Carbon Cub EX VS Mackey / Backcountry SQ2

I was at Ultima Thule Lodge when paul Claus flew Doug's certified Super Cub with the split flaps. He flew his Cub and then Dougs with the same GPS. He drug his Cub in nose high which I had never seen him do. He flew Doug's Cub with a flat approach. Said the stock flapped wing was a few mph slower than the stock wing with Keller's flaps but he could see over the nose of Keller's Cub because of the different style flap.

Having flown the slats and slots on several certified and experimental Super Cubs I notice people always comment on the nose high approach. That approach can be made for super slow flight and is fun to do but the biggest benifit I have seen with both slats and slots is the manuverability when heavy. Turns around a point when heavily loaded feel like the airplane is empty. Those base to final turns feel much more stabile and after going up high and experimenting with the slow flight envelope I determined that the airplane was more stabile and solid.

Growing up flying a helio courier gives you that same feeling of stability. Having put the bigger wing on my 180 helped but it's still not the same. Not even close really. Would be really cool if you could put a set of slats on the Skywagon.

Aktahoe said:

... Would be really cool if you could put a set of slats on the Skywagon.

Click to expand...

Then you would need to lengthen the flaps. The Helio has long flaps to complement the slats. How about a modified 206 wing on the 180/185? That has a better flap.

Thread resurrection. Obviously I elected to go with Back Country. To me the whole thing came down to utility. My average flight will add about 800# to the plane's empty weight so all the talk about empty weight is of little interest to me. I want a plane that will perform at real world weights. What do Cub guys do to manage it? Add wing. Add power. Add cargo space. The Rev 2 has the wing, the power, and the space. With the relocated upper longeron the loading door is enormous. That's a very serious utility benefit. Head room in the cabin is fantastic. The airframe is stretched to allow a big motor and CS prop while maintaining good balance. Visibility is unprecedented. Slats? Yes please. 9'4" PS flaps? Yes please. Enlarged tail feathers? Sure, since they come standard. The truth is the BC wing with the extended chord ailerons and flaps is pretty darn good without adding slats and split flaps. Slats and the flaps offer added benefits. And FWIW, the BCSC wing is not state of the art. Wayne Mackey has added chord and shortened his ailerons and uses 12' Keller flaps on the planes he's building. His SQ-12s are sexy airplanes.

I love the description that the CC feels like a sports car and the BCSC feels like a truck. I haven't owned a car since the early 80s. I see no reason to start now!
Pick the plane that fits your needs. My BCSC may be the Cub that dethrones my Skywagon. That's the intent. It'll pack the load like a Skywagon and fly slower/land shorter than a standard Cub. Pinch me. My dreams are coming true.

Stewart;
Your thoughts mirror mine. I have taken several steps backwards with my project to include installing the SQ2 ailerons on Javaron wings last winter. This winter Wayne modified my widebody fuselage extending it 2 feet and making it full height box, no gingerbread, from the rear attach fittings to the tail. I will have an electric trim to make easy trim adjustment when deploying the Keller flaps and the IO-390 up front will balance better with the tail feather back 2 more feet. Starting to cover wings now
LiteCub

Hi all I’m new to the site and just love everyones inputs.I have a javeron kit coming soon and need all the help I can get.

Welcome on Board!!

There is a TON of information on the site here. It can take a bit of time to search it all out but its buried in here somewhere. And of course, just ask, we will gladly give our opinion! LOL

I hope you have a great build and a great time flying your Cub when done.

Fun to read an older thread. Aktahoe, the biggest supporter of the SQ2 sold it and is now building a CC....is that right? Did I read that a magazine editor gave up on his BC Cub? Dave (founder of the JC fly-in) sold his and quit flying altogether? Am I all messed up on this or is this a trend?

Any idea how many BC kits are in progress?
My guess is 30 or 40 Javron kits in progress.
Any idea how many CC kits completed? In progress?

CC just seems to be cranking them out and I really don't hear anything negative at all there.

Javron is running pretty hard as well, somewhere in between?

A CC kit is in the 130K range. Backcountry is 66K plus. Javron is around 44K plus. Northstar? Wag Aero? Any others I'm forgetting?

What are the latest trends in the Cub kit building world? Company info? New options?

Bill

Back Country isn’t standing still. They’ve developed a new Rev 3 wing that has some interesting changes including an evolved split flap. I’m looking forward to seeing it fly.

Here is my opinion on it, if it is lighter weight it is going to preform better and be more fun to fly. The Super Cub with a stock wing is going to be more forgiving in gusty windy conditions then my extended wing. It will not land as slow but control over an aircraft is paramount to landing. The first Super Cub I built AKA Got Rocks was 1053 lbs. on 35" ABW with a 180hp engine and 90" propeller, stock round tip wing. That airplane was amazing on take off and that is why the C.C. is also such a hoot to fly (It is even lighter). Got Rocks lives in Alaska now with it's new owner who has made it his own airplane by adding double slot flaps, Cato propeller, flying tail surfaces, different suspension and the airplane is even more amazing now.

There is a reason you see 6 or 7 Super Cubs at Ultima Thule lodge all equipped pretty much the same. The goal is light weight and rugged to take the constant abuse. No wing mods!

I doubt that a C.C. cub would last season after season out there doing what their cubs do. I would expect the Back Country SQ to work for the mission but they would probably not like the wing and heavy feel of the aircraft.

Again this is just my opinion, keep it light and simple and you can't go wrong.

bill thank for all the great information and all the time you have spent providing it.

Mike

There is a guy building a Carbon Cub an hour from my house, I have seen the kit two times while it was being built, I am very very impressed with the quality and completeness of the kit. There really is some neat stuff in the kit world being produced these days.

And so .... is there a sequel to this.Would love to know if you bought a kit and how is it going.Would love to hear.

supercub83a said:

Thanks to everyone that replied. The wealth of opinions and information has been great. After this thread and after having talked to Jay at Javron I'm leaning towards his kit rather than the Carbon Cub or the SQ2.

Reasons:
I question the carbon cub's ability to withstand the abuse that my lack of good judgment and poor piloting skills inflict on an airplane! In all seriousness I haul some heavy loads out of short rough places too often and I'm not made of money so I need something durable.

The SQ2 seems like a very strong plane, but stiffer/stronger doesn't always equate to better. Therefore, I think I want something closer to the original fuselage design with it's 60 years of improvements.

This is what I'm thinking as of now:
Javron regular width cub with all the strength modifications, extended baggage etc.
Javron square wings with performance stol flaps and likely the backcountry cubs' leading edge slats.
Oratex fabric
Titan IOX-409
IFR instruments (Garmin G3X or G500) and heated pitot tube. I know many would question this, but I've spent many nights sleeping in the baggage area of my cub due to bad weather. Those nights I dreamt of a Husky.... Sometimes a simple IFR capable airplane and pilot can get you home safely rather than another night out and about or scud running through mountains to try to get home.

My goal is a plane that weighs in the same or less than my current cub, 1191 LBS, with much more horsepower and lift generation.

Click to expand...

Go look at naked airframes. Aside from size there's a reason the BCSC is heavier than the CC or Cub clones. If that matters to you? It matters. If it doesn't? It doesn't. Choice is good. Make yours for your own reasons.

ron said:

And so .... is there a sequel to this.Would love to know if you bought a kit and how is it going.Would love to hear.

Click to expand...

Better late than never! I got a little distracted sailing around the pacific but Im back on track now. I decided to go with the Javron kit. I will be getting some assistance from Jay at his shop until the kit is ready to cover and then I will ship it back to my hangar in Alaska where the oratex, 35” BWs, and extended 3 hanger pstol flaps are already waiting. Work should commence next month (Oct 2021)

Standard width fuselage
Aerosport power IO375 with trailblazer prop
Basically all of the normal “Alaska” mods and beef ups.
Backcountry leading edges
Tk monster shocks
Acme tailwheel
Beringer wheels and brakes
Garmin g3x panel

Decided against the carbon cub and sq for several reasons.

I felt like the sq would be too challenging for a first build. The carbon cub’s lack of interchangeable parts, lack of bigger engine (200hp+), leading edge slats, and unproven durability scared me away. However, i have flown an EX2 and I have to say it was a very nice plane with more performance than any other cub that I’ve flown.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

supercub83a,
I highly recommend the widebody fuselage over the standard width. I'm a skinny person and that little extra is very much appreciated.

PStol flaps. The longer the better. I'd do the flaps before I did the slats. If you can't afford both? Slats are simple to add later.

I have the 90” PStol flaps and the BC slats. Very interested to see what they can do in combination.

Skywagon8a, I picked regular width for the weight savings. I didnt feel like I gained enough extra cargo capacity to justify the weight increase. Also when flying a Carbon Cub it felt unusual to me after so much time in regular cubs. I am intrigued at the reports of faster speeds in the wide bodies, I have wondered if that is a big part of how the Carbon Cubs are getting such high cruise speeds.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

I chose the widebody for the elbow and leg room as well as being easier to climb in and out. In that, I am pleased. I don't carry cargo. Also I learned to fly in a 65 hp Aeronca Champ and always wondered why it was faster than a 65 hp J-3. I concluded it was the wider fuselage. Since then I've learned the shape of a blimp is the most efficient. In thinking about that, the wider portion is just fairing out the higher drag thin fuselage, made sense to me. My widebody is easily faster, yet there are other things which also contribute to this. I consider the small weight difference to be a worthwhile sacrifice.

There's a story that CG Taylor (early Cubs and then Taylorcraft) observed a Cub's fabric in flight. He (or whoever ?) saw some fabric movement caused by local turbulence along the fuselage sides and designed to reduce that with a more rounded-flared out fuselage to reduce drag. Like Taylorcraft or PA-12's shape I assume. Back to topic.

Gary

That's right, the 65 hp Taylorcraft is much faster than both the Champ and the J-3. Wide fuselage.

Found the source for the flat to rounded out fuselage change noted above: See page 16 of Chet Peek's Taylorcraft book - CG Taylor noted the fabric "bulged out" on the standard Cub in flight so decided to design to reduce that high drag area.

Gary

skywagon8a said:

That's right, the 65 hp Taylorcraft is much faster than both the Champ and the J-3. Wide fuselage.

Click to expand...

As is the RANS S20 side by side, faster then the 7 though the wing is identical! Ain't right, but it's so.

I prefer flying the standard fuselage over the wide bodies as well.

Steve Pierce said:

I prefer flying the standard fuselage over the wide bodies as well.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I was beginning to think I was the only one...