Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 109

Thread: Zlin Aviation Outback Shock Cub

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BEAAF262-6709-4F3C-BB82-DCA9C6A16951.jpeg 
Views:	141 
Size:	216.0 KB 
ID:	42089Click image for larger version. 

Name:	26F78022-A09B-4602-8678-6B02EBB8E478.jpeg 
Views:	127 
Size:	170.6 KB 
ID:	42090
    Looks like a test flight any day now.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9BE1767F-FEF8-422C-ADA7-021D3C2BEFAD.jpeg 
Views:	135 
Size:	258.1 KB 
ID:	42088  

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like

  3. #43
    flyrite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Lyons,GA
    Posts
    453
    Post Thanks / Like
    Love the plane. Just shows due to the uniqueness of the design, there ain’t no end to the iterations of Mr Pipers little mount.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,307
    Post Thanks / Like
    I like that flip up cowl, great access. Can't tell from the pics, but it looks like maybe a big gap between the inboard section of flap and fuselage, when not deployed? That's easy enough to close up with a simple sheet metal piece, I did on my bird, otherwise lots of air spilling thru there. Great video!

    Not lusting after that motor yet though, nor are most guys I know flying behind the stock (though with some mods, so not stock I guess!) 912S engine, weight and complexity being the main reason. The "jury" is still out by and large. Then again, I'm not even interested in a 914, the turbo version of the 912 that's been around for quite a while, for the same reasons, weight and more stuff, guess I'm just a weight weenie.
    Last edited by courierguy; 04-09-2019 at 11:32 PM.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Possibly a winning combo for STOL ops! The 912 powered STOL planes were losers at the Paradise Field this year.
    The Titan powered SuperStol XL and the blue and white cub followed by the camo Aircam were the winners in short take offs, sustained steep climb outs and short landings. Zlin is zeroed in on a serious STOL contender with this Shock Cub 915is combo. They know a 912 powered machine can’t compete in ultimate STOL.

  6. #46
    WWhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Laporte, Minnesota and the white sandy beaches of NW Florida
    Posts
    1,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm with Simkot! While it's an amazing engine, I have little interest in it. I recently visited with a Rotax guru that has one on a RANS S7. The owner likes the performance, but it comes with an approximate 100lb. weight gain to the aircraft. What I didn't like was the 'rats nest' and complexity under the cowl. Looks like what one sees upon opening the hood of any new vehicle. Being in the boonies, and having any issues, well, hope you have a buddy to fly you out.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just clarifying that the Aircam is powered by not one, but two 912 engines. And it performs beautifully.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WWhunter View Post
    I'm with Simkot! While it's an amazing engine, I have little interest in it. I recently visited with a Rotax guru that has one on a RANS S7. The owner likes the performance, but it comes with an approximate 100lb. weight gain to the aircraft. What I didn't like was the 'rats nest' and complexity under the cowl. Looks like what one sees upon opening the hood of any new vehicle. Being in the boonies, and having any issues, well, hope you have a buddy to fly you out.
    Yep. Heard those statements so many times it becomes like “yeah whatever”. Lol. Not many new cars busted on the side of the road with the hood up cause there’s a big issues in the “ rats nest “. “Oh but it 100 lbs heavier”. Yep it’s a factor but don’t shut your eyes completely....take a peek at the STOL planes actually performing really well, in all fronts, including fuel burn. And the ones performing really well? Those ones with Titan 180s for example. The lighter 912 powered planes are being eaten alive.
    Back to “complicated modern engines”. Perhaps a K Car would be a good seller now? Like it’s just so simple you could just “wrench er on the side of the road and motor on. Surprising that Toyota and Honda have any sales at all given complicated unreliable thing under the hood lol.
    I have a RANS S-7S. With a 912.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	60F73E8A-D889-4AEF-82EC-B8EDC09B093B.jpeg 
Views:	84 
Size:	214.5 KB 
ID:	42446I’m a big fan of the 915 iS, and believe it will become the engine that the LSA and experimental market look to. After having flown behind it with the Sling TSi, I can say that it is extremely powerful even with three people on board. The Airplane Factory is seeing 166 knots true at altitude burning 7.4 GPH. Awesome right there!

    This combination of engine and airframe is about the ultimate STOL setup right now. I had a chance to fly the Titan Outback Shock about a month ago and my oh my was the climbout deck angle and gear just unbelievable. The breakout forces were a bit firmer than I would have liked, but the aircraft has wonderful control at extremely slow air speeds. It’s just a heavier feel and surprised me in that way. I kept thinking to myself how much better the Shock would be with a 100 lbs shaved off the nose and lot quieter and smoother engine running the show.

    Here are are some photos from the AERO Show today. An all black 915 Shock Cub and an all aluminum concept wing which could yield cruise of 100kts with slow flight maintaining 20kts. Exciting stuff!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	37A5B2AC-30DD-47B2-9B1B-7265B363F84F.jpeg 
Views:	86 
Size:	124.9 KB 
ID:	42441   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ADE5153A-F27D-41F3-831D-05D9A9E8D4AB.jpeg 
Views:	113 
Size:	209.9 KB 
ID:	42442   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5117BFD3-6E5A-409C-84D2-1B83212619D6.jpeg 
Views:	99 
Size:	116.7 KB 
ID:	42443   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F26BB3EE-A9C0-4861-8C4E-E830C4E9CF0F.jpeg 
Views:	118 
Size:	173.2 KB 
ID:	42444   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	54A29A2B-4A91-4F49-B624-161049F40BEE.jpeg 
Views:	130 
Size:	177.9 KB 
ID:	42445  

    Last edited by jetcat11; 04-10-2019 at 08:31 AM.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,307
    Post Thanks / Like
    Cool wing, love the flaps. It looks to have the SLOW part handled, 100 knots? With that engine pulling it, even with that draggy gear, probably, along with a fuel burn similar to the Sling. Whether that's a high or low burn depends on what you're used to! Pulled back a bit, it should offer similar economy to a regular 912 though.

    I see Ronnie Smith, Rotax engine guru and expert, has stuffed one into a RANS S-7S, a pretty good trick, while keeping what seems to be the same cowl. He also added two extra wing tanks, and reported a fuel burn of mostly 6+ GPH on a flight to Alaska and back.
    Likes RoddyM, flyrite liked this post

  11. #51

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by courierguy View Post
    Cool wing, love the flaps. It looks to have the SLOW part handled, 100 knots? With that engine pulling it, even with that draggy gear, probably, along with a fuel burn similar to the Sling. Whether that's a high or low burn depends on what you're used to! Pulled back a bit, it should offer similar economy to a regular 912 though.

    I see Ronnie Smith, Rotax engine guru and expert, has stuffed one into a RANS S-7S, a pretty good trick, while keeping what seems to be the same cowl. He also added two extra wing tanks, and reported a fuel burn of mostly 6+ GPH on a flight to Alaska and back.
    Yeah! I talked to Ronnie about it and he seemed very happy with the setup. I agree, extremely impressive he was able to fit that engine in such a tight space. Seems the fuel burn is less than a 912 ULS and 914 UL pulled back.

    https://youtu.be/CUwa4_GHrpU

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like
    Last time it was sodium valve stems and now a new mandatory service bulletin having to do with the heat shield on the turbo. That is sort of my concern with installation in tandem planes (tight, narrow cowls), keeping all that heat away from where it should be kept away from. That would be a lot easier in side by sides with a wider cowl. I have nothing against the engine and anything new will have a few bugs along the way but I sure get a lot of bulletins in my inbox (I went to the inspection school for rotax so they have my email).

  13. #53
    WWhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Laporte, Minnesota and the white sandy beaches of NW Florida
    Posts
    1,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    I was just down visiting Ronnie. Super guy! Brought my engine down to get some ignition things checked. Had a look at his S7 with the 915, took a couple of photos. I'll just say this, gave me a headache just looking at the complexity! He's a genius for getting it all to fit into the confines of the S7 cowl!

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WWhunter View Post
    I was just down visiting Ronnie. Super guy! Brought my engine down to get some ignition things checked. Had a look at his S7 with the 915, took a couple of photos. I'll just say this, gave me a headache just looking at the complexity! He's a genius for getting it all to fit into the confines of the S7 cowl!
    What happened to you’re ignitions?

  15. #55
    WWhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Laporte, Minnesota and the white sandy beaches of NW Florida
    Posts
    1,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    Internal breaks in the wires. I had fixed it several years ago and I think the vibration just caused it to break in another spot further down the wiring loom. It was inside the braided section.

  16. #56

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just come across this thread. Am a new Zlin Shock Cub owner. Waited ages (over a year) for the 915 and finally went for the 914; very satisfied with the decision. Desser Aero Classic 31” (more like 29”) on Beringer 10” rims and a fat Matco tail-wheel. Really enjoying it. We did have and continue to have teething issues but are working through them. General build quality is excellent but Zlin really should have picked up more of the niggles before it left the factory.

    We had significant engine over-heating issues as soon as we started flying her. The oil-cooler radiator was 50% blanked by the cowling and oil temperatures were way too high. The local agent’s engineering shop did a great job of modding the cowl which resolved that issue. CHT’s were way too high - the plumbing to the 2 engine radiators was not at all great - ported to the two radiators through a T-piece junction which resulted in very unfavorable fluid dynamics. The local engineers re-plumbed the coolant, routing the total flow through one and then the other radiator. Simply put, once this was done all engine cooling issues were over.

    Other, currently unresolved issues still in the process of being resolved are:

    * The rear control stick impacts the forward seat to the extent that forward elevator travel is restricted by almost 2 inches. I’ve removed the rear stick (it has a quick-disconnect) as it really was unsafe. Working on a replacement stick with enough bend to avoid conflict with the front seat.

    * The Beringer brakes are just not ‘grabby’ enough. I’ve wound the adjustment knob to the maximum and they’re still well below where they need to be. The brakes hold the aircraft against power but just barely and are ineffective for proper ground maneuvering, especially in a crosswind.

    * I’ve never been able to select the third (full) notch of flap in flight. It goes to the notch on the ground, with no aerodynamic load. The flap attachment arm is striking the fuselage panels on either side on the way to the fully extended position. The factory insists they got full flap during testing but I simply don’t understand how that was possible. We’re going to cut a section out of the fuselage panels which the arm passes through and that should resolve this issue.

    I really do feel the above 3 issues should have been identified and resolved during testing at the factory.

    Nonetheless it is a fantastic machine; the 914 is a great compromise between a reliable, well known power-plant, weight, cost and fuel-efficiency (averages around 20 litres/ just over 5 USG per hour). We’re still exploring the envelope, stall is docile and a non-event, occurs well under 20 knots (with just the 2nd notch of flap) and results in a rate of descent around 600 feet per minute, power-off, stick fully back, no wing-drop. Application of sufficient engine power reduces the rate of descent. No doubt she’ll land in the hover with around 20 knots of headwind. Still building courage and experience before we go there.

    Here’s a snapshot - https://www.facebook.com/562437460/p...437460&sfns=mo
    Thanks tiltf16, NoCub thanked for this post
    Likes Hardtailjohn, Jonnyo liked this post

  17. #57

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like
    G’day, we solved the rear stick problem by moving the front seat to the more forward position (well it sort of solved it, it’s better). We have Berringer dual calipers with 6 inch and 26 inch abw and they are great, we decided not to install the anti skid as it seems to take away feel.

    Hope this helps. cheers Damien
    Last edited by damiens; 05-19-2019 at 06:57 PM.
    Thanks JeffP, 4Holer thanked for this post

  18. #58
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 4Holer View Post
    * The rear control stick impacts the forward seat to the extent that forward elevator travel is restricted by almost 2 inches. I’ve removed the rear stick (it has a quick-disconnect) as it really was unsafe. Working on a replacement stick with enough bend to avoid conflict with the front seat.

    * The Beringer brakes are just not ‘grabby’ enough. I’ve wound the adjustment knob to the maximum and they’re still well below where they need to be. The brakes hold the aircraft against power but just barely and are ineffective for proper ground maneuvering, especially in a crosswind.

    * I’ve never been able to select the third (full) notch of flap in flight. It goes to the notch on the ground, with no aerodynamic load. The flap attachment arm is striking the fuselage panels on either side on the way to the fully extended position. The factory insists they got full flap during testing but I simply don’t understand how that was possible. We’re going to cut a section out of the fuselage panels which the arm passes through and that should resolve this issue.

    I really do feel the above 3 issues should have been identified and resolved during testing at the factory.
    No kidding?

    Brakes- you need to run in the pads prior to effective. Get them hot as heck and let them cool off, should work better.

    Rear stick- bend aft a bit. Moving the front seat is NOT a good solution, some time in a long flight you decide to push the seat back for a stretch and bad may happen.

    Flap hangar not allowing movement? that is a factory issue, or installation problem. Good luck!
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
    Likes mike mcs repair, pfm liked this post

  19. #59

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58 View Post

    Rear stick- bend aft a bit. Moving the front seat is NOT a good solution, some time in a long flight you decide to push the seat back for a stretch and bad may happen.
    Just for info, the shock cub does not have a flight movable front seat. Just two bolt positions set up prior to flight. But as you say, bending will do the trick.

  20. #60

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,307
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wouldn't call over 5 GPH with a Rotax a low fuel burn! I fly my S-7S all over the west with a non turbo 912S (but with a BigBore Zipper mod) from my field elevation of 5640' and always average less then 4, usually less then 3.5. It climbs at 350 fpm at 13K, (in the winter anyway) all with no turbo heat and complexity not to mention the extra weight. You couldn't give me a turbo, seems like most of the guys who think they need them, live low.

  21. #61

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    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?

  22. #62

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,307
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jetcat11 View Post
    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.

  23. #63

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jetcat11 View Post
    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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	46F5F7FE-4677-47B6-81B4-83AC3133C551.jpeg 
Views:	74 
Size:	259.6 KB 
ID:	42975

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

  24. #64

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 4Holer View Post
    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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	46F5F7FE-4677-47B6-81B4-83AC3133C551.jpeg 
Views:	74 
Size:	259.6 KB 
ID:	42975

    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.

  25. #65

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jetcat11 View Post
    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

  26. #66

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 4Holer View Post
    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.
    Likes 4Holer liked this post

  27. #67

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	6BFEDCF4-CD11-40A1-8559-505E06424B48.jpg 
Views:	70 
Size:	46.3 KB 
ID:	429974Holer, 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.

  28. #68

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yup - surprised to see the cowling still occluding part of the oil cooler.

    Here was the original cowling

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D277956F-C695-41CD-8668-8B9BFC8400F4.png 
Views:	52 
Size:	484.1 KB 
ID:	43000

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

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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1BFD082E-98FD-4771-A1D5-49593B3CDD54.jpeg 
Views:	48 
Size:	115.6 KB 
ID:	43002

    Here’s the original plumbing for the radiators

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3B044965-36D7-44B8-AAA7-5D9FA26A4D61.jpg 
Views:	58 
Size:	70.5 KB 
ID:	43003

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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	A2EB8CA0-655C-4D17-B1EE-32B85E2A3DDE.jpeg 
Views:	51 
Size:	197.2 KB 
ID:	43004

    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.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D277956F-C695-41CD-8668-8B9BFC8400F4.png 
Views:	47 
Size:	484.1 KB 
ID:	43001  
    Thanks jetcat11 thanked for this post

  29. #69

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    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?

  30. #70

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  31. #71

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  32. #72

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  33. #73

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Awesome, thanks. I do love the 914. It’s a wonderful engine!

  34. #74

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  35. #75

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  36. #76

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  37. #77

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,307
    Post Thanks / Like
    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 by courierguy; 05-25-2019 at 08:52 PM.
    Thanks gdafoe, jetcat11, Jonnyo thanked for this post

  38. #78

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  39. #79

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  40. #80
    Mauleguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	got rocks.jpg.jpg 
Views:	140 
Size:	267.4 KB 
ID:	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.
    Thanks pfm thanked for this post
    Likes mike mcs repair, Jonnyo, Eddie Foy liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. New Model by Zlin Aviation: SHOCK CUB
    By azdave in forum In The News
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 09-22-2018, 07:48 PM
  2. zlin aero cub
    By saker in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2016, 08:03 AM
  3. Zlin Cub S -- 180hp LSA Cub to be at Airventure
    By Darrel Starr in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08-10-2013, 06:38 AM
  4. New Aviation Movie - flying the Aussie Outback
    By joe14580 in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 12:07 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
  •