New Smith Cub coming together
- Thread starter Seaworthy
- Start date
Cajun Joe
GONE WEST
LS86 or Hammond, LA
The rudder retract on the right....
why did I not think of that all the times I crawled up on the step
to reach across because I constantly leave the little rascals down
and don't discover untill I rotate her 75 degrees to beach her.
And the belly pulley....sweet.
why did I not think of that all the times I crawled up on the step
to reach across because I constantly leave the little rascals down
and don't discover untill I rotate her 75 degrees to beach her.
And the belly pulley....sweet.
cubdriver2
FRIEND
upstate NY
I like the water rudder handle on the left, because when it's gusty and your trying to turn from downwind to upwind and at the same time lift the rudder to get it to weathervain quicker my right hand on the stick is busy trying to keep me from sinking a tip.
Glenn
Glenn
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
Interesting wire pulls.
I would like a report about how much of the time your toes catch on the retract wires as you get in and out... Please do it soon so I can change mine over as I rebuild!
Joe, leaning in to retract the rudders is an isometric stretch... good for us. About all the stretching I get some times:-?
I would like a report about how much of the time your toes catch on the retract wires as you get in and out... Please do it soon so I can change mine over as I rebuild!
Joe, leaning in to retract the rudders is an isometric stretch... good for us. About all the stretching I get some times:-?
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Joe and Glenn, The EDO installation drawings all show the water rudder handle mounted on the right side. Some are on the right edge of the instrument panel as mine is and some are on the interior right side panel. I never asked anyone at EDO why, as I just assumed that being next to the door and away from the flap handle is a good idea.
aktango, The retract wires are all well inboard of the climbing steps so there is never any possibility of catching a toe. The only place where you can catch a toe is at the tail end on top of the float where they join up with the rudders. This is the same on all EDO 1650, 2000 and 2130 installations. All of this installation with the exception of the pull up cable pulley on the cowl is in accordance with EDO's installation drawings. I did make some of the strut to float and fuselage fittings as this installation set up is from a Citabria and does not match a Cub.
Incidentally, those long steps are the extended ones which are supplied by Backcountry with their kits as an option. They came from Javron. I would assume that they could supply a longer version that would be more convenient for mounting on floats. It would be nice to have them long enough to go full length all the way forward to help when climbing up to the gas tank. It is a nice extrusion with a lot of lightening holes.
aktango, The retract wires are all well inboard of the climbing steps so there is never any possibility of catching a toe. The only place where you can catch a toe is at the tail end on top of the float where they join up with the rudders. This is the same on all EDO 1650, 2000 and 2130 installations. All of this installation with the exception of the pull up cable pulley on the cowl is in accordance with EDO's installation drawings. I did make some of the strut to float and fuselage fittings as this installation set up is from a Citabria and does not match a Cub.
Incidentally, those long steps are the extended ones which are supplied by Backcountry with their kits as an option. They came from Javron. I would assume that they could supply a longer version that would be more convenient for mounting on floats. It would be nice to have them long enough to go full length all the way forward to help when climbing up to the gas tank. It is a nice extrusion with a lot of lightening holes.
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
It is surprisingly easy to pull up while standing on the float. When installed with the EDO pull up tube there is so much drag that you need to climb up to the cockpit to get in a good position to operate it.
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
First Flight This Morning! The DAR was here yesterday, which was a perfect day for a first flight, glassy water with a few ripples. It took me all day to get it all closed up after he left. This morning the wind was about 8-10 mph and forecast to increase. Broke water in about 6-7 seconds, climbed at an indicated 1000 feet per minute and cruised at 95 mph x-checked with the gps at 55% power. That was 18" manifold pressure and 2550 rpm. It will take a few tries to get the prop dialed in correctly. Preliminary stall clean was 40 and full flaps 32 mph. It was difficult because of the rough air. The rigging seemed to be dead on straight in spite of the rough air. Engine temperatures were at max of 346 CHT and 177 on the oil. So I guess that I got the baffles correct. Actually I think that the oil could be a little warmer. We'll see.
Bill Rusk
BENEFACTOR
Sandpoint, Idaho
A HUGE congratulations Pete. I can't wait to see it in person. Take a deep breath and relax. You did it. Now you get to enjoy flying it. I look forward to hearing about your float adventures ( and maybe joining you when mine is done).
Well done Pete and Congratulations again. :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
Bill
Well done Pete and Congratulations again. :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
Bill
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Tom, I'd like to get comfortable enough with it to take it to the next breakfast. That is if they don't drain the reservoir when picking the cranberries. I did hear a lot of noise tearing around in the tree tops.
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
Congrats Pete.
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Airspeed Calibration
Yesterday I calibrated my airspeed indicator using the GPS. First I flew a steady state level 360 degree turn while watching the ground speed. The highest and lowest ground speeds were 360 & 180 degrees. So, I flew 2 courses of 90 & 270 degrees while comparing the indicated airspeed with the ground speed. This cancelled out the wind effect. Much to my surprise the airspeed indicator agreed exactly with the ground speed readout throughout the entire range from 40 to 120 mph. The only exception was at a ground speed of 35 mph when it indicated 30 mph. This I attribute to the angle of attack of the pitot tube. I must have done something right as I never expected the indicated airspeed to be 100% accurate.
The pitot tube is an old Kollsman "L" shaped mast mounted heated head as removed from an old Bamboo Bomber. This is mounted on the left wing basically in the center of the square as defined by the wing strut and jury strut attach points. I used both the pitot and static ports plumbed to the instruments.
The airspeed indicator is new from Aircraft Spruce.
Cruise speed at 65% power (21.5" & 2430 rpm) on floats is 108 mph.
Yesterday I calibrated my airspeed indicator using the GPS. First I flew a steady state level 360 degree turn while watching the ground speed. The highest and lowest ground speeds were 360 & 180 degrees. So, I flew 2 courses of 90 & 270 degrees while comparing the indicated airspeed with the ground speed. This cancelled out the wind effect. Much to my surprise the airspeed indicator agreed exactly with the ground speed readout throughout the entire range from 40 to 120 mph. The only exception was at a ground speed of 35 mph when it indicated 30 mph. This I attribute to the angle of attack of the pitot tube. I must have done something right as I never expected the indicated airspeed to be 100% accurate.
The pitot tube is an old Kollsman "L" shaped mast mounted heated head as removed from an old Bamboo Bomber. This is mounted on the left wing basically in the center of the square as defined by the wing strut and jury strut attach points. I used both the pitot and static ports plumbed to the instruments.
The airspeed indicator is new from Aircraft Spruce.
Cruise speed at 65% power (21.5" & 2430 rpm) on floats is 108 mph.
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Spins,
Well, I finally got it to spin. It has been absolutely refusing to spin. It would only go into a steep high speed spiral. By loading 60 lbs of lead at 99" and another 30 lbs on the back seat I got the gross load to 2000 lbs @20.44". Yes, that is outside of Piper's rear limit. It will now do a very nose down fast one turn spin (both directions) with immediate stopping of the turn with opposite rudder. This is on floats with a seaplane ventral fin. I chose not to test beyond certification standards for normal category. There was no indication that more turns would have created a problem.
Prior to moving the loaded CG so far aft, all of the stall indications were that it was getting a nice clean stall. However, as soon as the spin was initiated, that stalled wing would start to fly again, even while holding full aft stick. The steep spiral would start with the speed building rapidly to over 100 mph. Now with the CG further aft I am able to keep it stalled in the spin without the speed building.
There are no VGs on this plane.
Well, I finally got it to spin. It has been absolutely refusing to spin. It would only go into a steep high speed spiral. By loading 60 lbs of lead at 99" and another 30 lbs on the back seat I got the gross load to 2000 lbs @20.44". Yes, that is outside of Piper's rear limit. It will now do a very nose down fast one turn spin (both directions) with immediate stopping of the turn with opposite rudder. This is on floats with a seaplane ventral fin. I chose not to test beyond certification standards for normal category. There was no indication that more turns would have created a problem.
Prior to moving the loaded CG so far aft, all of the stall indications were that it was getting a nice clean stall. However, as soon as the spin was initiated, that stalled wing would start to fly again, even while holding full aft stick. The steep spiral would start with the speed building rapidly to over 100 mph. Now with the CG further aft I am able to keep it stalled in the spin without the speed building.
There are no VGs on this plane.
Seaworthy
FOUNDER
Massachusetts
Pete
Just out of curiosity---how did you determine what with way aft CG that the aircraft would be recoverable? What determines when the wings depart the fuselage?
Of course your A/C is brand spanky new--- I treat my old airframe with extreme caution r/t its 66 YOA. If my plane is experiencing the same aches and pains that I am-- perhaps I should be even more careful with her.
Just out of curiosity---how did you determine what with way aft CG that the aircraft would be recoverable? What determines when the wings depart the fuselage?
Of course your A/C is brand spanky new--- I treat my old airframe with extreme caution r/t its 66 YOA. If my plane is experiencing the same aches and pains that I am-- perhaps I should be even more careful with her.
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
This was an exercise to determine that my modified PA-18 replica would operate safely at the outside limits at which Piper certified the PA-18. Colin, I would say that this is good in that if, at a worst case situation I was to accidentally get into a spin, that the airplane would be easily recoverable with minimal loss of altitude. In this case the altitude loss was 300-400 feet with instant recovery after one complete turn. This proved that the elevator does not have enough power to force the wing to completely stall at a loaded CG which is forward of the aft limit. This is also telling me that the installation of VGs on this wing will have very little, if any, effect. Perhaps a gap seal on the stabilizer/elevator hinge line will increase the elevator power enough which would allow a spin at a more forward CG.
Tom, The fact that the nose stayed pointed down during the spin indicated that there would be no trouble. If the nose had started to rise towards level (flat) it would indicate that the CG was too far aft. There was no flattening tendency. If the nose had started up there would have been adequate time to terminate the spin safely. A spin is a stall maneuver, which if properly done, produces very little extra loads. The wings are unlikely to depart even in your old 12. The G load did not exceed 1-1/2.
Tom, The fact that the nose stayed pointed down during the spin indicated that there would be no trouble. If the nose had started to rise towards level (flat) it would indicate that the CG was too far aft. There was no flattening tendency. If the nose had started up there would have been adequate time to terminate the spin safely. A spin is a stall maneuver, which if properly done, produces very little extra loads. The wings are unlikely to depart even in your old 12. The G load did not exceed 1-1/2.
Seaworthy
FOUNDER
Massachusetts
Just questions I have always been curious about. Just how far can you push it before a major structural failure? Of course this is all predicated on the fact that there is absent a cracked wing spar or some other annoyance that could result in an exciting event. I recall watching a C-130 fire bomber have its right wing depart at the wing root.
My 12 is placarded for no aerobatics and no spins. Obviously this admonition is for pilots who are unable to properly spin the aircraft!
I guess my original question is this: How do you know at the outset that you are not getting yourself into something that you can't get out of?
My 12 is placarded for no aerobatics and no spins. Obviously this admonition is for pilots who are unable to properly spin the aircraft!
I guess my original question is this: How do you know at the outset that you are not getting yourself into something that you can't get out of?
cubdriver2
FRIEND
upstate NY
Tom I'm not 100% sure but I'm about 97.273645....% sure that you can't be anymore careful then you already are. Loud pipes on a Harley and spins in a plane save lives.
Glenn
MainlandCub
Registered User
New Zealand
Peter,
Have you spun it while equipped with wheels (not floats)?
Thanks,
Andrew.
Have you spun it while equipped with wheels (not floats)?
Thanks,
Andrew.
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Tom,
I saw that video of the C-130 also, both wings came off. I know nothing about C-130s however, that failure has the look of an overstressed fatigue failure. Remember the Chaulks Mallard? The wing had a fatigue crack which was full of corrosion. Remember the early Lockheed Electra used to shed wings until a major alteration was accomplished. The C-130 has the same engines. Perhaps there is a sympathetic vibration which causes cracks under certain circumstances?
When exploring the extremes of the flight envelope you start in the middle and work your way outward. That way you will find any tendency towards an unsatisfactory result before it becomes a problem. Notice that initially I could not even get it to start spinning let alone having it fail to recover when asked. I was not expecting anything out of the ordinary since this is an almost copy of the well proven certified Super Cub.
Unless your 12 has the no spin placard because of the 0-320 installation, spins are approved in Utility Category (maximum weight 1500 lbs). Read NOTE:2 (b) here: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...0fe3b1c17780186256a61006c7931/$FILE/a-780.pdf
I saw that video of the C-130 also, both wings came off. I know nothing about C-130s however, that failure has the look of an overstressed fatigue failure. Remember the Chaulks Mallard? The wing had a fatigue crack which was full of corrosion. Remember the early Lockheed Electra used to shed wings until a major alteration was accomplished. The C-130 has the same engines. Perhaps there is a sympathetic vibration which causes cracks under certain circumstances?
When exploring the extremes of the flight envelope you start in the middle and work your way outward. That way you will find any tendency towards an unsatisfactory result before it becomes a problem. Notice that initially I could not even get it to start spinning let alone having it fail to recover when asked. I was not expecting anything out of the ordinary since this is an almost copy of the well proven certified Super Cub.
Unless your 12 has the no spin placard because of the 0-320 installation, spins are approved in Utility Category (maximum weight 1500 lbs). Read NOTE:2 (b) here: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...0fe3b1c17780186256a61006c7931/$FILE/a-780.pdf
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
No. It has never been on wheels. I suspect that the rotation speed might be a bit slower on wheels with a normal recovery. You should be cautious about exceeding the rear limit of 20" when on wheels. Floats tend to make the rotation speed higher with the nose pointed more down, because of the mass being further from the vertical CG.
Last edited:
