• 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!

Leading-edge slats

I cross control my SQ-2 all the time to see something under my nose quickly. It will not drop a wing.

In the German flight manual for the Fieseler Storch (with slats) It says when flying close to the ground to use rudder only for manuvering so you will keep the wings level for max lift.

I did airshows with my Storch at 800 ft doing 360 degree square corner left turns which was full left rudder and full right aileron and my SQ-2 will do the same.

Slats may be one of the most expensive mods for the experimental which leaves alot of owners out of the picture.
 
$3K for this set with about 10 hours on them. PM me for the owners contact info.
IM000642.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IM000642.JPG
    IM000642.JPG
    88.4 KB · Views: 787
I'll be impressed with slats when they can beat a stock Cubcrafters Sport Cub (Valdez), or even a stock Cub wing. Until then.... the looks, extra weight, and nose "pointed at the moon" to make them work, do nothing for me.

Crash


Crash, you put a whole moose in a CC Sport Cub and come follow me around in a SQ2, if you can!
 
Until you have flown with a set of slats you do not know what you are talking about.

Safer than a stock wing any day.

L
 
It's amazing how the banter wavers away from the original posted question...
 
regardless of whether people think this is a worthwhile mod or not, lets go back to the original question. is it possible to fit a slat on stock cub wing with round wing tips? and for those of you with drooping ailerons, are they recommend and are they effective without slats? i know it would make a lot of lift in the back of the wing and probably tip the nose down so you could see as well as go slow.
 
Slats are a hoot to fly! They are not the all-time answer to every mission, and I doubt a Cessna would be a meaningful use for them, but anyone who has really wrung-out a slatted Cub would never tell you they aren't cool, or fun, or worth having!!!! Never! Ever! Never, ever, ever, ever, ever!

Slats would still work excellent on a round-tip wing, in my opinion.

Droop Ailerons. Droops work great to give better slow-flight performance on an unslatted wing, but again, are not the answer to every mission. The only kind to have on a Cub are selectable for zero droop versus flap if that's what the pilot wants.

My personal experience using Wayne Mackey's slat kit with drooped ailerons (20 degrees) is that when the droops are selected at Minimum Controlable Airspeed, the nose drops 10 degrees with zero other changes.......i.e. Bobby is right, the change in lift-center-of-pressure drops the nose and you can see over the nose better.

The droops come at a price, adverse yaw with aileron commands, but roll spoilers work very well to give roll authority ALL back.

DAVE
 
$3K for this set with about 10 hours on them. PM me for the owners contact info.
View attachment 1194


Why is he taking them off after only 10 hours of flight time?

And yes, I have flown a slotted winged Cub. Fun to screw around in, but it didn't get off the ground any better or land any shorter then my stock wing. My point is, why spend the money or add the extra weight? Not really seeing them "spank" everything in organized competition either.

Safer, I've never felt un-safe doing steep turns in my Cub. But to each his own. If you feel you need them, go for it. Just some friendly banter here.

Take care,

Crash
 
Why is he taking them off after only 10 hours of flight time?

And yes, I have flown a slotted winged Cub. Fun to screw around in, but it didn't get off the ground any better or land any shorter then my stock wing. My point is, why spend the money or add the extra weight? Not really seeing them "spank" everything in organized competition either.

Safer, I've never felt un-safe doing steep turns in my Cub. But to each his own. If you feel you need them, go for it. Just some friendly banter here.

Take care,

Crash

Low time Cub pilot and feels they are beyond his capability.
 
I think Mike Olsons "CAZOOM" has round wing tips with slats that are screwed on.

Very highly competitive at Valdez also.
 
I think Mike Olsons "CAZOOM" has round wing tips with slats that are screwed on.

Very highly competitive at Valdez also.

no. Squared off extended wings with long flaps that have much extended chord and deploy to nearly 80 degrees. No droop ailerons. A real going machine!!!
 
Looking at last years Valdez results...

Stock CC Sport Cub (right off the assembly line) 1st place 133' combined take off and landing distance

Mackey SQ2 4th place 172' combined take off and landing distance.

Cazoom (highly modified "one off" with nitros, O-375, slats, extended this, extended that...) 5th place 174' combined take off and landing distance.

Sorry, still not seeing the point.:smile:

P.S. 2nd place was a PA-22 producer (167') and third was a PA-18 (170')

Crash
 
Last edited:
Isn't a Sport Cub an 800 lb plane?

I checked it out at Geo Cache and was told it had an empty weight of 970 lbs.

As a side note.... Paul's Piper PA-18-160 with stock wings, competing in the CERTIFIED Bush category, beat all the experimentals including the CC Carbon Cub (131' vs 133').


Crash
 
Last edited:
I beg to differ. PAUL won the contest. He'd win it in a variety of airplanes. The pilot is still the most important piece of equipment in the plane.

Stewart, a confessed mediocre Cub pilot, and the plane has nothng to do with that. ;-)
 
I beg to differ. PAUL won the contest. He'd win it in a variety of airplanes. The pilot is still the most important piece of equipment in the plane.

Stewart, a confessed mediocre Cub pilot, and the plane has nothng to do with that. ;-)

Bear Bryant "He can beat your's with his, then take yours and beat his" Agreed.

As an additional note, Leif Walters also turned in better results (158') then the SQ2 and Cazoom in a 1200+ lb, stock PA-18 in the certified Bush class.

By the way... Wayne Mackey (SQ2) and Ed Doyle (Cazoom) are no slouches either when it comes to flying Cubs.



Crash
 
Neither Wayne nor Ed is a professional bush pilot.

Both Paul and Leif are.

Both Wayne and Ed are larger, heavier men than either Paul or Leif.

All of 4 of those guys are cool cookies and great guys!

I don't recall the CC that won "experimental" last spring was stock off the assembly line. I've heard it has a special engine that was installed only for the competition, not for ferrying or normal flying. I'm sure it was a great a/c. Paul didn't have the keys for it until the morning of the comp. He woke me up that morning!!!!!

800 pounds? 970?

I wonder what Mike Olsen will come up with this year?? Slats on an 800 pound airplane with 36" extended gear and 280 HP?????????

Often the wind will change, comp. class to comp. class, or even heat to heat. Last year Leif got screwed by the wind conditions, as I recall.

Valdez is a fun time, even if you have other cool places to be.

DAVE
 
This thread is creating crazy Ideas in my head. I wondered if you could build a set
of slats in carbonfiber and put them on a carboncub, or any cub for that matter. Seems
like it would keep the weight down.:crazyeyes::nutz::cool:
 
Neither Wayne nor Ed is a professional bush pilot.

Both Paul and Leif are.

Both Wayne and Ed are larger, heavier men than either Paul or Leif.

All of 4 of those guys are cool cookies and great guys!

I don't recall the CC that won "experimental" last spring was stock off the assembly line. I've heard it has a special engine that was installed only for the competition, not for ferrying or normal flying. I'm sure it was a great a/c. Paul didn't have the keys for it until the morning of the comp. He woke me up that morning!!!!!

800 pounds? 970?

I wonder what Mike Olsen will come up with this year?? Slats on an 800 pound airplane with 36" extended gear and 280 HP?????????

Often the wind will change, comp. class to comp. class, or even heat to heat. Last year Leif got screwed by the wind conditions, as I recall.

Valdez is a fun time, even if you have other cool places to be.

DAVE

Dave

What about two years ago when Matt Piatt jumped in Jim Richmond's 100 hp Sport Cub and handed all of them their hats including Jerry Burr with a 69' take off and 69' landing?

There is a 26% difference between last years first place Sport Cub / PA-18 score, and the slat equipped planes. Still not seeing where slats / slots have any "great" positive effect on landing or take off distances. You'd think at some point all these wing mods would at least get them closer (to stock performance :). I'd feel real bad showing up with a super modified, hot rod plane, only to get beat by a kid in a 100 hp Sport Cub swinging a cruise prop.

Also confused why Steve's customer, a low time pilot, would have his slats removed if they're supposed to make the airplane more safe. If anyone needs them it would be him.

Not dissing the hard work these guys put into building up these "one off" experimentals. Just questioning why were not seeing better performance results.

Crash

P.S. I think you're all wet on your Sport Cub comment (Paul not having the keys until the event) last year. I arrived at Ultima Thule on Wednesday after the Airmans show on Sunday. It (CC Sport Cub) was sitting on the ramp when I got there and still was when I left on Friday. Paul took it out and did a handful of landing and take offs to get ready for the Valdez event. It was my impression that Paul had flown it directly from the Airmans show and kept it up to the Valdez event.
 
Last edited:
Greg, maybe Paul will comment. I recall that the keys were in someones' pocket and unavailable to Paul until Sat. morning. I don't know about the days leading up to that morning.

There is no arguing with Paul's performance in that airplane, though.

It'd be cool to watch at Valdez how a slatted hotrod like Kazoom/Redneck could spank a stock PA-18 hauling a gross-load and also landing that load! (stir, stir, stir:bang )
 
It is one thing to get the wheels off quick, but don's some of these mods, like slats, really come into their own at a high angle of attack, like on climb out and descent?

So if one plane can break ground at 70 feet, but takes another 1,000 feet to clear the obstacle, and another takes 100 feet but climbs over the obstacle in 700', what would that mean to a guy flying his plane in the brush?

Just asking.
 
George, hard to explain if you've not driven one of these bad boys. But I've seen far less than 70 foot takeoffs while practicing, and far, far less than any landing at Valdez, while practicing, in about 12 MPH wind.

They are amazing with a load.....it's like the load is not there.....the will wing hang on at crazy angles and speeds......and a guy could corkscrew up in a 150-foot diameter column......to the moon...........at 2400 poounds gross!

A great light Cub is awesome, that's why Crash has no use for any mods! But slats are cool too.

I wonder about an 800 pound Cub with slats, over 200HP, and gear that would have the thing 3-pointed with the wing AOA at, say, 40degrees.

No one knows, but I can guess! D
 
Has anyone out there flown both the dakota cub slotted wing and the slatted wing, what are the differences in AOA required for slow flight.
 
I've flown the slotted wing on a Cub and a 12. Flew with Wayne in his SQ2 with slatts.
All 3 will perform in slow flight better than a VG equipped Cub. A stock Cub will fall out of the sky if trying to hang with any of these 3. Riding with Wayne was a blast as he gave me a hell of a demonstration, if I didn't know and trust him, I might have been a little weak in the knees upon landing. Which performs better, I really don't know. If I were picking between the two, I'd pick Waynes Slatts. First and foremost they're both a slow flight safety feature, the rest is a cool bonus.

Brad
 
When I flew the Dakota slotted wing Cub I was also very impressed. I was seeing 22 mph stalls on the ASI even at low power and wing angles. I though "WOW these slots REALLY do work, this is almost TOO good to be true". After a few minutes I pushed the excitement aside and though "wait a minute, this IS too good to be true"!

I then turned the GPS on and aligned the plane directly up wind and did a number of stalls at different power setting and wing angles. Then I turned directly down wind and did the exact same power settings and wing angles. Averaging both sets of stall numbers, the VERY best I could get it down to according to the GPS was 38 mph with lots of power and a very steep wing angle.

My theory..... the slot, when "open" (steep wing angle), diverts a lot of the normal under wing air pressure, up through the slot and away from the pitot tube. This gives you a 30% incorrect ASI reading and makes you think you're really stalling at 22 MPH.

Fact: a set of Dakota slotted wings weighs 58 lbs more then a set of stock Piper wings. In order for them to be of ANY benefit, they have to produce an additional 58 lbs of lift to offset "themselves". I'd guess they would also have to produce that (58 lbs), plus another 150 lbs of lift before you'd notice any REAL difference in your airplane's performance. And this "additional" lift is subject to the slot being open (steep wing angle) and producing, a varying proposition at best.

When in the take off phase they're not really "open" until you rotate and at that point you're already ready to fly anyway. On landing you're slowing down so much that there is less "high speed air" flowing through the slot and when you flatten the plane out to land so you don't hit tail first, there is little to no additional lift being produced because they're effectively closed. You now just have the additional 58 lbs, mounted WAY up high that you're trying to slow down and not nose over, and it ain't helping matters. At some point you have to get your and the plane's weight moving forward STOPPED.

On floats I think they're a different story. Climbing on step they're "open" and producing.

This is just my un-educated opinion and personal observations and again no slam on the manufacturers of these products.

When I bought my Dakota wings I could have purchased a set of Dakota slot wings, no problem. The Alaska Dakota rep at the time basically said "for wheel / ski work, forget it, for floats they're the ticket for getting off the water short".

Take care,

Crash
 
Last edited:
58 lbs. seems like a lot. How much does a stock wing weigh and how much does a standard Dakota Cub wing weigh?
 
Back
Top