tailsprings and aft-fuselage tubing runs by just looking at them....]
If anyone stumbles accross one of those guts-flown-out-of-it tugs at the right price let me know: Still can't afford a Supercub.
The other thing worth mentioning for people transitioning from type-to-type is that the Supercub carb heat and the 7/8GC elevator trim are the same motion and relatively the same position of the portside wall. Guess how I found that out (a couple times each way)! And yeah, for most purposes, I personally like the jackscrew trim on the 'cubs better, and it certainly handles the CofG extremes which one encounters on light tandem aircraft better than any other system.
Thanks for letting me ramble. Cubscout
