SuperStol VS Supercub Pros/Cons...Im looking to buy

Wow, ya got a lot going on there flyrite! Viva la experimental!

I see Joe Dory now has slats on his cub, not sure what type, but I would really like to pick his brain as to exactly how they have changed his off airport ops. As in, landing shorter places, getting off shorter, whatever, out in the real world as it were, not just in STOL demos at paved airports.

I know Bruce of Back Country Cubs has slats on the Rans S-7 he uses as a coyote getter, and I heard that he had tried them earlier, but with the stock Rotax 912S they for some reason could not reach their full potential. Then he had the engine hot rodded and had enough "extra" power to make them work real well. Which got me thinking, I get in pretty darn short right now and don't want or need to get in so short I can't get out, so what the ratio is between getting you in AND back out is my interest. Pic is from a couple days, rocks were camoed real well, blended right in from the air, not so bad where I landed but up at the turnaround....damn.

I did something I never needed to do before, after walking my takeoff slot, I realized there were some real embedded tire rippers out there, and I have brand new Airstreaks, so I took short pieces of toilet paper (never fly without it, unused) and marked my departure lane, which worked well.

J5Ron said:

I guess I respectfully disagree from a couple standpoints...one the structural integrity of carbon fiber stats would not withstand “load”, but can withstand horizontal pressure due to aerodynamic design - unless they were positively connected to the spar which mine are not...leading edge. Next in my research of slats prior to putting on my cub I reviewed hours and hours of Handley page information and studies. I believe in my reading H.P. slots did contribute to surface area and wing load...however they also contributed to increases drag...Page first tried slots on the
H.P. 17. around 1917. In 1919 Page developed the H.P. 20, which were fitted with what he first called controllable slots, and later became know as slats Slots and slats do increase lift coefficient when deployed in takeoff or landing configurations at high angle of attacks.

As as usual I could be completely wrong, but feel pretty confident my slats, the carbon fiber version would rip off if they were a significant factor in surface area for wing loading purposes.

Fun discussion...for what it’s worth on the original topic, I am a cub guy, but have been intrigued by the numbers of small STOL type aircraft. I feel they are WAY overpriced, but pretty neat planes...on that note I feel many cubs a way overpriced as well.

Respectfully,

Click to expand...

Think TOP of the wing. My Back Country slats move the LE forward approx 7". The LE to aft aileron edge is 74" and they're extended in length. They're huge compared to stock wings. Longer, deeper, and the slats energize the flow on top of the wing. Triple whammy!

Coming soon ...…………………… WIP passive slat based on Piper style construction with 31" spar centers

Southern Aero said:

Coming soon ...…………………… WIP passive slat based on Piper style construction with 31" spar centers

View attachment 44427View attachment 44428

Click to expand...

That looks very interesting. I assume based upon the Helio design? I like the idea of being totally retracted creating no drag in cruise conditions. What is your plan for the ailerons, flaps and wing span? It looks as though you also have a considerable gross weight beef up as well.

Sky

I guess I put this in the wrong place but the discusion turned to slats/slots .................... I'll probly get spanked. This particular wing is 165" spar, short wing, extended slightly but going on an extended fuselage. …… has already been referred to as a "bastard", I've heard. ………….. might be its new name! Also building another wing with the "standard" 17' spar. Helio was the inspiration, obviously, but I have never seen this done to a rag wing so had to do it. ……………...…… been a challenge. Larger chord flaps and ailerons with ailerons moved outboard to tip. Spoilers too, for low speed roll control and plus descent rate.

courierguy said:

Wow, ya got a lot going on there flyrite! Viva la experimental!

I know Bruce of Back Country Cubs has slats on the Rans S-7 he uses as a coyote getter, and I heard that he had tried them earlier, but with the stock Rotax 912S they for some reason could not reach their full potential. Then he had the engine hot rodded and had enough "extra" power to make them work real well. Which got me thinking, I get in pretty darn short right now and don't want or need to get in so short I can't get out, so what the ratio is between getting you in.

Click to expand...

Tom, What I can tell you from putting 1000 hours on my wing before them to a little over 1000 since adding them.....They add a small amount of wing area which is a noticeable seat of the pants improvement in carrying the same weight (lower wing loading) !
Also As Stewart said, They make the wing more effective at ALL angles of attack which is another VERY noticeable improvement by any pilot with a lot of time in the mount there added to!
These two improvements made the wing so docile at slow speed at any bank angle or angle of attack that my low altitude playing is off the charts . It definitely made my approach’s slower. I can hang it on the slats at high alpha to show off, But don’t do it to get in short. I’m all about performance and balancing the airframe improvements to the negatives (weight added) Slats are right there with flaps in priority!

Southern Aero said:

Sky
Spoilers too, for low speed roll control and plus descent rate.

Click to expand...

Got any photos or drawings of how your going to incorporate the spoilers, Would love to see them?

flyrite said:

Got any photos or drawings of how your going to incorporate the spoilers, Would love to see them?

Click to expand...

Southern Aero said:

Spoilers too, for low speed roll control and plus descent rate.

Click to expand...

That sounds as though it could be a rather complicated mechanism with both functions.

flyrite said:

Got any photos or drawings of how your going to incorporate the spoilers, Would love to see them?

Click to expand...

They will be on stand-offs or pylons on the backside of the front spar holding a bearing/bushing for a torque shaft running behind the spar near the top. Will get some pics up when I get then in place.


sky....... yep, will be some "trickery" going on behind the front spar..........

I sure know the mechanism I have drawn up for the spoilers going in my plane have a fair bit of trickery involved. Nothing is near being fabricated yet so lord knows they will all get more complex but sometimes less so.

Southern Aero; CharlieN--I'm sitting over in the corner watching intently while I still try to work out geometry for simple differential ailerons....

I really like your ideas.

Vic

Vic

With that high lift wing just go with Friese type ailerons and no differential......................

Southern Aero said:

Vic

With that high lift wing just go with Friese type ailerons and no differential......................

Click to expand...

There is some good logic in that, once I am done with the B-17 tour I am hosting a week form now I will sketch what the bellcrank for the differential motion, once it clicks it is logical.

I will sketch what the bellcrank for the differential motion

Click to expand...

Piper already did that, at least in the -12 However, I'll say that the 12 has plenty of adverse yaw, so no doubt can be improved upon.

Thanks for all the comments, it was a tough decision, but I bought a Superstol Kit.

Cool!
Congrats!!
What options?

bda said:

Cool!
Congrats!!
What options?

Click to expand...

I bought a kit that a guy started on, and he got a 100 hrs into building it. It came with Matco Wheels and Brakes...i may go to Beringer...i thought Beringer was lighter but today i was told they are heavier?? Beringer very expensive but sounds like anybody that tries them loves them for their less effort for excellent braking and excellent feel. It has the ACME shocks front and rear. It has a pre moulded windshield. No engine, but i will probably take the 80 hp Rotax out of my Chinook and have it converted to a 156 hp with the Edge Performance Kit(they install new cylinders, new cam, weld the crank that is press fitted together from Rotax, Turbo, fuel inj)...the very first one with that engine just started flying in Texas a few weeks ago. The wings were quick built at factory and set/squared to fuselodge at factory, im trying to source a Titanium firewall. I plan to use carbon fibre floor boards and dash. I plan to use Oratex. A great kit builder suggested iLevil 3 SW for the lightest instruments...apparantly this links to an i pad, and he also suggested an EIS engine monitor. Im going to try and keep it light. Have 29" Airstreaks for it.

Backpacker said:

Im trying to source a Titanium firewall. I plan to use carbon fibre floor boards and dash.

Click to expand...

Isn't carbon fiber fireproof? Why don't you make your firewall from carbon fiber?

skywagon8a said:

Isn't carbon fiber fireproof? Why don't you make your firewall from carbon fiber?

Click to expand...

The firewall has to be metal to pass inspection.

skywagon8a said:

Isn't carbon fiber fireproof? Why don't you make your firewall from carbon fiber?

Click to expand...

The carbon matrix itself is fire resistant but the resin matrix is not. There are formulations available that can perform the task but you will spend allot more than the few hundred for a sheet of Ti at consumer pricing.
Even working with a ceramic sheet would be light but could be beyond the logic of getting it approved.

Backpacker said:

The firewall has to be metal to pass inspection.

Click to expand...

Not true, It must be fireproof. It is a "Firewall".

I've been involved in testing fiberglass cowlings which were on the engine side of the firewall. When a third chemical was added to the two in the resin mix it became fireproof. I do not recall what that chemical was.

Way back in time I was restoring a '35 cabin Waco that had gone over on it's back. Originally this plane had an aluminum firewall which I wanted to reproduce. Having recently built two Experimental aircraft that were wood/composite construction and utilized 1/8 fiberfrax, a ceramic sheet under the SS sheet.
So I submitted to engineering to use the ceramic sheet on the back of the aluminum firewall and it got approved.
I did not finish that project and the poor old plane is cooped up in a museum and I have not had a close look inside to see if it was built that way in the end.
Might be worth looking into.

skywagon8a said:

Not true, It must be fireproof. It is a "Firewall".

I've been involved in testing fiberglass cowlings which were on the engine side of the firewall. When a third chemical was added to the two in the resin mix it became fireproof. I do not recall what that chemical was.

Click to expand...

Do you live in the USA?...I live in Canada and one builder/inspector in Canada told me about this.

CharlieN said:

Way back in time I was restoring a '35 cabin Waco that had gone over on it's back. Originally this plane had an aluminum firewall which I wanted to reproduce. Having recently built two Experimental aircraft that were wood/composite construction and utilized 1/8 fiberfrax, a ceramic sheet under the SS sheet.
So I submitted to engineering to use the ceramic sheet on the back of the aluminum firewall and it got approved.
I did not finish that project and the poor old plane is cooped up in a museum and I have not had a close look inside to see if it was built that way in the end.
Might be worth looking into.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I’ll check into it, but Canadian laws are anal, like can’t order certain windproof lighters from USA, and one time I couldn’t order a hunting blind from USA because it didn’t meet the gay fabric fire proof rating of Canadian law...yes a hunting blind, it was a Primos Double Bull Blind...had to have it sent to a friend in USA then he shipped it to me.

Backpacker said:

Do you live in the USA?...I live in Canada and one builder/inspector in Canada told me about this.

Click to expand...

Yes USA, this is the FAR governing firewalls. Notice that the metal ones can be used without proof testing. Other materials must meet certain requirements.
[h=2]Sec. 23.1191 — Firewalls.[/h](a) Each engine, auxiliary power unit, fuel burning heater, and other combustion equipment, must be isolated from the rest of the airplane by firewalls, shrouds, or equivalent means.(b) Each firewall or shroud must be constructed so that no hazardous quantity of liquid, gas, or flame can pass from the compartment created by the firewall or shroud to other parts of the airplane.
(c) Each opening in the firewall or shroud must be sealed with close fitting, fireproof grommets, bushings, or firewall fittings.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Each firewall and shroud must be fireproof and protected against corrosion.
(f) Compliance with the criteria for fireproof materials or components must be shown as follows:
(1) The flame to which the materials or components are subjected must be 2,000 ±150 °F.
(2) Sheet materials approximately 10 inches square must be subjected to the flame from a suitable burner.
(3) The flame must be large enough to maintain the required test temperature over an area approximately five inches square.
(g) Firewall materials and fittings must resist flame penetration for at least 15 minutes.
(h) The following materials may be used in firewalls or shrouds without being tested as required by this section:
(1) Stainless steel sheet, 0.015 inch thick.
(2) Mild steel sheet (coated with aluminum or otherwise protected against corrosion) 0.018 inch thick.
(3) Terne plate, 0.018 inch thick.
(4) Monel metal, 0.018 inch thick.
(5) Steel or copper base alloy firewall fittings.
(6) Titanium sheet, 0.016 inch thick.

CharlieN said:

Way back in time I was restoring a '35 cabin Waco that had gone over on it's back. Originally this plane had an aluminum firewall which I wanted to reproduce.

Click to expand...

I did the same with a Fairchild 22 which had an aluminum firewall. The FAA inspector accepted the aluminum even though he questioned it. Probably couldn't get away with that today.

Backpacker said:

I bought a kit that a guy started on, and he got a 100 hrs into building it. It came with Matco Wheels and Brakes...i may go to Beringer...i thought Beringer was lighter but today i was told they are heavier?? Beringer very expensive but sounds like anybody that tries them loves them for their less effort for excellent braking and excellent feel. It has the ACME shocks front and rear. It has a pre moulded windshield. No engine, but i will probably take the 80 hp Rotax out of my Chinook and have it converted to a 156 hp with the Edge Performance Kit(they install new cylinders, new cam, weld the crank that is press fitted together from Rotax, Turbo, fuel inj)...the very first one with that engine just started flying in Texas a few weeks ago. The wings were quick built at factory and set/squared to fuselodge at factory, im trying to source a Titanium firewall. I plan to use carbon fibre floor boards and dash. I plan to use Oratex. A great kit builder suggested iLevil 3 SW for the lightest instruments...apparantly this links to an i pad, and he also suggested an EIS engine monitor. Im going to try and keep it light. Have 29" Airstreaks for it.

Click to expand...

Do what I just did: sold my "standard" 29" Airstreaks, and bought new ultralight streaks, same size, just as cushy, but designed for a lighter plane. Saved 12 pounds! Plus, for some reason, they have noticablely less rolling resistance. My little GRT EIS is great, all the info, and then some, I need. Steve Henry turned me on to them, simple, small, and light. Let's see if you can keep that thing under 800 lbs..
....

courierguy said:

Do what I just did: sold my "standard" 29" Airstreaks, and bought new ultralight streaks, same size, just as cushy, but designed for a lighter plane. Saved 12 pounds! Plus, for some reason, they have noticablely less rolling resistance. My little GRT EIS is great, all the info, and then some, I need. Steve Henry turned me on to them, simple, small, and light. Let's see if you can keep that thing under 800 lbs..
....

Click to expand...

But would the Ultralight Airstreaks be good enough for bush strips? I was told they are much much thinner and designed for grass not rocks and sticks...is anyone using them on bush strips??

Backpacker said:

But would the Ultralight Airstreaks be good enough for bush strips? I was told they are much much thinner and designed for grass not rocks and sticks...is anyone using them on bush strips??

Click to expand...

land mine all over....harvested corn fields, logging roads, gravel lots. Can’t imagine having a problem with them. Always can have a fluke happening though!

My thinking on the lightweight ones, is most of the weight is taken out of the sidewalls, wishful thinking maybe?! They visibly look like they are built different, the sidewalls look different. Just like my last ones, I usually run 3.5 to 4 pounds in them, and the less rolling resistance I mentioned is so noticeable when pushing it out the hangar, I have to think it shortens up the TO a bit also.

In 32 hours of flying on the new ones, I haven't landed on pavement once, most of my flying is off airport, and we have some brutal rocks in this area. They are high mountain ridge rocks, not water polished and rounded, but jagged. I'm bragging I guess...but I am perversely proud of them! Landing slow and keeping the plane light as possible both help, but the biggie is I NEVER turn around after landing, (which I always have to do as I'm landing uphill most of the time) that's what really is hard on them, or can be. I shut it down, put the parking brake on, and get out and walk back over what I just landed, which is always educational. Then I scope out my turnaround, and in a worst case scenario (like this site pic a couple weeks ago) I have flagged the brush with toilet paper scraps to show the safest route out (an innovation I am claiming....). These pics were all on the new tires, so far so good. If the weight difference wasn't a full 12 pounds, and if I hadn't had a ready buyer for my old heavier ones (sold them for $1000.00, in good shape, 1500+ hrs TT) I wouldn't have done it probably. But TWELVE POUNDS! Couldn't pass that up, easiest weight loss since ditching the Odyssey battery and old style master switch, and going with an EarthX and a firewall mounted mechanical master.
The mountain top 15 miles away my internet signal comes/goes to (so I'm told) is obscured by a snowstorm, can't put any pictures up before timing out. After the storm....