Alaska fish & hunt - Patrol or Cub

[DENNY]

Thanks for comments, folks.
No mention of the CC’s EX3 here. Perhaps because of lack of customization?

Most likely because your first post sounded like you wanted a working plane not a yuppie want to be bush plane. Figured I would stir the pot while it is still snowing.
DENNY

[JohnnyR]

But you can do this in a CC without stressing it.

yep, we might get one more wood cutting session in today before the weather hits. -50F w/windchill tonight.

Most likely because your first post sounded like you wanted a working plane not a yuppie want to be bush plane. Figured I would stir the pot while it is still snowing.
DENNY

[cubdriver2]

But you can do this in a CC! without stressing it

If your a $300 RC model like that one

Glenn

[JohnnyR]

What a snitch!

My wife told me she was getting me a PA-18 a few Christmas’ back. Showed up in a 12” box. Durn it, Woman!

If your a $300 RC model like that one

Glenn

[Paul Persinger Jr.]

I don’t see my 1,900lbs empty P’Ponked 180 routinely coming off in under 500’ with a load...
Maybe a light early one w/wind in the nose.

My '54 is right at 500' at gross with the J motor. Only 2550 gross helps. Cool day no wind to speak of.

[Farmboy]

I’d love an EX2, it much better fits my desired mission legs than my 85-90 mph cub, but just not as much as a Patrol does. Along with being out of my price range.

So as always it’s all about your mission.

There is always lots of talk about something flying like a cub. Not for nothing, I love the way most cubs fly. But I also like the way many airplanes fly. As long as their handling qualities suit the airplane and your mission, then it’s a winner. A Fouga Magister is a wonderfully balanced and harmonious jet to fly. A T6 is really stable doing rolls and loops. Who wants them to fly differently?

I’ve not flown one but from my viewpoint I think an SQ2/3 looks like a great slowspeed airplane.

I’ve flown a bunch of carbon cubs and loved all of them, although the F/EX3 is certainly the choice for sports.

Just brought a Maule M7-235 back from AZ. Seems like a good airplane - not for me but the owner really loves it and is selling his EX2 now. Why? The Maule fits his mission much better.
And he likes they way it flys.

So far the only ones I really don’t like flying are the super light ones - in the kitfox / Rans spectrum. Just too light.

Pb


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

[Farmboy]

....many patrols seem to be in the ~1200-1250 lbs range for empty weight. If I’m not mistaken I they they are set up to be 2000 lbs gross. Not bad on wheels, but would be a little tight on amphibs right?

Has anyone seen Keller/PSTOl flaps on the patrol wing? I like the idea of flatter approach attitude...

As Dave mentioned the Patrol will be heavier unless you build it like Bob did or Bill Rusk. And yes they are designed for min 2000# gross. Two of the northeast Patrols will be Amphibs - so we should know in another year (for first one) how well it works in person.

Regarding Keller flaps a 4 place Bearhawk has a set installed out west, but haven’t been able to get hard data from the owner about before/after/etc. As the Patrol is quite a bit lighter and still has 9’ barn door flaps on each side, so far no one has wanted to invest the money to test the idea.

Skywagon8a, I love the flap handle placement from CubCrafters, it’s just a natural place for it to be ergonomically. I’m not ashamed to use what I think are great designs or ideas, there are some really good ones out there. The Patrol is deceivingly wide and an overhead handle would be even further away than in a Carbon Cub. Even with my wreck I have no qualms about having that there.

It also allows me to use a hard mounted 6 point harness instead of interia reels. Something I believe to be important in crash survivability.

Pb


Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingers...

[KevinJ]

[QUOTE=JohnnyR;798459]
This airshow seasons hottest new act. Naked Barbie.....

[Bearhawk Builder]

What is the gear design on the Patrol?

[cubdriver2]

Peter, you want fast and slow? This will go to 90% of our playgrounds. Lives on a 800' strip. RV4 even better and cheaper

Glenn

[skywagon8a]

For you Bearhawk fans this came today: https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraf...122I1614801F4R
There is a new Model 5, 6 place said to have a larger cabin than a 185.

[Utah-Jay]

For you Bearhawk fans this came today: https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraf...122I1614801F4R
There is a new Model 5, 6 place said to have a larger cabin than a 185.

Bearhawk is a heck of a plane with good speed, STOL and useful load capabilities. I am unsure of the ease of build though. Rans, Kitfox and CubCrafters are pretty much lego kits with all the “hardware” included. I think you have to source stuff in the BH kits. If it were apples to apples relative to the kits, the BH seems to win in the performance categories. Who knows

[Crash, Jr.]

Every time I see a Bearhawk I'm reminded how hard they are on the eyes. You definitely don't get the classic looks of a cub or even a Backcountry cub. Maybe it's just me but I prefer to enjoy looking at my vehicle of choice.

On the other hand they look like basically a big wing Maule essentially based on engine choice and the landing gear being a similar Oleo arrangement. Cub gear with Acme shocks beat out Maule gear every day of the week.

I'd say go with a Cub or one of the clones. A widebody cub would be good for your larger stature and Jay at Javron even offers a big door mod - Ask Denny about that one. The only advantage to a Bearhawk would be the cruise speed but like others have said once you throw big tires on the plane it really levels the playing field as far as speed is concerned.

[JohnnyR]

Hmmm...
I don’t know how valid this informal comparison is, but good enough for conversation starter?

[Farmboy]

Just to clarify the speed point, the 180 patrol on bushwheels is still far faster than a cub. Conservative speeds of 125. I’ve pulled a lot of data to make sure of these, and some of them are 130+. On small tires it’s 140.

Regarding looks, I’m in the same boat. I’ve seen very few 4 place that appeal to me. Just has no sex appeal.
The patrol on the other hand can look awesome.









Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingers...

[Farmboy]

Peter, you want fast and slow? This will go to 90% of our playgrounds. Lives on a 800' strip. RV4 even better and cheaper

Glenn

I would love an -8. It would be a freaking fantastic second airplane. Just not the only airplane. Even John Fleurent doesn’t fly his -8 with a group of us, unless he just shows up direct.

My plan is to stick within the range of planes that fits our group of guys. I mean, who doesn’t want to fly with friends?

Although based on last night’s conversa....debate with the wife, I may not have anything to fly at all.


Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingers...

[Farmboy]

Bear in mind, my personal design goals is largely built around what I try to with my current cub.

-I want to make it Jim Cranes and back in one day, or Doug Turnbull’s, or Bowman, etc etc etc... which I can’t do currently and actually have time for lunch.
- I still want to hit the beach and bars like we do now. Although with a greater range I could also hit more.
- I need to keep the overhead cost the same. Hard to believe but it’s true - the 180hp and it’s cruise speed is actually less fuel burn per mile, in a shorter flight time, _AND_ no fuel stop needed. The admission cost is the only drawback. But operating cost and time managment is far better overall.

There are a number of players in this realm, the Carbon Cub E/FX3 for sure, but even the EX2 probably. The Husky. Rans S21 very likely but not seen yet. Rans S7. Likely some 180+ supercubs dressed for speed, but an additional 10-15-20mph in a cub takes power and that power burns fuel. So you need a different wing or less drag. Clint’s Cessna-Cubs do it.

Here in the northeast friends are always away and time is tight. Having the right tool in your hangar really makes a difference.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

[Bearhawk Builder]

It's all just colors and paint - and big tires help anything look sexy.

[RaisedByWolves]

Peter, it would be nice to have real world numbers. My only issue is there isn’t many flying, and like everything in aviation, I have noticed. But my product and save 10lbs, and it’s really only one or two pounds. Would be nice to have some un biased real world numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cubdriver2]

I'll be in a Cub forever. I can't walk away without looking back till my girl winks back at me

Glenn

[Farmboy]

Tom, you know I’m a “show me” to believe it kind of guy. I’ve talked to Rollie VanDorn and Mike Silvernagle extensively, gone through Rollie’s patrol, and reviewed hundreds of flights to prove to myself it was really that fast. Its hard to have a tailwind on every flight and there’s enough ADSB data to look at. John and Rene flew Bob’s as you know. Both were impressed.

It’s not a cub. It won’t win a Stol contest competing against cubs. It’s just another option and it’s good to have options. I’m sure when Carl, John and Pete Temple’s finish there will be ample chance to test both land and Amphib version locally.

Or maybe you can fly Rollie’s this spring at WV.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

[Mark_Moyle]

[QUOTE=Crash, Jr.;798552]Every time I see a Bearhawk I'm reminded how hard they are on the eyes.

Yup...agree....
This is my Bearhawk cowl. Using a Mooney Acclaim cowl...will find the shape and lay up a new carbon fiber cowl using it as the mold.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Crash, Jr.]

That cowl definitely helps. Whenever I see a bearhawk with that long nose and nearly vertical windshield they always look like Goofy. Maybe it's that Pacer style bubble windshield. Honestly, why a Bearhawk over a Pacer with a stretched wing?

[Bearhawk Builder]

[Crash, Jr.]

Sorry maybe that was the wrong question. To the uninitiated it looks a whole lot like a long wing Pacer or a Maule M4

[Mark_Moyle]

That cowl definitely helps. Whenever I see a bearhawk with that long nose and nearly vertical windshield they always look like Goofy. Maybe it's that Pacer style bubble windshield. Honestly, why a Bearhawk over a Pacer with a stretched wing?

You mean wings like this... for this?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[BC12D-4-85]

Pacer with a stretched or Dakota Cub wing = nice!

Gary

[Crash, Jr.]

Yeah, now there's a good looking plane. Piper really knew how to make a nicely shaped aircraft.

[bcone1381]

Looks Pretty good to me!!

[aktango58]

Hmmm...
I don’t know how valid this informal comparison is, but good enough for conversation starter?

It seems a reasonable comparison, but some things I think should be stipulated and maybe add a few more tests later.

First, if you do have an engine out situation and need to glide- FEATHER THE PROP!! Doing a glide test with your constant speed still at cruise pitch does not make any sense to me- why would you put up with that excess weight and cost and not use it?? Bet the Patrol would well outpace the cub in glide with the prop back!

Second, we had a discussion quite a while ago (years) comparing the 180 cubs to smaller engine cubs, including fuel used for distance traveled- results seemed to be a lower total fuel burn for the bigger engine: time to climb and actual cruise speed made up for GPH.

It would be good to see a comparison between a 180 cub and the Patrol on Takeoff. I think the 160 cub will stop pretty well so the landing distance is a valid look. A flight from Palmer to Puntilla Lake or Gulkana and back with a fuel used comparison would be of value. As we all know, a faster cruise speed in headwinds really helps total fuel use. That would be a great real world test.

For most pilots, the two are close enough in runway length needed to make them viable. Wonder how the Patrol would do with slats? Keller flaps?

The possibilities.

[aktango58]

Yeah, now there's a good looking plane. Piper really knew how to make a nicely shaped aircraft.

Piper? Pacer was designed by BD Maule... look at them compared to the M-4.

[stewartb]

Piper? Pacer was designed by BD Maule... look at them compared to the M-4.

Do you mean a Maule was developed from a Pacer?

[Paul Persinger Jr.]

Do you mean a Maule was developed from a Pacer?

Stir that pot lol.

[aktango58]

Do you mean a Maule was developed from a Pacer?

By a Maule!!

Frankly, so many great planes out there! Find the one that fits MOST of your missions the best.

[Crash, Jr.]

Piper? Pacer was designed by BD Maule... look at them compared to the M-4.

BD Maule built the M4 10 years after the Pacer came out. Maule was basically just a Georgia hot rodder who decided that Pacer could use some more power so strapped a Continental O-300 to the nose and graced it with his own name.

And proceeded to ruin those classic Piper lines in the process.

[BC12D-4-85]

There's a local Bearhawk side-side parked locally. Never seen it fly and waiting.

Gary

[skywagon8a]

BD Maule built the M4 10 years after the Pacer came out. Maule was basically just a Georgia hot rodder who decided that Pacer could use some more power so strapped a Continental O-300 to the nose and graced it with his own name.

And proceeded to ruin those classic Piper lines in the process.

Actually Maule started in Napoleon, Michigan.

[bcone1381]

.... we had a discussion quite a while ago (years) comparing the 180 cubs to smaller engine cubs, including fuel used for distance traveled- results seemed to be a lower total fuel burn for the bigger engine: time to climb and actual cruise speed made up for GPH.

It would be good to see a comparison between a 180 cub and the Patrol on Takeoff. I think the 160 cub will stop pretty well so the landing distance is a valid look. A flight from Palmer to Puntilla Lake or Gulkana and back with a fuel used comparison would be of value. As we all know, a faster cruise speed in headwinds really helps total fuel use. That would be a great real world test.

For most pilots, the two are close enough in runway length needed to make them viable. Wonder how the Patrol would do with slats? Keller flaps?

The possibilities.

I am building a Patrol. I like real data, and through others might too.

Here is a trip report that Bob Barrows wrote up that is a side by side comparison of the Patrol against a Smith Supercub. The short story. The cub was a Smith Cub, O-360 with 10:1 compression. Trip to Idaho from Fincastle. Leg 1 to Randolf County, Indiana. Bob arrived 30 minutes ahead of the cub, used 30% less fuel, 18" MP, 2500 RPM, 50% power burned 7gph.

This was in 2009. The Patrol capability is a well kept secrete. Time to get the word out.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CZj...ew?usp=sharing

[bcone1381]

A Test Flight Report was performed by an Aeronautical Engineer on the Patrol a number of years ago. I believe the test was performed on the prototype when it had a 170 hp O-360 with a constant speed prop. Low Compression pistons were used I think (key word think....I might be wrong) so that Bob could burn cheap auto gas. Today the prototype has a parallel valve O-360 with a Hartzel Trailblazer prop.

Lots of good data here and a very descriptive account of flying its characteristics.



http://bearhawk.wpengine.com/wp-cont...ingReport.html

[cubdriver2]

A Test Flight Report was performed by an Aeronautical Engineer on the Patrol a number of years ago. I believe the test was performed on the prototype when it had a 170 hp O-360 with a constant speed prop. Low Compression pistons were used I think (key word think....I might be wrong) so that Bob could burn cheap auto gas. Today the prototype has a parallel valve O-360 with a Hartzel Trailblazer prop.

Lots of good data here and a very descriptive account of flying its characteristics.



http://bearhawk.wpengine.com/wp-cont...ingReport.html

Everything Bob builds works great. He came to the WAD flyin many times. His little tandem C85 fliver left us in the dust everyday and still performed great getting out of the WAD 2 up.

Glenn