Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 121

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

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Elizabeth, WV
    Posts
    521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    One stick, one throttle, and one set of rudder pedals-- all on left side.
    Are dual controls really necessary, esp on something like this?
    Reminds me of the guy who said he wanted to die quietly in his sleep like his grandfather. Not kicking and screaming like the passengers in grandpap's airplane.
    You can't get there from here. You have to go over yonder and start from there.
    Likes Steve Pierce, Tony Armour liked this post

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Kenai AK
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am a converted Piper driver.

    i now have a SuperStol XL
    180 hp Lycoming
    800+ # useful
    Huge bagage area
    and very tuff and forgiving with giant gas shocks
    (full stall from 15’+ no big deal)

    the military tested both the SS and Cub clones for some special project a few years back
    at 1750# gross
    cub clones couldnt complete the same manuevers or land as short

    i have flown many planes over the last 40yrs, and the XL at 900 empty wt is a performer.
    - dont fly the XL if you arent in the market - it will put you in the market.

    Every plane has its drawbacks, I think the XL sink rate is too high at zero throttle, and takeoff could be better with bigger wing.
    - put Slats on a cub and bigger flaps, and gas shocks, then maybe ...

    just my 2 cents
    Last edited by bda; 08-29-2019 at 02:35 AM.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes courierguy, flyrite, Backpacker liked this post

  3. #43
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bda View Post
    I am a converted Piper driver.

    i now have a SuperStol XL
    180 hp Lycoming
    800+ # useful
    Huge bagage area
    and very tuff and forgiving with giant gas shocks
    (full stall from 15’+ no big deal)

    the military tested both the SS and Cub clones for some special project a few years back
    at 1750# gross
    cub clones couldnt complete the same manuevers or land as short

    i have flown many planes over the last 40yrs, and the XL at 900 empty wt is a performer.
    - dont fly the XL if you arent in the market - it will put you in the market.

    Every plane has its drawbacks, I think the XL sink rate is too high at zero throttle, and takeoff could be better with bigger wing.
    - put Slats on a cub and bigger flaps, and gas shocks, then maybe ...

    just my 2 cents
    The version I heard of those tests was the the XL did very poor in the climb, was probably at GW but it has been a long time since that conversation.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hot Springs, SD
    Posts
    360
    Post Thanks / Like
    A guy I know used to have a superstol with the 115hp big bore kit. he also built up one with the turbo 914.
    I only rode with him once, but the thing I noticed was that after the impressive zoom climb out, when he would clean it up and get rid of the flaps, it would always lose 25-30 feet of altitude. Perhaps just poor pilot technique, but it happened every time I ever watched him take off.
    To me, the structure is very light; 1/2” longerons, mainly 3/8” diagonal tubing, and even some 1/4” tubing.
    A cub fuselage is built like a sledgehammer in comparison.
    They are neat airplanes for sure, I’m not trying to knock them necessarily, but both of those guys that had superstols no longer have them, and are currently flying cubs.
    Thanks silflexer, Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes FdxLou, Brandsman, Backpacker liked this post

  5. #45
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Super11XP View Post
    ... but the thing I noticed was that after the impressive zoom climb out, when he would clean it up and get rid of the flaps, it would always lose 25-30 feet of altitude. Perhaps just poor pilot technique, but it happened every time I ever watched him take off.
    A 206 on amphib floats does the same thing. Extending the wings with either Flint tanks or WingX extensions eliminated that characteristic. Perhaps the superstol needs more wing span?
    N1PA
    Thanks windy, Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Kenai AK
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like

    More wing

    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    A 206 on amphib floats does the same thing. Extending the wings with either Flint tanks or WingX extensions eliminated that characteristic. Perhaps the superstol needs more wing span?
    Yes!

    but - doesnt everything need more wing?

    The climb on the 180hp XL is Very Impressive - although I have not done it at gross yet

    And the Longerons on mine are not 1/2”
    Last edited by bda; 08-29-2019 at 09:20 AM.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes flyrite, skywagon8a, Backpacker liked this post

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,547
    Post Thanks / Like
    doesnt everything need more wing?
    Not if you're flying into a tight spot with unfavorable winds. Big high lift wings are fun when you can pick your days. Heavy wing loading has benefits on those other days.
    Last edited by stewartb; 08-29-2019 at 09:30 AM.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes bda, High Country, jliltd, Backpacker liked this post

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,308
    Post Thanks / Like
    A fuselage is like a roofing truss, you can design for larger but fewer individual members, or more numerous but smaller components. Simply extrapolating the strength of any fuselage from the size of the longeron may not tell the whole story? Dean Wilson (the aircraft designer, the Avid Flyer being one of his best known) was a master and devotee of this approach. I remember his big twin engine Global Explorer (think Winnebago with wings) had lots of very small dia tube, all over the frame, like a bird cage, for an airplane it's size, but all triangulated in a way that got the job done. Large dia. simpler frames offer obvious advantages when building them, but may not be the best, weight to a strength ratio wise. All I know for sure is my RANS S-7S has an airframe like my Taylorcraft did, (seen them both naked) and similar gross weights so I'm happy with that.
    Thanks jliltd, Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes bda, Dave Calkins, flyrite, Backpacker liked this post

  9. #49
    Mauleguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    654
    Post Thanks / Like
    I flew Mike Olson's Ran S-7, he was always bragging how great it was, he had it Bushed up, 29" ABW tires and Baby Bushwheel. I flew it for a couple hours, then I flew his Exp. Super Cub on same day, no doubt which one I would choose. I never cared for Mikes Super Cub Cuzzom to much funky stuff but hands down I would take Mikes Cuzzom over a Rans S7. This was probably 10 years ago, I am sure the Highlander etc. have come a long way.

    I have also heard that Steve Henry has had a few engine failures, that is not something I am interested in.

    I went to Wild West aircraft and added up what it would cost to build Highlander and for the amount I would spend on a kit and time building it I can have Super Cub. I personally don't get it unless it is all about fuel burn. Everything else is a negative in my book.

    I also don't see ever getting back the money and time you have in one (Highlander etc.), maybe I am wrong. Better investment for money and time is a Exp Super Cub or Carbon Cub I think.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes cubflier, Brandsman, Backpacker, Rob liked this post

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mauleguy View Post
    I flew Mike Olson's Ran S-7, he was always bragging how great it was, he had it Bushed up, 29" ABW tires and Baby Bushwheel. I flew it for a couple hours, then I flew his Exp. Super Cub on same day, no doubt which one I would choose. I never cared for Mikes Super Cub Cuzzom to much funky stuff but hands down I would take Mikes Cuzzom over a Rans S7. This was probably 10 years ago, I am sure the Highlander etc. have come a long way.

    I have also heard that Steve Henry has had a few engine failures, that is not something I am interested in.

    I went to Wild West aircraft and added up what it would cost to build Highlander and for the amount I would spend on a kit and time building it I can have Super Cub. I personally don't get it unless it is all about fuel burn. Everything else is a negative in my book.

    I also don't see ever getting back the money and time you have in one (Highlander etc.), maybe I am wrong. Better investment for money and time is a Exp Super Cub or Carbon Cub I think.
    I’d suggest 2 hours in the S-7 isn’t enough to really know the plane, therefore a bit of caution when commenting would be good thing. Unbelievable we still have experienced owner/pilots and wannabes still trying to compare apples and oranges. Both great planes with specific strengths and weaknesses depending on the mission.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post

  11. #51
    Mauleguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    654
    Post Thanks / Like
    sorry
    Last edited by Mauleguy; 08-29-2019 at 05:48 PM.

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mauleguy View Post
    I was actually being nice, I would not want to spend anymore then 2 hours in it. Did not like it at all.
    I have a ton of off airport experience and for my mission that airplane would be broken in a few hours with the kind of playing I like to do.

    It would be like trying to ride a Honda 70 in the same places I ride my KTM 300 XC-W. You don't need much time to figure out it is not going to fit the mission...
    I’m actually going to be nice too....no comment.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes flyrite, Backpacker liked this post

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    121
    Post Thanks / Like
    Two guys here with S-7's. We do a lot of goofing around together. Solo. the S-7 will kick my butt on takeoff and landings. Put a passenger or bags into the equation and everything changes. When we go camping, guess who gets to carry all the extra stuff ( belly pod)? Oh yeah, two precautionary landings now with the 912 crowd (realistically, one carb shutdowns, meaning they have the choice of where to land but not going too far since they are running on two cyls) Apples and oranges for sure.
    They also brag about the 3.5 gph fuel burn. Awesome! They have to drive 14 miles to get premium, non ethanol fuel with lots of five gallon cans in the back of an SUV to do so. They are retired, keeps them, out of trouble.......
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes jliltd, Backpacker liked this post

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,308
    Post Thanks / Like
    No need for your S-7 friends to go out of their way to get E0, they must be new to the game, the Rotax burns E10 just fine, I've burned lots of it and cannot tell any difference for the life of me. I have no idea what you mean by their carb issues. I do continue to buy and store E0 in my home bulk tank though. And, if their field elevation is over 2500' ASL and if they had the "Zipper BigBore Low Comp" mod as do I, they could burn REGULAR E-10 no less.

    My only limitation with the S-7S is tire size, I only have 29's. Other then that, the air frame handles anything I can throw at it, and about 80% of my flying is off airport, and not at coastal elevations. Pic is from a few days ago, 8650', Idaho/Wyoming border, a place I've been into a lot along with similar. No big deal, dare I say, routine even. 3800 hours TT in type.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20190826_093255829.jpg 
Views:	92 
Size:	92.4 KB 
ID:	44300  
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post

  15. #55
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RoddyM View Post
    .... Unbelievable we still have experienced owner/pilots and wannabes still trying to compare apples and oranges.......
    In this case, that's exactly what the OP asked people to do.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
    Thanks bda, Backpacker thanked for this post

  16. #56
    flyrite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Lyons,GA
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Backpacker, As you have witnessed here, Us pilots are not just ‘type A personalities, But type AAA’ and as you have also noticed, OPINIONS reflect those traits in what’s considered by the ones giving them as absolute! Having tons of hours in all the lite stuff, I can tell you that some are more user friendly than others. Kinda the difference between the Extra acro mounts and the others. A mediocre pilot will do better in it than the ones that may have a few quirks!
    To that same point, the same is true with a Carbon Cub and some of the other knockoffs, and the idea that one will holdup to abuse better than another is crap....If you don’t hit something with’m they all will out live the pilot!
    Thats only considering the airframes, Everybody has OPINIONS on the motor used.
    Can’t argue the cost issues though. I’m constantly amazed by what folk will pay for a mount. I’ve always looked at my plane purchases as performance for the $ . Some will pay six figures to do something that others can do for a fraction of that! When you are just trying to by performance, It will change how you look at it .
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes bda, Backpacker liked this post

  17. #57

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,547
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm not sure what comes first. That it isn't any of my business what other guys pay for planes or that I truly don't care.

    Over the years I've had many days where I could get into my cabin strip or onto the creek bed on skis with my 180 when my Cub buddies couldn't due to winds. I've considered WingX and decided against it because it would limit my ops more than expand them. That's an important point to consider. I'll jump into the 180 and launch on days I won't fly my big winged Cub. The difference? Wing loading. Crosswinds and mechanical turbulence are a handful in my Cub compared to the Cessna.

    I remember flying out a couple of years ago on what was the roughest day I've encountered in 25 years at Hood. A friend was right in front of me in his Rans. When I got across the inlet and the turbulence calmed I called him on the radio and asked how he enjoyed the ride. He told me he'd rather be in my 1800# airplane than his 800# airplane. Me too!
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes courierguy, flyrite, bda, Backpacker liked this post

  18. #58
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by flyrite View Post
    To that same point, the same is true with a Carbon Cub and some of the other knockoffs, and the idea that one will holdup to abuse better than another is crap....If you don’t hit something with’m they all will out live the pilot!
    Having maintained, restored and picked up the wreckage I will have to disagree.

    I think it is sad that someone asks to compare brand X with a Super Cub on a Super Cub website and when someone gives their opinion others who don't support the site and own brand X get butt hurt. I know SJ wants to cater to everything back country but it is still SuperCub.org and is just someones honest opinion.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Thanks Brandsman, Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes FdxLou, hotrod180, 40m, Brandsman, Backpacker and 2 others liked this post

  19. #59

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Kenai AK
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like
    I thought we had a pretty good discussion going here...

    did somebody hurt a feeler and I missed it?
    Last edited by bda; 08-31-2019 at 12:10 AM.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  20. #60

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Kenai AK
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like
    So the OP wanted a SS to SC comparison.

    SS wing 132sq foot (clean) 153sq ft dirty

    Small SS = 800# empty - wing loading 5.3#/sq ft
    180 hp XL = 950# empty - wing loading 5.6#/ sq ft

    SC wing 175 sq ft (round tip)

    Stock = 900# ?? empty - wing loading 5.1#/sq ft
    Real = 1,000# empty - wing loading 5.7#/sq ft
    (I took both wing areas off Wikipedia - but dont believe either one.) thats not what it comes to when I measure.

    XL Cruise speed 110mph (One owner claims 120)
    SC ? 100?

    Safety is a big one for me, I have not been able to get the XL to wing over yet. The slats just keep it flying.

    Ya I know - slats mean high deck angle. But, the flaps are really good! You dont have to do the high deck angle thing if you dont want to. Still lands slow and takes off fast.
    These slats dont stay out - they retract.

    With 2 big guys and full fuel on 85* day the 180 XL would climb over 2,000 fpm
    Power off stall same day was low 30s - indicated

    The Super Stol takes some getting used to, when the Slats come out at about 50 mph you gain 13 sq ft of wing area. When the fowler flaps go down you gain another 8 sq ft, so there is also a lot more drag.
    Clean it glides like a normal plane, and lands normal. But dirty, when you cut the power it sinks like an over gross TriPacer.
    So - you dirty it up, and use power to get where you are going, then plop, your done. The shocks soak up almost all the momentum, very little roll.

    This has been my experience with the 180hp XL. I have flown 2 overweight rotax SS and they land short enough but not enough power for takeoff or climb out. The Rotax SS, I have heard, is a real performer with one person and very light airframe, too many goodies and it turns into ms piggy.

    As to durability - I havnt bent it yet, and I tend to do that.
    Time will tell, but I have made some very hard landings (most on purpose) and the gear just soaks it up. There is very little stress transfered to the structure. I am also very impressed w the structure in the wings, very well engineered, and much more durable (imo) than stock piper.

    This has been a stock to stock comparison.
    same weight motor - for the XL.

    If you go aftermarket cub with slats and shocks and fowler slotted flaps.
    you are no longer talking the same money or weight class

    I have 110k in mine, about 15k was for quick build stuff, and 31s.
    Had I built my own engine, and skipped the extras, prob could have done it for 85k

    The rotax SS and the 180hp XL SS are 2 completely different beasts.
    - much like the J3 and a 180hp Cub.
    Last edited by bda; 08-31-2019 at 12:21 AM.
    Thanks Chicken Hawk, CharlieN, Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes flyrite, Backpacker liked this post

  21. #61
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    Having flown slats and slots on the Super Cub I will say they really shine when loaded and manuvering without coming in with a high angle of attack. The airplane is more manuverable and doesn't fly like a heavy pig without the slats or slots.

    I talked to the guy that designed the Super STOL at length and asked him about the compromise in wing cord by making the wing able to fold. I think that would make a huge difference.

    Several years ago we took a 90 hp Super Cub to Alaska with Ray from Spearfish a day behind us. The next year he took a Highlander up. Said he would rather fly his Super Cub and that the highlander had to be flown all the time. I often thought for 90 percent of my mission which is banging around on local gravel bars would be perfectly filled with a Highlander but not in my budget. My beater Super Cub fits the bill well for me.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Thanks CharlieN, Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes FdxLou, flyrite, Brandsman, Backpacker liked this post

  22. #62
    flyrite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Lyons,GA
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bda View Post
    So the OP wanted a SS to SC comparison.

    SS wing 132sq foot (clean) 153sq ft dirty

    Small SS = 800# empty - wing loading 5.3#/sq ft
    180 hp XL = 950# empty - wing loading 5.6#/ sq ft

    SC wing 175 sq ft (round tip)

    Stock = 900# ?? empty - wing loading 5.1#/sq ft
    Real = 1,000# empty - wing loading 5.7#/sq ft
    (I took both wing areas off Wikipedia - but dont believe either one.) thats not what it comes to when I measure.

    XL Cruise speed 110mph (One owner claims 120)
    SC ? 100?

    Safety is a big one for me, I have not been able to get the XL to wing over yet. The slats just keep it flying.

    Ya I know - slats mean high deck angle. But, the flaps are really good! You dont have to do the high deck angle thing if you dont want to. Still lands slow and takes off fast.
    These slats dont stay out - they retract.

    With 2 big guys and full fuel on 85* day the 180 XL would climb over 2,000 fpm
    Power off stall same day was low 30s - indicated

    The Super Stol takes some getting used to, when the Slats come out at about 50 mph you gain 13 sq ft of wing area. When the fowler flaps go down you gain another 8 sq ft, so there is also a lot more drag.
    Clean it glides like a normal plane, and lands normal. But dirty, when you cut the power it sinks like an over gross TriPacer.
    So - you dirty it up, and use power to get where you are going, then plop, your done. The shocks soak up almost all the momentum, very little roll.

    This has been my experience with the 180hp XL. I have flown 2 overweight rotax SS and they land short enough but not enough power for takeoff or climb out. The Rotax SS, I have heard, is a real performer with one person and very light airframe, too many goodies and it turns into ms piggy.

    As to durability - I havnt bent it yet, and I tend to do that.
    Time will tell, but I have made some very hard landings (most on purpose) and the gear just soaks it up. There is very little stress transfered to the structure. I am also very impressed w the structure in the wings, very well engineered, and much more durable (imo) than stock piper.

    This has been a stock to stock comparison.
    same weight motor - for the XL.

    If you go aftermarket cub with slats and shocks and fowler slotted flaps.
    you are no longer talking the same money or weight class

    I have 110k in mine, about 15k was for quick build stuff, and 31s.
    Had I built my own engine, and skipped the extras, prob could have done it for 85k

    The rotax SS and the 180hp XL SS are 2 completely different beasts.
    - much like the J3 and a 180hp Cub.

    Great write up, Thanks
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  23. #63

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,547
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bda View Post
    So the OP wanted a SS to SC comparison.

    SS wing 132sq foot (clean) 153sq ft dirty

    Small SS = 800# empty - wing loading 5.3#/sq ft
    180 hp XL = 950# empty - wing loading 5.6#/ sq ft

    SC wing 175 sq ft (round tip)

    Stock = 900# ?? empty - wing loading 5.1#/sq ft
    Real = 1,000# empty - wing loading 5.7#/sq ft
    (I took both wing areas off Wikipedia - but dont believe either one.) thats not what it comes to when I measure.

    XL Cruise speed 110mph (One owner claims 120)
    SC ? 100?

    Safety is a big one for me, I have not been able to get the XL to wing over yet. The slats just keep it flying.

    Ya I know - slats mean high deck angle. But, the flaps are really good! You dont have to do the high deck angle thing if you dont want to. Still lands slow and takes off fast.
    These slats dont stay out - they retract.

    With 2 big guys and full fuel on 85* day the 180 XL would climb over 2,000 fpm
    Power off stall same day was low 30s - indicated

    The Super Stol takes some getting used to, when the Slats come out at about 50 mph you gain 13 sq ft of wing area. When the fowler flaps go down you gain another 8 sq ft, so there is also a lot more drag.
    Clean it glides like a normal plane, and lands normal. But dirty, when you cut the power it sinks like an over gross TriPacer.
    So - you dirty it up, and use power to get where you are going, then plop, your done. The shocks soak up almost all the momentum, very little roll.

    This has been my experience with the 180hp XL. I have flown 2 overweight rotax SS and they land short enough but not enough power for takeoff or climb out. The Rotax SS, I have heard, is a real performer with one person and very light airframe, too many goodies and it turns into ms piggy.

    As to durability - I havnt bent it yet, and I tend to do that.
    Time will tell, but I have made some very hard landings (most on purpose) and the gear just soaks it up. There is very little stress transfered to the structure. I am also very impressed w the structure in the wings, very well engineered, and much more durable (imo) than stock piper.

    This has been a stock to stock comparison.
    same weight motor - for the XL.

    If you go aftermarket cub with slats and shocks and fowler slotted flaps.
    you are no longer talking the same money or weight class

    I have 110k in mine, about 15k was for quick build stuff, and 31s.
    Had I built my own engine, and skipped the extras, prob could have done it for 85k

    The rotax SS and the 180hp XL SS are 2 completely different beasts.
    - much like the J3 and a 180hp Cub.
    Do you have any photos of how your slats work? "Come out" implies they drop out like a Helio? That's not how Mackey slats work on my wing so I'm curious.


    I ran lots of PL and WL numbers when I was deciding what plane to build and why. These are derived from manufacturer's specs. The only honest empty weight report is by BCSC.

    Just SS XL wing loading empty- 6.8
    gross- 11.75
    power loading empty- 5.0
    gross- 8.16


    Carbon Cub FX3 WL empty- 5.23
    gross- 10.84
    power loading empty- 4.83
    gross- 10.02

    BCSC Rev 2 WL Empty- 6.47
    gross- 10.7
    power loading empty- 6.17
    gross- 10.2

    Stock Supercub 1100#/1750# @150hp
    WL empty- 6.16
    gross- 9.8
    PL empty- 7.66
    gross- 11.66

    For grins, how does my own 180 stack up?
    WL- 10.34 empty
    18.33 gross
    PL 6.54 empty
    11.6 gross.
    Last edited by stewartb; 08-31-2019 at 09:32 AM.
    Thanks bda, Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes CharlieN, Gordon Misch, bda, Backpacker liked this post

  24. #64

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Kenai AK
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am not home at the moment, will post picture later.

    the Slat is attached by an 8” dog bone lookin bar with bearings on each end. One of these on each end of slat, other end of each dog bone attach to wing. So lift at high angle of attack pulls the slat, which pivots on the dog bone ends.
    So when the slats are in, the dog bones are laying parallel w the wing, when they are out, the dog bones are parallel w fuselage. Put your elbow on the table, fore-arm at 90*, fist on the table =slats in, pivot on elbow so fist is straight up, slats out.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  25. #65

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,547
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks. I'd like to see pics if you or another SS owner would post them. I know Carbon Concepts just finished a set of slats for Steve Henry's latest Highlander. Those appear to be like Mackeys.
    Last edited by stewartb; 08-31-2019 at 08:03 PM.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  26. #66

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Kenai AK
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yeah, a highlander is just different all the way around, wood ribs and all.

    lets try this pic from google...

    It worked!
    So you see the “dog bones” extended in the pic as the air pulls the slat out and to one side.
    When the air presure against the slat overcomes the lift or suction, the slat causes the dog bones to “lay down” alongside the wing, in between the slat and the wing in the hole you see in the pic.
    The dog bone and brackets cant weigh more than 3 or 4 pounds.

    I forgot to mention earlier, the biggest drawback is that the slatted wing doesnt produce the highest lift until the angle of attack is higher than the landing gear allows. Once the mains lift and the angle increases you can feel the lift increase. So the take-off roll is longer than it could be... I know its the same with every other plane out there, but here it is really significant.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8D6DD8EC-B2DD-4904-8F98-6E3F97763750.png 
Views:	88 
Size:	301.0 KB 
ID:	44327  
    Last edited by bda; 08-31-2019 at 11:49 PM.
    Thanks stewartb, Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  27. #67

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,547
    Post Thanks / Like
    I found this video and it show the slats deploy and retract. VERY different from my Mackey/Backcountry slats. Do yours make a noticeable change in attitude when they open? Mackeys provide a smooth transition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W5m1vcw5UI

    Your comments about AOA are interesting. Not at all how I describe my slat-flap combination. Maybe I'll get to see the one that lives up the taxiway fly a little more. Now I have something specific to look for.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  28. #68

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Kenai AK
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like
    They make a noticeable sound when you transition fast, but 9 times out of 10 you cannot feel it in the plane, very smooth.
    This may be because you are already in slow flight, they deploy at 50mph, and then the airplane will do things you wont belive.
    So they have no drag penalty until 50 mph.

    There are 2 per wing and deploy independently as needed, but it does not affect attitude.
    Last edited by bda; 09-01-2019 at 12:29 PM.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  29. #69

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can’t we all get along? No aircraft is perfect. If I want an all around aircraft I’ll take my m5-235 fast, stol, longer range than my bladder and I know without a shadow of a doubt if I land there I can takeoff (if I don’t bend it). But I know it’s not perfect. I’ve flown tons and still luv watching super stols and carbon cubs, but for pure fun I’d take a j5 I grew up with, handproping that high compression o-290 and all. Enjoy your differences gentlemen.
    Thanks silflexer, Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes 4Holer, FdxLou, flyrite, Backpacker liked this post

  30. #70

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,308
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by courierguy View Post
    No need for your S-7 friends to go out of their way to get E0, they must be new to the game, the Rotax burns E10 just fine, I've burned lots of it and cannot tell any difference for the life of me. I have no idea what you mean by their carb issues. I do continue to buy and store E0 in my home bulk tank though. And, if their field elevation is over 2500' ASL and if they had the "Zipper BigBore Low Comp" mod as do I, they could burn REGULAR E-10 no less.

    My only limitation with the S-7S is tire size, I only have 29's. Other then that, the air frame handles anything I can throw at it, and about 80% of my flying is off airport, and not at coastal elevations. Pic is from a few days ago, 8650', Idaho/Wyoming border, a place I've been into a lot along with similar. No big deal, dare I say, routine even. 3800 hours TT in type.
    Today's update on my fuel burn. I flew to a 7800' high ridge 23 miles from my strip, making 85 MPH over the ground according to the GPS (averaged out by flying the opposite direction, close enough), empty other then me (150 lbs), tool kit, tie downs, and 24 gallons of mogas. Take off was 5460', and average altitude enroute was 6K or so, (my place is 1200' above the valley) temp was close to 80. Once at the ridge I started down low, at 4500', as I was trying to figure out how to get to the dirt road that lead to it. There was a trail on top I wanted to ride my ebike on, and if I drove to it (on a non flyable day of course) I needed to be able to find it. I got that done, and then figured as long as I was there I may as well follow the trail up the canyon, which I did, low level and climbing as needed to maintain about 100'. Once on top, I decided to continue following the trail along the ridge top, now just 30 to 40' above it, at about 65 MPH and one notch of flaps. I went for a couple miles, and then saw a clearing and after eyeballing it, landed it. After a bit I took off and flew roughly towards home, playing around on the way, mostly low level screwing around, nothing but open country/ag, until I had to climb back up to 7 K to get over another ridge, then the last leg towards home at 6 K, again low level.

    I had carefully noted the fuel level in the wing tank sight gauge, and marked it on a strip of masking tape. After the plane was back in the hangar, I filled up a 5 gallon jug and as usual used my fuel transfer on the floor to pump it up into the mains, I rarely refuel at home in the conventional manner. The fuel level reached the mark made earlier, and i had fuel left over in the 5 gallon jug. I dumped that fuel into a gallon jug, it was 1/2 gallon, so the total fuel burn for the flight was 4.5 gallons. Just now I went out to the hangar, like most my plane draws unevenly out of the tanks (I'm plumbed to draw off both, no selector valve, and my mark was on the side that always drains sooner) and as expected, now that it was sitting a few hours, the fuel level between tanks was even. I saw I was now above the mark made earlier, so let's call it 4.25 gallons, and the Hobbs meter said it was a 1.5 hour flight total. That works out to 2.83 GPH. Point bein, the Rotax is frugal to start with, but with a few simple mods (Hacman Leaner, 1" crossover induction tubes, 78" Prince P tip prop, and Hal Stockman's Zipper BigBore mod, the low comp version) it is very easy to get it below 3 GPH. I routinely get this type of consumption for my local, just screwing around flying, loaded for bear and going somewhere is the only time I even approach 3.5, usually 3.1 -3 and that would be if I'm trying to beat the weather or am in a hurry. Considering this is low octane mogas (or could be, actually my best source for my bulk tank's E0 only offers premium, the only place in my town that offers regular E0 has a $75.00 card limit at their unattended pumps, so filling my 300 gallon bulk tank there is impractical), that is economy, but still with great STOL performance, that keeps me happy. Seriously thaefeli, the next time those guys with the 7's brag about their 3.5 GPH fuel burn, razz them about it! It's way too much, tell them I said so! I'll let someone else do the math on how much I save with these numbers, flying my average of 200 hours a year, over flying a Super Cub, Maule or 180, but it is not chump change.
    Thanks RVBottomly, Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes flyrite, 46 Cub, FdxLou, Backpacker, super stol liked this post

  31. #71
    RVBottomly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Asotin County Washington (KLWS)
    Posts
    531
    Post Thanks / Like
    Courierguy, thanks for that information. I'm curious about the big bore mod you mentioned. I assume it increases horsepower. Have you figured out how much?
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  32. #72

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,308
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's a mild mod, it increases displacement but decreases compression, and changes the torque band in a good way. About a 10 hp gain over stock. It decreases weight by 3 lbs. and lowers cyl. head temps. It and the " big" (for a Rotax) Prince prop really work well together.
    Thanks RVBottomly, Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  33. #73

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    OK20
    Posts
    12
    Post Thanks / Like
    “and takeoff could be better with bigger wing.”

    i think the problem might not be the need for more wing but that the landing gear geometry doesn’t allow the wing getting to critical angle of attack in three point attitude. The main gear needs to be longer but that’s hard to imagine.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  34. #74

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    OK20
    Posts
    12
    Post Thanks / Like
    Off topic but useful. Some use an asterisk for degrees (temperature or angle). for iPhones and iPads (don't know about Android devices) try this, hold your finger on the zero on the keypad and a “degree” symbol pops up above it. Slide your finger up and it is selected. °

    I complained about no degree symbol for years only to find it was there all along. This is true for a lot of other symbols that have “secret” ways to get them. Try holding down the “e” key. See?

    Tildes anyone?
    Last edited by neoflyer; 09-08-2019 at 03:08 PM.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  35. #75

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    OK20
    Posts
    12
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by courierguy View Post
    It's a mild mod, it increases displacement but decreases compression, and changes the torque band in a good way. About a 10 hp gain over stock. It decreases weight by 3 lbs. and lowers cyl. head temps. It and the " big" (for a Rotax) Prince prop really work well together.
    Is this the mod from the Edge company? In either case how much does it add to the cost of a 912?
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  36. #76

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,308
    Post Thanks / Like
    No, it's all in good old Nevada: http://zipperbigbore.com/
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  37. #77
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by neoflyer View Post
    Off topic but useful. Some use an asterisk for degrees (temperature or angle). Try this, hold your finger on the zero on the keypad and a “degree” symbol pops up above it. Slide your finger up and it is selected. °
    OK holding my finger on the zero key: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
    Now holding down the "n" key: nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nn
    What kind of computer do you have??
    N1PA

  38. #78
    CamTom12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    652
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's an iphone shortcut. On a computer you'll need to use an ASCII shortcut. On a PC you'll need to use an ALT + 0176 code. On a Mac its Option + 0. Example: º.

    https://support.office.com/en-us/art...5-972ee12e50e0

    https://www.barcodefaq.com/knowledge...aracter-chart/
    Thanks skywagon8a, Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker liked this post

  39. #79

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    OK20
    Posts
    12
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    OK holding my finger on the zero key: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
    Now holding down the "n" key: nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nn
    What kind of computer do you have??
    Really sorry. Forgot to say it's for iPhones and iPads, don't know about Android devices.

    FWIW, I did the same thing when I first tried.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes skywagon8a, Backpacker liked this post

  40. #80
    hottshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Joseph ,Or
    Posts
    1,081
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well I guess my thoughts on the subject aren't that technical, I don't have a degree in aero-plane eze and it seems most of my experience is pretty close to those who have spoken up here. I enjoy the SS and prefer the side by side seating as apposed to the front back of the cub, it seems less cramped. stick wise flying with the right or left hand don't seem to effect me much. I like the slats and their configuration on the SS Wing and would love to see it in place on a cub wing to take advantage of the system. I'm not a big fan of the Rotax but this one runs great and has not skipped a beat. On the other hand I did have a engine failure in flight that was more of a man made issue that has been rectified. Take off and landing seem to be very close at my elevation (4100') but the SS will outperform the cub in both areas loaded or not. Now in the air the Cub feels more stable as I think it should being a longer wing. Im sure there is more to add but my brain is shot fo the day.
    Thanks Backpacker thanked for this post
    Likes Backpacker, flyrite, Chicken Hawk liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Airstrip Registration, Pros and Cons
    By Jacob Papp in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-13-2016, 06:00 AM
  2. PROS and CONS - Building Experimental
    By glaciercub in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 09:58 PM
  3. Widebody Pros and cons
    By Jeff in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-18-2007, 02:59 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
  •