Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 81 to 109 of 109

Thread: Zlin Aviation Outback Shock Cub

  1. #81
    flyrite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Lyons,GA
    Posts
    452
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mauleguy View Post
    Attachment 43062

    948 lbs empty does not make me want a shock cub and 80 mph would really suck plus sounds like it is under powered.
    Well Greg, just a good thing ain’t nobody trying to sell you one then!

    4holer , You got a sweet mount man, get used to it and then start using its capabilities. You will have a BLAST!
    Last edited by flyrite; 05-28-2019 at 02:09 PM.
    Likes Chicken Hawk, 40m liked this post

  2. #82
    Chicken Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Southern NH & Eastern Maine
    Posts
    239
    Post Thanks / Like

    Zlin Aviation Outback Shock Cub

    Quote Originally Posted by Mauleguy View Post
    Attachment 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.
    No need for you to piss in someone else’s Cheerio’s just because there needs or desires aren’t the same as yours.......grow up!


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    Thanks 40m thanked for this post
    Likes TurboBeaver liked this post

  3. #83
    Mauleguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 4Holer View Post
    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.
    I am not trying to piss on anyone's parade. I would not be happy if I bought an airplane, see the above statement about carrying capacity. To each his own, my point is you can have an airplane that is light weight and still carry a load that is a hoot to fly and will stand the test of time, not to mention a lot less complex in the engine compartment.

    If I was to have a light weight machine that had a rotax it would be much lighter then what that shock cub weighs. It is all relative, a heavy cub with a small engine would suck too!
    Likes Eddie Foy liked this post

  4. #84

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    Guys please don’t start arguing on my behalf; chill. Horses for courses; we all have different desires and requirements or we’d all be chasing the same goals. I’m very happy with what I have - it works for me and I look forward to resolving the few teething issues reported and having the time of my life.

    Safe flying!
    Likes Chicken Hawk, 40m, windy liked this post

  5. #85
    Selvaoscura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    21
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't know if this can help to understand better the situation but since I own one Savage plane , I was told by someone at the company, that the yellow Shock Cub mentioned above has about 37 kg (82 lbs) of optionals (4Holer probably could confirm it) and so even including the more adapt 26" alaskan "light bushwheels" (LSA lighter version), the slats and the 914 turbo (when installed it is around 15 kg heavier that the rotax 100 hp, it seems), the empty weight could have been about 393 kg (864 lbs), pretty much the same as most of the Just Super Stol around with a turbo engine for example..I think that even for a smaller Kitfox (one my friend has one) will not be easy to weight less than 360 kg (792 lbs) with the Rotax turbo and the bush wheels, but sure with no slats, not shock absorbers nor larger flaps or larger wings.
    With the 21" tires that come as standard, carbon floorboards and seats and without any other special treatment (that company offers) to lower the weight, the plane could save another 25 lbs so arriving at about 839 lbs..(or 817 when oraover will be used). So potentially a number very far from the 1000 lbs mentioned before and from the 1050 reported by Maule Guy for a totally different plane with a much larger engine and bigger tires, but for sure with all the reduction weight that was possible to achieve, included, and even with no slats. If you would remove even the slats from the Shock you could arrive at 795 lbs, about 255 lbs lighter than the 1050 reported by Maule Guy..that was already showing one of the lightest SC around here, if we consider his engine and tires..
    The Gary Green's Shock Cub already made the shortest landing at Valdez weeks ago even compared to some nice and famous experimentals so I can't imagine how better the lighter Shock Ultra that the company is delivering to his customers could have performed there. Just my 2 cents. Last, I don't think that any company making these LSA planes as Kitfox, Rans, Just, Zlin has never designed their models considering the heavy loads you can carry with your fantastic SC in the real bush in Alaska . I simply think that we are speaking about two different category of planes and purposes..and I am personally glad that 4Holer is happy with his new plane without feeling attacked here by someone that thinks different.
    Likes Chicken Hawk, courierguy, 40m liked this post

  6. #86
    Mauleguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm still not drinking the Koolaid. Shortest landing at Valdez means nothing. Totally controlled environment, nothing challenging about landing straight ahead on pavement, try flying at high angles of attack like that in real world off airport flying where you can't see anything in front of you and your going to be rebuilding that shock cub.

    I am not saying that airplane does not have a place, it would probably serve most weekend flyers for the single pilot playing around if you keep it light. The first thing I would do is take off the slats so obviously I don't think slats are worth much. Not sure how slow it would fly without the slats and the nose pointed at the stars but if it would land at 35 gps with some 31" Bushwheels in a flight attitude that you could see where you were going over the nose it would probably work for me for playing around as a toy. Would it hold up long term to the kind of off airport abuse a Super Cub can take day after day that might be another problem.

    Lots of people love there little lightweight airplanes so there must be something to it. I have only flown Mike Olsens S-7 with rotax, baby bushwheel, 26" ABW by myself and I was less then thrilled so my wealth of knowledge is limited to that one day. I guarantee that airplane would have been broken in a week if I owned it and did with it what I did with Bushwacker or my Super Cub.
    Likes Eddie Foy liked this post

  7. #87
    Selvaoscura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    21
    Post Thanks / Like
    To land short in a competition make a lot of sense..I think.This is why Valdez is growing year by year even if I know that many real bushpilots don't like it too much and even don't visit there.To fly without slats is fine but in this forum you will find tons of posts about how nice they work and how much safer the plane will become with them..So again a different vision here.To destroy one Rans S7 in one week in your environment again means not too much because for every Alaskan bush pilot there are 10 or 100 pilots worldwide that will find it super nice and more than enough for their needs..otherwise there would not have been the big success of the LSA category in the same Country in which you live.So as you see we can say everything we wish and there will be always someone else that can show even better or at least enough valid reasons for their decisions.Of course your plane is the best...For you...But would not work for other 100 pilots around the world.Same happens for the Shock Cub.Why to buy it when there are sure faster and better and lighter planes?we could continue for hours..and your plane would remain the best.Of course for you..
    Last edited by Selvaoscura; 05-29-2019 at 01:20 PM.
    Likes Chicken Hawk liked this post

  8. #88

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mauleguy View Post
    I'm still not drinking the Koolaid. Shortest landing at Valdez means nothing. Totally controlled environment, nothing challenging about landing straight ahead on pavement, try flying at high angles of attack like that in real world off airport flying where you can't see anything in front of you and your going to be rebuilding that shock cub.

    I am not saying that airplane does not have a place, it would probably serve most weekend flyers for the single pilot playing around if you keep it light. The first thing I would do is take off the slats so obviously I don't think slats are worth much. Not sure how slow it would fly without the slats and the nose pointed at the stars but if it would land at 35 gps with some 31" Bushwheels in a flight attitude that you could see where you were going over the nose it would probably work for me for playing around as a toy. Would it hold up long term to the kind of off airport abuse a Super Cub can take day after day that might be another problem.

    Lots of people love there little lightweight airplanes so there must be something to it. I have only flown Mike Olsens S-7 with rotax, baby bushwheel, 26" ABW by myself and I was less then thrilled so my wealth of knowledge is limited to that one day. I guarantee that airplane would have been broken in a week if I owned it and did with it what I did with Bushwacker or my Super Cub.
    You'll be welcome to try out my S-7S Greg if we ever get the chance (stop by sometime, I'm near Pocatello, you'd like my 400' long mountain strip) Cub Style gear, with gas shock rebound control and bungees, 29" Airstreaks, BigBore Rotax, 106 horse I'm told, 78" Prince prop, 20 degrees more flap then stock , Micro VG's, J-3 3 leaf tail spring, 8" tailwheel, expanded plywood lined baggage area, 760 lbs, after 12 years or use, so lot's of adds on/lost pens and change, dirt in that weight. Any time I'm around SC's or CC's, I'm off quicker and lander shorter, no contest really Where they beat me is in cruise and the stuff they can carry of course. 85 mph indicated this morning coming back from breakfast, 6500',70 degrees, 3.6/3.7 GPH. That is "fast cruise" ! Just out playing around at 65-70 mph, 2.7 gph is real easy to do. On mo-gas. Regular/low octane mogas, even E-10. The cub type gear was the best of all the mods.
    Thanks Mauleguy, C130jake thanked for this post
    Likes 40m, Chicken Hawk, jetcat11 liked this post

  9. #89

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    You guys have sweet aircraft; courierguy’s S-7S sounds amazing!

    i don’t know where Selvaoscura gets his gen but he’s right on the money; I took a lot of options and they all weigh sumpin and I skipped the skimpy seats which are a lot lighter but look real uncomfortable and I also declined the carbon-fibre floorboards - the weight-saving wasn’t worth the $. Granted, I could have saved weight by going for smaller wheels but I wanted/ needed bigger rubber. Coulda gone for a skimpy littl’ tailwheel but went with the beefy Matco. No doubt, I could have got the Shock Cub around 80 pounds lighter but there is no way I was going to sacrifice the big wheels, extended fuel tanks, lights & strobes, middle-of-the-road instrument & avionics package or pitched in for the tiny seat and carbon boards.

    Kinda like when I walk into a bar with my lady on my arm; there’s a lot of better-looking, lighter gals in there but I am so happy with what I got.

    Last word. To those of us lucky enough to have slats. Be very careful the day you take them off. They provide the aircraft with some exceptional qualities. The kind of comfort that you like and get used to. When you go fly your aircraft without the slats she’s a very different animal. Not to be rude but why on earth, when you’ve gone to the trouble and expense of putting those slats on the wing, would you be inclined to take them off?

    I got home from my day-job, going to work on getting that new stick in the back and see if I can get full trailing edge flap in flight tomorrow. Brakes & adjusted prop-pitch next and then I am done tweaking.

    Fly safe out there; thanks for having a non-pure blood SC guy on this forum.
    Thanks windy thanked for this post
    Likes Chicken Hawk liked this post

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The Woodlands, TX
    Posts
    33
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hey 4Holer,
    what is your cruise speed in shock cub? is that really in the 80s?
    i also found it strange they posted 112mph max speed and 115 vne.

  11. #91
    Mauleguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 4Holer View Post
    You guys have sweet aircraft; courierguy’s S-7S sounds amazing!

    Last word. To those of us lucky enough to have slats. Be very careful the day you take them off. They provide the aircraft with some exceptional qualities. The kind of comfort that you like and get used to. When you go fly your aircraft without the slats she’s a very different animal. Not to be rude but why on earth, when you’ve gone to the trouble and expense of putting those slats on the wing, would you be inclined to take them off?
    Slats are drag and that equals worse climb, slower cruise speeds, longer take off runs and require a high angle of attack to become effective and they add extra weight. This is not to say some pilots would not benefit, there are probably a few pilots that would still be here had they had slats. They are not going to help you get into a tight spot unless you plan on flying blind. From my point of view and the kind of flying I do the negatives don't out weigh the positives for me, so I would never put them on a bird and therefore would never have to take them off.

  12. #92
    Selvaoscura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    21
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mauleguy View Post
    Slats are drag and that equals worse climb, slower cruise speeds, longer take off runs and require a high angle of attack to become effective and they add extra weight. This is not to say some pilots would not benefit, there are probably a few pilots that would still be here had they had slats. They are not going to help you get into a tight spot unless you plan on flying blind. From my point of view and the kind of flying I do the negatives don't out weigh the positives for me, so I would never put them on a bird and therefore would never have to take them off.
    for most of the pilots I know, the extra safety that slats offer is more than enough to balance all the negativities...You can still approach flat and slower than normal being sure that you will never spin or enter in stall in those conditions..and since most of the pilots are not super capable bush pilots as you are, I think this is a plus at the end of the day..but you are right about how they work and their negativities. And this is why Zlin's new wing and bird coming soon could surprice more than one pilot even in this Forum...Sure not the real Alaskan bushpilots that have different needs and need different engines too in the wild, but world is big enough and there is a big demand of light recreative STOL planes for the companies (not many) involved in this sector. Huge flaps with big pitch moment that will allow to see in front during approach (as you need ), controlled retractable slats and so no negativities and higher cruise speed, crazy camber, lighter plane similar to Shock Ultra ( a weight that a real SC or clones can only dream), higher MTOW and payload, bigger cabin and baggage compartment, unfortunately at least for me, much higher end price ..Can't wait.
    Likes 4Holer, jetcat11 liked this post

  13. #93

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    I’m seeing a steady TAS of 70 knots (80 MPH) in the cruise Cooley. You could go a little faster but the drag curve is steep. Relax on the 115 VNE if you have slats and big wheels, you will never see 110, not even going straight down. But that’s the way I wanted it ��
    Likes jetcat11 liked this post

  14. #94
    Selvaoscura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    21
    Post Thanks / Like
    About cruise speed some my personal considerations.. For example Frank Knapp with his Lil Cub (I heard about) is flying with about 185 hp at 60, max 70 mph...but then when it is time to take off he simply jump on the air...The Gary Green Shock Cub that has flown in Valdez, is capable to fly at 95/100 mph with bushwheels and the French Duc 3 blade propeller (I was told) at about 5000 rpm, but climb will suffer a little with this setting.I also heard that Gary engine was not running more than 5000 rpm during the race (with another propeller not the Duc) so would have been interesting to see the propeller running at the max allowed rpm to get the best during the race..and not just at 5000 rpm. So it really depends on what you are doing when you are setting your prop I think and on which prop you are using. The Shock Cub with the 915 and constant speed propeller is cruising at >100 mph without any effort and with big tires, but this engine has 141 hp of course..and a better prop .
    I really would like to know which cruise speed would reach a standard Super Cub or Carbon Cub (just to mention a more modern plane), with at least 29" tires, fix pitch prop and just 115 hp as the Rotax turbo offers .Any idea ?

  15. #95

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mauleguy View Post
    Slats are drag and that equals worse climb, slower cruise speeds, longer take off runs and require a high angle of attack to become effective and they add extra weight. This is not to say some pilots would not benefit, there are probably a few pilots that would still be here had they had slats. They are not going to help you get into a tight spot unless you plan on flying blind. From my point of view and the kind of flying I do the negatives don't out weigh the positives for me, so I would never put them on a bird and therefore would never have to take them off.
    Mauleguy, slats are what make these aircraft! They also weigh practically nothing. The Shock Ultra will fly at 18 mph ground speed. Show me another factory produced aircraft that can do that? I’d also take the 91 octane smooth running 914 turbo any day over an O-360. The 914 is the perfect blend of modern and tried and true technology. Learn a little more about the engine and you’ll realize it’s not that complex. It’s more than proven it’s reliability. The 915 is a completely different story.

    These are STOL aircraft, why do we care so much about what are cruise speed is? If you do, buy an FX3! After flying a Shock Cub and FX3 back to back, nothing on the market factory produced can touch the Shock Cub’s STOL ability. You can say Valdez doesn’t mean anything, but the difference is quite clear. They’re all operating under the same wind conditions and sea level altitude.

    It all comes back to what your mission is though, and if you wanna play and don’t need to haul a huge load, the safest factory produced aircraft to do that in with a spin resistant wing, 18 mph flying speed, and a ballistic parachute, is the Shock Cub/Ultra.

    Selvaoscura, I think you’re right on. The Shock Ultra is definitely going to put some people on notice!
    Last edited by jetcat11; 05-31-2019 at 04:03 PM.
    Likes 4Holer liked this post

  16. #96
    Mauleguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jetcat11 View Post
    Mauleguy, slats are what make these aircraft! They also weigh practically nothing. The Shock Ultra will fly at 18 mph ground speed. Show me another factory produced aircraft that can do that? I’d also take the 91 octane smooth running 914 turbo any day over an O-360. The 914 is the perfect blend of modern and tried and true technology. Learn a little more about the engine and you’ll realize it’s not that complex. It’s more than proven it’s reliability. The 915 is a completely different story.

    These are STOL aircraft, why do we care so much about what are cruise speed is? If you do, buy an FX3! After flying a Shock Cub and FX3 back to back, nothing on the market factory produced can touch the Shock Cub’s STOL ability. You can say Valdez doesn’t mean anything, but the difference is quite clear. They’re all operating under the same wind conditions and sea level altitude.

    It all comes back to what your mission is though, and if you wanna play and don’t need to haul a huge load, the safest factory produced aircraft to do that in with an unstallable wing, 18 mph flying speed, and a ballistic parachute, is the Shock Cub/Ultra.

    Selvaoscura, I think you’re right on. The Shock Ultra is definitely going to put some people on notice!
    I am the wrong audience, shock cub does nothing for me Frank Knapps lil cub does nothing for me, Cub Crafters FX 3 or whatever does nothing for me. If landing slow at high angles of attack and only playing by myself with-in 50 miles of my home airport where my thing then maybe I would be that guy.
    18 mph is great if you can see where you are going, what angle of attack is that?
    I want a STOL plane that can haul a load and play and cruise at 100 mph minimum
    Likes Eddie Foy, Southern Aero liked this post

  17. #97
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    3,401
    Post Thanks / Like
    You would have a bit more credibility if you would tell us who you are and establish some credentials. Right now you are faceless at your keyboard.

    Quote Originally Posted by jetcat11 View Post
    Mauleguy, slats are what make these aircraft! They also weigh practically nothing. The Shock Ultra will fly at 18 mph ground speed. Show me another factory produced aircraft that can do that? I’d also take the 91 octane smooth running 914 turbo any day over an O-360. The 914 is the perfect blend of modern and tried and true technology. Learn a little more about the engine and you’ll realize it’s not that complex. It’s more than proven it’s reliability. The 915 is a completely different story.

    These are STOL aircraft, why do we care so much about what are cruise speed is? If you do, buy an FX3! After flying a Shock Cub and FX3 back to back, nothing on the market factory produced can touch the Shock Cub’s STOL ability. You can say Valdez doesn’t mean anything, but the difference is quite clear. They’re all operating under the same wind conditions and sea level altitude.

    It all comes back to what your mission is though, and if you wanna play and don’t need to haul a huge load, the safest factory produced aircraft to do that in with an unstallable wing, 18 mph flying speed, and a ballistic parachute, is the Shock Cub/Ultra.

    Selvaoscura, I think you’re right on. The Shock Ultra is definitely going to put some people on notice!
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God!"

  18. #98

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Aren’t we all faceless at our keyboard here? I’m a kid that has an aviation addiction. Does that help haha?

    Mauleguy, I can totally see where you’re coming from. It’s hard to argue with the use case you’ve presented.
    Likes Chicken Hawk liked this post

  19. #99
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    3,401
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am not faceless. People here know me. For all all we know that is exactly what you are. One reason I use my real name.


    Quote Originally Posted by jetcat11 View Post
    I’m a kid that has an aviation addiction. .
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God!"

  20. #100

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why do guys feel the need to piss in somebody's Wheaties? Slats are friggin awesome. Not for everything, but nothing in aviation is awesome for everything. Pick what suits you and go have fun. Respect that the other guys should do the same.
    Thanks flyrite, Chicken Hawk, tedwaltman1, WWhunter thanked for this post
    Likes flyrite, Olibuilt, 40m, windy, jetcat11 and 5 others liked this post

  21. #101
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Foy View Post
    One reason I use my real name.
    And here I thought that was the one Witness Protection had given you!
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
    Likes 40m, Southern Aero, Eddie Foy, kestrel liked this post

  22. #102

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Foy View Post
    I am not faceless. People here know me. For all all we know that is exactly what you are. One reason I use my real name.
    Not everyone here knows you. How could we?

  23. #103

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes courierguy liked this post

  24. #104
    skukum12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The Last Frontier
    Posts
    1,086
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jetcat11 View Post
    Looks like fun. I enjoyed doing the same things with my PA12 when I wasnt so rusty. I agree that this plane will fill the fun factor role, but lots of us need to see it full of moose meat and camp first.
    "Always looking up"
    Likes jetcat11 liked this post

  25. #105

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like
    The only thing I would add as a Shock Cub owner is, the high angle of attack caused by the slats is very short lived. Hence the loss of over the cowl vision is very brief and by then you are going very slow. The low speed handling qualities are stunning. You come in, spot your landing, pull your power, pull the nose up, pull it up some more and plonk you are down. The only similar performances I have seen (on video and in person) would be the back country super cub (SQ2) and the Storch.

    Just as an aside, the shock cub can be stripped back and made lighter (like all aircraft), but the fuselage and general attachments are fairly ruggedly built (not SC rugged, but definitely LSA rugged). Super light/Strong, pick one I reckon or find a compromise.

    It's not a SC or a Maul, they are for different missions. It's a very good aircraft, there is a lot of reasons to like them. I have let a few people fly mine, the only constant theme seems to be the grin after their landing and tiny rollout.

    Hope this helps.
    D

    Edit. Ps. it did occur to me that having this discussion on a Supercub forum may be a challenge and that's fair enough.
    Thanks jetcat11 thanked for this post
    Likes jetcat11, skukum12, 40m, Chicken Hawk, 4Holer liked this post

  26. #106

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    A real nice video, great scenery obviously. Good production values too. I wear a cowboy hat time to time, but never flying, always baseball caps so I can wear my headset, not just for noise attenuation but for the Sirius sat radio. I'm impressed he figured out how to wear his while flying!

    I saw nothing though that any SC or my RANS S-7S couldn't easily do though, I saw no jaw dropping short landings or takeoffs, and that's fine, not bad mouthing it at all, just pointing out how in most back country/off airport flying, past a certain point, real short is short enough, ultra short is very rarely needed, especially if you need to takeoff again. The rest of the time, 99% of the time, you're packing extra weight and drag, have less range and duration, have less payload, and use more fuel. Speaking just for myself here, (and a few S-7's played around with slats years ago) cool plane nonetheless. I enjoy and make practical use out of having an easy 8 hour duration, which is extremely practical in the back country.

    Alaska scenes like this always confuse me, I mean the mountains are obviously big, but what was the average ASL of the valley floors? Is it mostly near sea level, with big ass mountains, or is there lots of high valley flats also?

  27. #107
    skukum12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The Last Frontier
    Posts
    1,086
    Post Thanks / Like
    A vast majority of Alaska flying is sea level to 3-4000 feet. There are of course the Denali pilots, Paul Clause type guys, etc that utilize the upper altitudes.
    "Always looking up"
    Thanks courierguy thanked for this post

  28. #108

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    121
    Post Thanks / Like
    I know a guy in northern New Mexico that had a 914 on a home built pegazair. He actually set an altitude record with it. He got tired of the endless service bulletins. He also had a buddy die in an inflight fire that was attributed to a 914 turbo failure. He now has an IO-360 installed.
    I have a friend here in Del Norte that has an S7 with 912. Two partial power landings now due to carb failures.
    Another S7 here with big bore 912, no issues.
    Tom

  29. #109

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    This thread was a highjack on the Supercub forum, however I did say I’d give a shout when all my initial post-delivery issues were resolved and I’m very happy to now be in a position to do so.

    The inability to select the final notch of flap in flight has been rectified and was a control cable rigging issue. I’m carefully starting to explore that end of the envelope and can comfortably fly level at the 18 knot (IAS) advertised stall speed with (about 60% with 1/2 fuel, 1-up) power on, with no altitude loss or directional control issues. Granted, the nose is pretty high at that speed. I’ve beefed-up the cushioning on the front seat without adding much weight, which has significantly increased my forward visibility.

    We’ve found the (10.5°) sweet-spot for the ground-adjustable Kiev 293 prop and are getting 5,200 RPM static, close to red-line (5,800) in the cruise with full throttle. This prop-pitch still allows a 70 knot cruise (at around 4,950 RPM) at sea level. Fuel burn right on 20 liters (5.3 USG) an hour.

    The Beringer brakes were always working fine - it was my inexperience; used to sophisticated, conventional brakes which was the problem. We jacked each wheel and a tap on each brake locks the wheel. I’ve adjusted my technique; maintain the brake application for at least a 1/4 turn of the respective wheel to allow it to be effective, then release it before you need to do it to the other side. Tapping the brakes like you would in a conventional airplane is a waste of time. She’s still a beast, with the largish 31” Desser Aero Classics and the castoring fat Matco tailwheel and will ground-loop if you let her get around 20° of nose, off the line of direction. Practice and having my finger out is what this is going to take.

    The aft control stick has been modded that it no longer impacts the back of the forward seat.

    I’ve had 2 mandatory Service Bulletins on the Rotax 914 in the 8 months since delivery; replacement of the sodium-filled valves and recently replacement of cir-clips on the carburetor needles, both of which have been extremely well advised and supported by both Zlin & Rotax. Zlin have just issued a Safety Bulletin, based on findings on an older aircraft, based in a corrosive environment, where significant corrosion was found in the sleeves/ heat-shrink around control cables. I’ll address this at the annual inspection.

    Simply put, I’m now a very happy and satisfied Zlin Shock owner. It ain’t a Supercub, it ain’t a rocket-ship but it is right on the money what I want in a personal bush-plane that doesn’t need a runway and costs very little to operate or maintain.

    Safe flying out there.


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
  •