• 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!

Zlin Aviation Outback Shock Cub

Even down low I’d take a 914 over a standard 912 ULS. These are airplanes! You can’t argue with more power, no matter the cost to obtain it haha.

A 914 is only 15 pounds heavier than a standard 912 ULS, which is totally worth the trade off for the extra power and especially up at altitude IMHO. From sea level in Dallas to flying over the Grand Teton, the 914 has been an amazing engine in my experience.

4Holer, disappointed to hear about a few of the issues you’ve had with the Shock but glad you were able to work most of them out. Congrats by the way, she’s beautiful! What do you think about the Shock Ultra?
 
Even down low I’d take a 914 over a standard 912 ULS. These are airplanes! You can’t argue with more power, no matter the cost to obtain it haha.

A 914 is only 15 pounds heavier than a standard 912 ULS, which is totally worth the trade off for the extra power and especially up at altitude IMHO. From sea level in Dallas to flying over the Grand Teton, the 914 has been an amazing engine in my experience.

4Holer, disappointed to hear about a few of the issues you’ve had with the Shock but glad you were able to work most of them out. Congrats by the way, she’s beautiful! What do you think about the Shock Ultra?

FWIW: I LOST 3 pounds with the Big Bore install, plus the CNC machined heads cool better then the cast heads. That's a "more power" argument I can live with, a win/win. No argument on the reliability of the 914 engine, equal to the 912S for sure. I also now burn low octane/regular mogas exclusively, (at above 2500 ASL anyway) no premium required.
 
4Holer, disappointed to hear about a few of the issues you’ve had with the Shock but glad you were able to work most of them out. Congrats by the way, she’s beautiful! What do you think about the Shock Ultra?

Thanks Jetcat. We’ll work through these issues - I wish I was more technically inclined that I could do it myself.

My take on the Ultra is only go there if you absolutely need that category of aircraft - the standard Shock is adequately light enough.

46F5F7FE-4677-47B6-81B4-83AC3133C551.jpeg

I don’t mean to hijack the Supercub forum; just responding to this thread.
 

Attachments

  • 46F5F7FE-4677-47B6-81B4-83AC3133C551.jpeg
    46F5F7FE-4677-47B6-81B4-83AC3133C551.jpeg
    259.6 KB · Views: 241
Thanks Jetcat. We’ll work through these issues - I wish I was more technically inclined that I could do it myself.

My take on the Ultra is only go there if you absolutely need that category of aircraft - the standard Shock is adequately light enough.


I don’t mean to hijack the Supercub forum; just responding to this thread.

4Holer,

Thanks for your recommendation. I think a Shock with a 915 and fixed pitch prop would be darn near perfect. You’d certainly have teething issues yes, but still a lethal combination. Hopefully it’ll be available sometime in the U.S.
 
4Holer,

Thanks for your recommendation. I think a Shock with a 915 and fixed pitch prop would be darn near perfect. You’d certainly have teething issues yes, but still a lethal combination. Hopefully it’ll be available sometime in the U.S.

Agreed. No indication yet that the 915 will be available with a fixed-pitch prop - current requirement adamantly requires a constant-speed prop with the 915.

There is an recent exciting development - Zlin Aviation have recently announced they’re partnering/ cooperating with Edge Performance, the Norwegian company renowned for their big-bore remanufactured Rotax - this puts out over 150 HP.

https://www.zlinaero.com/news.php?nid=348
 
Agreed. No indication yet that the 915 will be available with a fixed-pitch prop - current requirement adamantly requires a constant-speed prop with the 915.

There is an recent exciting development - Zlin Aviation have recently announced they’re partnering/ cooperating with Edge Performance, the Norwegian company renowned for their big-bore remanufactured Rotax - this puts out over 150 HP.

https://www.zlinaero.com/news.php?nid=348

Yeah, Trent Palmer ran a 79” three blade fixed pitch setup on his Kitfox for about 5 months with great results. Now he has the single lever MT on there. But we’re talking 6 MPH increase in speed with a .6 more per gallon burn in cruise. His climb rate is exactly the same. That just doesn’t make sense on the Shock to me. He also gained 20 additional pounds on the nose which is significant.

I personally am only interested in stock engines but they could have a serious performer on their hands with that setup.
 
6BFEDCF4-CD11-40A1-8559-505E06424B48.jpg4Holer, I see what you mean about the your oil cooler being blanked by the cowling. I noticed this change on the 915 cowling, but mainly because they had to do something to account for the larger oil cooler. I also wonder if they are using a T piece junction for both radiators for the 915. I also noticed a large NACA duct on top of the cowling to feed the intercooler from this video.
 

Attachments

  • 6BFEDCF4-CD11-40A1-8559-505E06424B48.jpg
    6BFEDCF4-CD11-40A1-8559-505E06424B48.jpg
    46.3 KB · Views: 299
Yup - surprised to see the cowling still occluding part of the oil cooler.

Here was the original cowling

D277956F-C695-41CD-8668-8B9BFC8400F4.png

The outline in red indicates the approximate size of the cooler.

Here’s the cowl after it was modded, prior to repaint

1BFD082E-98FD-4771-A1D5-49593B3CDD54.jpeg

Here’s the original plumbing for the radiators

3B044965-36D7-44B8-AAA7-5D9FA26A4D61.jpg

And here it is after it was replumbed, first to the right radiator, then the left, then return to engine.

A2EB8CA0-655C-4D17-B1EE-32B85E2A3DDE.jpeg

Zlin Aviation and their local agent and associated workshop have been great in supporting and facilitating these changes, which I sure will be the basis for future production aircraft, especially those destined to ‘warmer’ climates.
 

Attachments

  • D277956F-C695-41CD-8668-8B9BFC8400F4.png
    D277956F-C695-41CD-8668-8B9BFC8400F4.png
    484.1 KB · Views: 206
  • D277956F-C695-41CD-8668-8B9BFC8400F4.png
    D277956F-C695-41CD-8668-8B9BFC8400F4.png
    484.1 KB · Views: 147
  • 1BFD082E-98FD-4771-A1D5-49593B3CDD54.jpeg
    1BFD082E-98FD-4771-A1D5-49593B3CDD54.jpeg
    115.6 KB · Views: 219
  • 3B044965-36D7-44B8-AAA7-5D9FA26A4D61.jpg
    3B044965-36D7-44B8-AAA7-5D9FA26A4D61.jpg
    70.5 KB · Views: 212
  • A2EB8CA0-655C-4D17-B1EE-32B85E2A3DDE.jpeg
    A2EB8CA0-655C-4D17-B1EE-32B85E2A3DDE.jpeg
    197.2 KB · Views: 218
Oh wow, thanks for the pictures! That’s cool you had someone who could help made a few of these modifications.

How hot has it been since you’ve been flying? Any issues with cooling since these changes? Is that the landing light underneath the spinner? Has that been removed entirely with the extra oil cooler space?
 
Temperatures were around 95 F when we were conducting the initial test flights.

The oil cooler and coolant plumbing modifications have resolved all over-heating issues; temperatures now very normal.

I have no idea what that hole in the forward cowling, under the spinner is/ was. Yes, that hole is gone, post the larger aperture for the oil-cooler being made.
 
Yeah, that’s pretty warm indeed. That’s great to hear. How do you like the 914 in your Shock? Do you feel it’s enough power with 2 persons on board?

Hmm, interesting. I’ve always wondered what that was.
 
The 914 in the Shock Cub is a great compromise in terms of weight, performance, fuel efficiency and cost. You really wouldn’t want to have an engine with less power than the 914 in a Shock. The 850 lbs empty weight is very ambitious - with avionics, larger fuel tanks and the full STOL package it’s around 1,000 lbs empty weight. So 2-up with 1/2 fuel, full fuel only 1-up. I’ve operated, takeoff and landing at density altitudes in excess of 9,000’ AMSL at MAUW and there’s sufficient power.
 
I love the combination between the Zlin Shock Cub and the 914.

I need to revise an earlier statement - I said the aircraft was “around 1,000 lbs empty weight.” This was inaccurate and I did not have the exact figures at hand at the time. My specific aircraft, as delivered, with the options specified, came in at 948 lbs. There is adequate payload for 2-up with partial fuel and 1-up with full (optional) fuel which works well for me.

We’re making progress with modifying the rear control stick (in production) and have further modified the fuselage panels where the flap attachments are; will test-fly when able to confirm whether we are now able to achieve full flap in flight. Beringer have responded and are pushing for me to replace the virtually brand new brake pads with new ones at an approximate cost of $ 125 (for the pads) plus cost of installation. I just can’t understand how they think the existing pads got contaminated but I have little option other than to follow their guidance in an effort to get the brakes (which have a great reputation) to work properly.
 
4Holer,

948 empty isn’t bad at all. I think the lightest Shock Cub is Gary Green’s up in Alaska at 869 pounds but equipped with different options. He had a 39” landing at Valdez a few weeks ago! The shortest of the entire event actually. Takeoff’s were 78’ and 70’ respectively. I think the Ultra could help the takeoff distance with the greater AOA you can acheive.

Interested to hear back when you’ve finished up everything. Are you running a 75” Kiev fixed pitch prop? I flew the Titan powered Shock and am extremely anxious to get up in a Rotax powered variant.
 
Affirm 75” inch Kiev prop. Very happy with this prop; nearly didn’t happen as a result of a fall-out between supplier and Zlin but we resolved the issue and it is a great combination. As a result of “tweaking” the preset ground-adjustable prop pitch is not correct and we’re well below benchmark prop RPM values (max current 4,820 as opposed to Rotax advisory minimum 5,300 max 5,800 RPM). Plan is to adjust the prop-pitch to a nominal setting as soon as we can get the Kiev Prop protractor (supplied with the prop) to where the aircraft currently is located.
 
4holer; an alternative and many say more accurate and sensitive way to set the pitch then the cheezy factory supplied mickey mouse protractor is to use a cheap laser level. Forget the level part, what we want is the laser, that we can clamp to the prop blade using the level's straight edge, the exact same way every time. I paid $20.00 at Harbor Freight for one. Then a simple jig fabbed from scrap in the shop in about 10 minutes gave me a way to consistently locate the level on the prop blade in the same way every time. Actual levelness does not matter. Chock your wheels fore and aft, be inside a hangar (out of the wind of course, more importantly you need to see the red laser dot, so dark enough), and make a mark on the floor where the dot hits. Then rotate the prop 180 degrees, using another simple jury rigged jig on the opposite blade, to hold that blade at the same exact height as the opposite blade, so the prop ends up in the same location rotation wise, just now with the other blade having the laser on it. Adjust that blade so the dot is at the same place as the first. Take it outside and run it up, in your case you need to reduce the pitch, so simple trial and error will quickly determine how much dot movement on the floor correlates to pitch change/static RPM change.

I recently set up a 79" LUGA prop this way, with no idea of the desired actual pitch (nor did I care, as I would go by the static RPM anyway) as measured in degrees. It took a total of about 2 hours, including the simple jigs, after first eyeballing what seemed to about the right pitch, static testing, then in 3 or 4 adjustments, "sneaking up" on the exact desired static RPM I wanted. I had it down the last few adjustments to less then 10 minutes between changes. You will quickly see how much dot movement on the floor changes the static runup RPM. The benefit of this method is you have a much longer moment arm, (a good a term as any) as in very small changes of the blade angle, result in major changes in how the dot hits the floor, the end result being both blades will end up being dead nuts at the same angle. WHAT that angle is in degrees is immaterial, who cares! It's your rpm in use that counts..... I now also have a nifty laser level for other shop uses.

FWIW: with my prop blades/spinner height about 65" off the hangar floor, moving the dot about an inch on the floor, changed the static RPM 200-300. You will see the dot move, before your eyeballs see the prop move in the hub, that 65" moment arm amplifies any movement!
 
Last edited:
Courierguy, very cool tips!

4Holer, 4800 RPM is pretty low on a 914. What kind of cruise RPM and speeds are you using/seeing? I would imagine 5300 RPM static at 40” would easily get you close to 5800 RPM after some speed was built up.
 
Thanks for your very detailed advice courierguy - you’ve gone to a lot of effort but I am so technically challenged there is no way I could follow that grand advice. Luckily the protractor is in the mail on it’s way. My fault; I left it where the aircraft was reassembled when I ferried it to her new base.

Agreed jetcat11 - we adjusted the prop pitch as part of the engine overheating problem. We’ll tweak it back once the protractor arrives and look for at least 5,300 RPM static. Current cruise TAS is 70 knots which is fine by me.

I’m on the road, doing my day-job, only likely to make progress in about 10 days. Will update; am confident we’ll resolve all issues.
 
got rocks.jpg.jpg
1050 lbs on 35" Bushwheels with a 90" Propeller and Lycoming O-360,
Haul a load with 2 people and full fuel and land where ever you want.

948 lbs empty does not make me want a shock cub and 80 mph would really suck plus sounds like it is under powered.
 

Attachments

  • got rocks.jpg.jpg
    got rocks.jpg.jpg
    267.4 KB · Views: 427
View attachment 43062

948 lbs empty does not make me want a shock cub and 80 mph would really suck plus sounds like it is under powered.

Well Greg, just a good thing ain’t nobody trying to sell you one then!

4holer , You got a sweet mount man, get used to it and then start using its capabilities. You will have a BLAST!
 
Last edited:
View attachment 43062
1050 lbs on 35" Bushwheels with a 90" Propeller and Lycoming O-360,
Haul a load with 2 people and full fuel and land where ever you want.

948 lbs empty does not make me want a shock cub and 80 mph would really suck plus sounds like it is under powered.

No need for you to piss in someone else’s Cheerio’s just because there needs or desires aren’t the same as yours.......grow up!


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
I love the combination between the Zlin Shock Cub and the 914.

I need to revise an earlier statement - I said the aircraft was “around 1,000 lbs empty weight.” This was inaccurate and I did not have the exact figures at hand at the time. My specific aircraft, as delivered, with the options specified, came in at 948 lbs. There is adequate payload for 2-up with partial fuel and 1-up with full (optional) fuel which works well for me.

I am not trying to piss on anyone's parade. I would not be happy if I bought an airplane, see the above statement about carrying capacity. To each his own, my point is you can have an airplane that is light weight and still carry a load that is a hoot to fly and will stand the test of time, not to mention a lot less complex in the engine compartment.

If I was to have a light weight machine that had a rotax it would be much lighter then what that shock cub weighs. It is all relative, a heavy cub with a small engine would suck too!
 
Guys please don’t start arguing on my behalf; chill. Horses for courses; we all have different desires and requirements or we’d all be chasing the same goals. I’m very happy with what I have - it works for me and I look forward to resolving the few teething issues reported and having the time of my life.

Safe flying!
 
I don't know if this can help to understand better the situation but since I own one Savage plane , I was told by someone at the company, that the yellow Shock Cub mentioned above has about 37 kg (82 lbs) of optionals (4Holer probably could confirm it) and so even including the more adapt 26" alaskan "light bushwheels" (LSA lighter version), the slats and the 914 turbo (when installed it is around 15 kg heavier that the rotax 100 hp, it seems), the empty weight could have been about 393 kg (864 lbs), pretty much the same as most of the Just Super Stol around with a turbo engine for example..I think that even for a smaller Kitfox (one my friend has one) will not be easy to weight less than 360 kg (792 lbs) with the Rotax turbo and the bush wheels, but sure with no slats, not shock absorbers nor larger flaps or larger wings.
With the 21" tires that come as standard, carbon floorboards and seats and without any other special treatment (that company offers) to lower the weight, the plane could save another 25 lbs so arriving at about 839 lbs..(or 817 when oraover will be used). So potentially a number very far from the 1000 lbs mentioned before and from the 1050 reported by Maule Guy for a totally different plane with a much larger engine and bigger tires, but for sure with all the reduction weight that was possible to achieve, included, and even with no slats. If you would remove even the slats from the Shock you could arrive at 795 lbs, about 255 lbs lighter than the 1050 reported by Maule Guy..that was already showing one of the lightest SC around here, if we consider his engine and tires..
The Gary Green's Shock Cub already made the shortest landing at Valdez weeks ago even compared to some nice and famous experimentals so I can't imagine how better the lighter Shock Ultra that the company is delivering to his customers could have performed there. Just my 2 cents. Last, I don't think that any company making these LSA planes as Kitfox, Rans, Just, Zlin has never designed their models considering the heavy loads you can carry with your fantastic SC in the real bush in Alaska . I simply think that we are speaking about two different category of planes and purposes..and I am personally glad that 4Holer is happy with his new plane without feeling attacked here by someone that thinks different.
 
I'm still not drinking the Koolaid. Shortest landing at Valdez means nothing. Totally controlled environment, nothing challenging about landing straight ahead on pavement, try flying at high angles of attack like that in real world off airport flying where you can't see anything in front of you and your going to be rebuilding that shock cub.

I am not saying that airplane does not have a place, it would probably serve most weekend flyers for the single pilot playing around if you keep it light. The first thing I would do is take off the slats so obviously I don't think slats are worth much. Not sure how slow it would fly without the slats and the nose pointed at the stars but if it would land at 35 gps with some 31" Bushwheels in a flight attitude that you could see where you were going over the nose it would probably work for me for playing around as a toy. Would it hold up long term to the kind of off airport abuse a Super Cub can take day after day that might be another problem.

Lots of people love there little lightweight airplanes so there must be something to it. I have only flown Mike Olsens S-7 with rotax, baby bushwheel, 26" ABW by myself and I was less then thrilled so my wealth of knowledge is limited to that one day. I guarantee that airplane would have been broken in a week if I owned it and did with it what I did with Bushwacker or my Super Cub.
 
To land short in a competition make a lot of sense..I think.This is why Valdez is growing year by year even if I know that many real bushpilots don't like it too much and even don't visit there.To fly without slats is fine but in this forum you will find tons of posts about how nice they work and how much safer the plane will become with them..So again a different vision here.To destroy one Rans S7 in one week in your environment again means not too much because for every Alaskan bush pilot there are 10 or 100 pilots worldwide that will find it super nice and more than enough for their needs..otherwise there would not have been the big success of the LSA category in the same Country in which you live.So as you see we can say everything we wish and there will be always someone else that can show even better or at least enough valid reasons for their decisions.Of course your plane is the best...For you...But would not work for other 100 pilots around the world.Same happens for the Shock Cub.Why to buy it when there are sure faster and better and lighter planes?we could continue for hours..and your plane would remain the best.Of course for you..
 
Last edited:
I'm still not drinking the Koolaid. Shortest landing at Valdez means nothing. Totally controlled environment, nothing challenging about landing straight ahead on pavement, try flying at high angles of attack like that in real world off airport flying where you can't see anything in front of you and your going to be rebuilding that shock cub.

I am not saying that airplane does not have a place, it would probably serve most weekend flyers for the single pilot playing around if you keep it light. The first thing I would do is take off the slats so obviously I don't think slats are worth much. Not sure how slow it would fly without the slats and the nose pointed at the stars but if it would land at 35 gps with some 31" Bushwheels in a flight attitude that you could see where you were going over the nose it would probably work for me for playing around as a toy. Would it hold up long term to the kind of off airport abuse a Super Cub can take day after day that might be another problem.

Lots of people love there little lightweight airplanes so there must be something to it. I have only flown Mike Olsens S-7 with rotax, baby bushwheel, 26" ABW by myself and I was less then thrilled so my wealth of knowledge is limited to that one day. I guarantee that airplane would have been broken in a week if I owned it and did with it what I did with Bushwacker or my Super Cub.

You'll be welcome to try out my S-7S Greg if we ever get the chance (stop by sometime, I'm near Pocatello, you'd like my 400' long mountain strip) Cub Style gear, with gas shock rebound control and bungees, 29" Airstreaks, BigBore Rotax, 106 horse I'm told, 78" Prince prop, 20 degrees more flap then stock , Micro VG's, J-3 3 leaf tail spring, 8" tailwheel, expanded plywood lined baggage area, 760 lbs, after 12 years or use, so lot's of adds on/lost pens and change, dirt in that weight. Any time I'm around SC's or CC's, I'm off quicker and lander shorter, no contest really Where they beat me is in cruise and the stuff they can carry of course. 85 mph indicated this morning coming back from breakfast, 6500',70 degrees, 3.6/3.7 GPH. That is "fast cruise" ! Just out playing around at 65-70 mph, 2.7 gph is real easy to do. On mo-gas. Regular/low octane mogas, even E-10. The cub type gear was the best of all the mods.
 
You guys have sweet aircraft; courierguy’s S-7S sounds amazing!

i don’t know where Selvaoscura gets his gen but he’s right on the money; I took a lot of options and they all weigh sumpin and I skipped the skimpy seats which are a lot lighter but look real uncomfortable and I also declined the carbon-fibre floorboards - the weight-saving wasn’t worth the $. Granted, I could have saved weight by going for smaller wheels but I wanted/ needed bigger rubber. Coulda gone for a skimpy littl’ tailwheel but went with the beefy Matco. No doubt, I could have got the Shock Cub around 80 pounds lighter but there is no way I was going to sacrifice the big wheels, extended fuel tanks, lights & strobes, middle-of-the-road instrument & avionics package or pitched in for the tiny seat and carbon boards.

Kinda like when I walk into a bar with my lady on my arm; there’s a lot of better-looking, lighter gals in there but I am so happy with what I got.

Last word. To those of us lucky enough to have slats. Be very careful the day you take them off. They provide the aircraft with some exceptional qualities. The kind of comfort that you like and get used to. When you go fly your aircraft without the slats she’s a very different animal. Not to be rude but why on earth, when you’ve gone to the trouble and expense of putting those slats on the wing, would you be inclined to take them off?

I got home from my day-job, going to work on getting that new stick in the back and see if I can get full trailing edge flap in flight tomorrow. Brakes & adjusted prop-pitch next and then I am done tweaking.

Fly safe out there; thanks for having a non-pure blood SC guy on this forum.
 
Hey 4Holer,
what is your cruise speed in shock cub? is that really in the 80s?
i also found it strange they posted 112mph max speed and 115 vne.
 
Back
Top