Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 74 of 74

Thread: Carbon Cub EX VS Mackey / Backcountry SQ2

  1. #41
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,971
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by supercub83a View Post
    ...This is what I'm thinking as of now:
    Javron regular width cub with all the strength modifications,...
    Sounds good however I recommend that you give serious thought to using the wide body fuselage for just a little bit more elbow room with a very small weight penalty. I did and am pleased. I would now find a stock width Cub very cramped.
    N1PA

  2. #42
    soyAnarchisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    579
    Post Thanks / Like
    What's the weight difference between a wide body and a regular javron cub all other things being equal after finished?
    Where the hell is soyAnarchisto? Spot:

    http://share.findmespot.com/shared/f...SWNtWd0Trffc0F

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wanaka,NZ
    Posts
    352
    Post Thanks / Like
    Re the wide body selectionI would second that,I feel like I am flying a boeing cockpit when I sit in ours,it is SOOOOOO much better!

  4. #44
    Bill Rusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho and Poplar Grove, (Chicago) IL
    Posts
    5,323
    Post Thanks / Like
    Soy

    Don't know for sure but my guess would be close to 20 pounds. Windshield is wider and thats pretty heavy, frame is 5 to 6 pounds, floor boards are wider, skylight, boot cowl, etc. If you need it, it is great!!! But if you are a skinny, lightweight kinda guy you might not need it. More room in the winter when you are wearing extra clothes. More room for the rear seat pax feet on the rudders. For a small guy you don't feel as much like you are "wearing" the plane, a bigger guy would not experience that. Its pretty personal.

    Bill
    Very Blessed.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    269
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Rusk View Post
    Its pretty personal.
    Sums up the whole Super Cub experience.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    One advantage of the Jarvon cub is when you bend something 4 hours out of Fairbanks there might just be a part hanging on a cabin wall nearby that will fit and get you home. Wingtips, Landing gear, prop, struts, and tail feathers are things that you will need when you screw up. Having a one off part is great until you need another one and you only have 24 hours before the snow starts blowing. I think I could find any new stock cub part in ANC by 0830. Even if you bent up the leading edge slats just cover with aluminum and tape.
    DENNY

  7. #47
    jr.hammack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    north of willow ak.
    Posts
    619
    Post Thanks / Like
    ever had a corvette,slipping into a good cub feels as good as slipping into a hot vette!!! a widebody or pa-12 just feels sloppy to me,long trips ya got a place to brace your knees!!


    jr.

  8. #48
    Aktahoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Truckee, Alaska
    Posts
    253
    Post Thanks / Like
    Great thread! I have read and re-read just about every word. I have even spoken to several of you. My Backcountry Cub kit has been ordered. Delivery date is sometime around July 10th. Keeping the 180...need to start a new thread on the many ways to save weight.

    AKT

  9. #49
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,983
    Post Thanks / Like
    Congrats, saving weight is key, as the carbon cub demonstrates. Lighter cub just flys better. I put my cub on a diet, I'm interested to see what it weights in at

  10. #50
    sniffler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hawkins Texas
    Posts
    113
    Post Thanks / Like
    them thar Ohio lads talk about weight in one of our laddy Greg's videos

  11. #51
    RanchPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    367
    Post Thanks / Like
    Love the Swingle video.

    God bless those who can afford to dream, but at $575 per pound I could afford a lot of mogas to go figure out how to land my heavy old Cub!

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Montgomery, TX
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can't wait to hear about your experience with Backcountry.

  13. #53
    Aktahoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Truckee, Alaska
    Posts
    253
    Post Thanks / Like
    My experience to date will both Bob and Bruce have been nothing short of exceptional at BCSC.

    Here is a question that I continue to think about as I lye wide awake at night thinking about my build. People always stress how they want a light weight cub yet they end up putting every mechanical advantage in the plane (IO- engine) (constant speed prop) (electronics out the ying yang) all just adding more and more weight. Why would you not put a fixed pitch on the bird, run with a carbonated engine and go vey basic on your instrumentation? I realize much of it is personal preference but my only interest is beating my bird to death while keeping me safe and keeping it as light as possible.

    I should also put a disclaimer in that I have elected to have Bent Wing Aviation (down the road from BCSC in WY) build my plane. With as much as I would really like to build, my time really does not allow for such...and I like flying way to much. So I have more ideas than one person should have. I would love to hear your opinions and ideas for for a light weight build. My kit is perchased and the build begins in a couple weeks. Literally. Almost bought Kirstens that was just listed but wanting to modify this to my specs. Light being key.

    Looking seriously at the R409 but like the Aerosports, Oratex (maybe) Fixed pitch with a Cato or possibly a Pawnee prop for cooling, basic instruments. I really dont think you need the 35's with how slow the plane lands already....however... Also pondering on the TK 1 Shock system however some recent events have me pondering on that as well. I sure like the tried and trued so the jury is still out. Let me hear it. No need to discuss CC or any other kit. Im in the SQ game now.

    AKT

  14. #54
    tedwaltman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    425
    Post Thanks / Like
    IMHO, having an IO engine adds power & saves fuel with negligible weight addition.

    Constant speed prop involves a hollow crankshaft (weight savings) with the additional weight of the rest of the affair--again with the positive aspect of more efficient performance. Plus, the additional constant speed weight (can anyone give me a real lb #?) is up front, giving one extra baggage capacity in back. So that's a win-win IMHO.

    Regarding "electronics" today's solid-state EFIS have everything at a fraction of the weight of traditional round-face instruments. Another no-brainer IMHO.

  15. #55

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Montgomery, TX
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like
    OK, were only adding weight if it improves some other aspect.
    Trade-offs. Lots of things add weight and affect speed. Are they worth it? Your thoughts please.
    On the wing..thoughts on Backcountry (Mackey)slats and Keller flaps.
    Gear..main and tail tire size. Is bigger better?
    Interior..metal liner with extended cargo?
    Electrical system...battery, alternator, starter, wiring, etc.
    Engine/prop combos also greatly affect CG.
    Obviously, all choices should be made with your mission in mind.

  16. #56
    Aktahoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Truckee, Alaska
    Posts
    253
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not concerned with speed or going anywhere fast

    Slats and Keller flaps without question

    31's for certain...plane already flys slow let's see about 35's

    mission? To beat this bird to death and do so while keeping myself and passengers safe. Contest flying is also a bonus not the true mission

    interior 3/8 foam


    EarthX battery, 409 angle valve, p mags...much if this is per my conversation with Goza. He is a heap of info! I feel like I owe him bigtime.

    Avionics...Dynon more than likely

    Prop- fixed or constant speed...TBD one is obviously lighter one has better performance out of the hole

    my mission is the same as my 180...god made mountains to land on....I'm just tired of beating my 180 to death

    Akt

  17. #57
    tedwaltman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    425
    Post Thanks / Like
    I flew my SQ-2 for about 40 hours with the Mackey slats, then took them off and flew for about 10 hours. Conclusion: slats cost me about 8 to 10 mph in cruise while gaining at least 6 to 8 in lower stall/better low-speed performance.

    Keller flaps: Would be nice to have, but at $15,000? I've heard rumors of perhaps slower approach speed by 4 mph...need input from someone please.

    I have the Matco WHLT-11D tailwheel. No problems so far. I have the Alaskan Bushwheel tailwheel on another aircraft. Both are good tailwheels--constructed well IMHO. Having both, with perhaps 200 hours on the AK version and 150 hours on the Matco, I don't see any particular service issues to note. Haven't compared weight.

    I have a 0.020" powder coated interior with carbon fiber floor panels (that I vacuum bagged myself). I saved 10 lbs with the carbon fiber floor vs the std plywood.

    I have a Lamar 40 amp alternator. Someone told me (not verified) that it is the same alternator that they have in their Kubota tractor. Skytec starter. 2+ lb Aerovoltz battery, which so far, works absolutely great. Aerovoltz will have a new battery out later this summer with a built-in battery management system, which will be an important upgrade (so I'm told).

  18. #58
    tedwaltman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    425
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oh, and I have dual P-mags. They perform flawlessly and are a no-brainer to time/set.

  19. #59

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Montgomery, TX
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like
    Kellers are listed at $6,200 to $8,200 for custom down to $4,200 for PA18.
    What's weight diff vs. standard?
    What change to cruise/stall speed?
    What kind of deck angle difference at high alpha?

  20. #60

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have stock wings with vg's and can slow down to the point that my tailwheel is 1-2 ft lower than my mains. I would do Kellers extended flaps before the slats, they will slow you down without being so nose high. Giving you better vis in the rough stuff.
    DENNY

  21. #61
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    19,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  22. #62
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    19,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes Dave Calkins liked this post

  23. #63
    Aktahoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Truckee, Alaska
    Posts
    253
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  24. #64
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,971
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Aktahoe View Post
    ... Would be really cool if you could put a set of slats on the Skywagon.
    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.
    N1PA

  25. #65

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,129
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Last edited by stewartb; 02-25-2017 at 09:27 PM.

  26. #66

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Wasilla,Ak
    Posts
    417
    Post Thanks / Like
    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
    Likes stewartb, gregory liked this post

  27. #67

    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Likes Steve Pierce liked this post

  28. #68
    Bill Rusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho and Poplar Grove, (Chicago) IL
    Posts
    5,323
    Post Thanks / Like
    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
    Very Blessed.
    Thanks tedwaltman1 thanked for this post

  29. #69

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,129
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Thanks Bill Rusk thanked for this post

  30. #70
    Mauleguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    669
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  31. #71

    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like
    bill thank for all the great information and all the time you have spent providing it.

    Mike

  32. #72
    G44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    509
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  33. #73

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wanaka,NZ
    Posts
    352
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by supercub83a View Post
    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.

  34. #74

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,129
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Likes N/A, OLDCROWE, firefighter2143 liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Mackey SQ2 for sale?
    By Scouter in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-01-2014, 10:21 PM
  2. Beware Goza & Mackey are loose in AK
    By mikeo in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-22-2010, 05:15 PM
  3. Mackey/SQ2 leading edge on a bowed tip?
    By av8ron in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-11-2008, 11:19 PM
  4. Mackey SQ2
    By PA18project in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 09:10 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •