Farmboy
MEMBER
Middlebury, VT
Hence my post showing this above. I haven’t seen the pilot window flex issue but blowing out the rear windows bothers me.
Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingers… [emoji849]
FX3 options/recommendations for off-airport ops
- Thread starter Narwhal
- Start date
Hence my post showing this above. I haven’t seen the pilot window flex issue but blowing out the rear windows bothers me.
Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingers… [emoji849]
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
Resolution of the image is too low to see the detail of the mod. Any chance of a better image or a sketch?
What was the demonstrated usable speed after the mod? Did you find the limiting speed?
Farmboy
MEMBER
Middlebury, VT
You should be able to click on the image and see it full size, and even zoom in on it. I can on my phone.
I do not go into test pilot mode after installing these, I look at it with a discerning eye and say “yup that works for me”.
Mind you I did not “invent” this concept - others have secured the front edge as well in their own way. I am simply presenting how I did it to allow window/door open flying without worrying about speed.
Pb
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
I do not go into test pilot mode after installing these, I look at it with a discerning eye and say “yup that works for me”.
Mind you I did not “invent” this concept - others have secured the front edge as well in their own way. I am simply presenting how I did it to allow window/door open flying without worrying about speed.
Pb
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
Yes, it does get hot inside airplanes in Alaska. Maybe not every day, but I was flying the beaver bare foot yesterday!
Things to consider: it is experimental, correct? So you don't need to be limited to certified pods. Get the internal pipes and ports for the pod installed, then have Carbon Concepts add a fuel tank to his pod and strap it on. I loved my combo pod. Yes it as a small tank, yes the cargo portion was smaller than others... but it increased my fuel by almost 50%, and gave me enough room to put all my covers in, or lots of camp gear. We don't all need a conex with wings... sometimes just a bit more room is enough.
Biggest concern I would have is making sure I had at least one old style mag for hand prop reasons.
IFR panel? Why? for emergency reasons an iPad with synthetic vision will do more than the fancy panel mount for less $ and less weight. Quick to replace if needed.
My 2$ worth! Please feel free to stop in with the new bird and brag a bit on it. Cool to see Alaska folks getting new toys!
Things to consider: it is experimental, correct? So you don't need to be limited to certified pods. Get the internal pipes and ports for the pod installed, then have Carbon Concepts add a fuel tank to his pod and strap it on. I loved my combo pod. Yes it as a small tank, yes the cargo portion was smaller than others... but it increased my fuel by almost 50%, and gave me enough room to put all my covers in, or lots of camp gear. We don't all need a conex with wings... sometimes just a bit more room is enough.
Biggest concern I would have is making sure I had at least one old style mag for hand prop reasons.
IFR panel? Why? for emergency reasons an iPad with synthetic vision will do more than the fancy panel mount for less $ and less weight. Quick to replace if needed.
My 2$ worth! Please feel free to stop in with the new bird and brag a bit on it. Cool to see Alaska folks getting new toys!
I wish I knew how much additional maintenance things like glass panel/G3X or an autopilot would add over 5/10/20 years. I'm guessing all that stuff would be significantly more maintenance $$$ than round dials, but maybe not? Glass panel in a Super Cub clone seems to be a very polarizing issue, people are either 1000% in favor of it or say it's the stupidest thing ever.
Last edited:
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Put it this way, usually the old steam gauges just keep on trucking. If one goes belly up it is easy and relatively inexpensive to replace. With the pretty light weight all in one modern glass panels, it only takes one electron to stop holding hands with the others for the screen to go blank. It may still be working but you can't see it. Now you are totally without any instruments to get you out of whatever situation you're in. And, it usually costs a few $Thousand to get the electrons back in concert. Most often the manufacturer insists you send it back to them for a 2 cent repair which they'll take care of for a flat rate $Thousand+. Then there is no guarantee it won't go belly up with just a few hours more use and you have to send it back again. This usually happens only after the warrantee has expired.
Then on the other hand you may get lucky and not have any failures, ever. It's like buying a lottery ticket.
Then on the other hand you may get lucky and not have any failures, ever. It's like buying a lottery ticket.
Last edited:
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
Why would a magneto offer any advantage over dual electronic ignition for hand starting? With the main battery completely discharged (the likely reason for needing to prop) the emergency ignition battery is still available.
You can forget about starting a cold FX-3 with no main battery though. Can't prime the engine without the electric fuel pump. The solution is to carry a lithium start pack and hope you never need it. I did enough hand starting with rented J3 and owned Aeronca Chief.
Last edited:
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
Glass would probably be my choice if I was weight concerned and had someone that could fix it easily close to my field. I would want to ensure that folks had used the units in super cold situations prior to purchase though. For emergency IFR I would still not upgrade but have an iPad.
Mags: Batteries go bad up here in below zero weather, even emergency batteries. I was not aware that you had to have an electric fuel pump to prime prior to starting... I think I would find a solution to work around and hand pressurize for up here. All to often I am in places that help is not available, and communications are tough. Start packs are a good solution, but they also fail, and do so at an inopportune time.
Mags: Batteries go bad up here in below zero weather, even emergency batteries. I was not aware that you had to have an electric fuel pump to prime prior to starting... I think I would find a solution to work around and hand pressurize for up here. All to often I am in places that help is not available, and communications are tough. Start packs are a good solution, but they also fail, and do so at an inopportune time.
Crash Jr.
Registered User
Anchorage, AK
I'm still waiting to see this weight thing verified. Never seen a light cub with a glass panel. Heck, even the Airman's cub this year with all the lightweight stuff (oratex, fabric interior, carbon floorboards) still was 1160#. I suspect the panel itself isn't that heavy but all the modules and wiring and remote magnetometer (is that right? The compass module) all add up to be surprisingly heavy. I'm sure the screen is a light little thing.
That being said, a glass panel is obviously the right choice for an FX-3. If you're going fuel injection and constant speed it would be irresponsible to not dump that kind of money into a nice looking panel. IFR doesn't necessarily make much sense but if you're IFR rated and really want to shoot some approaches to stay current might as well add it in.
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
FX-3 is injected so no conventional primer. It has 2 fuel pumps - one mechanical engine driven pump and the electric pump. I suppose if one pulled through enough times the mechanical pump would build pressure and enough flow to prime but I have not tried it.
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
FX-3 with standard factory G3X system is not legal for instrument approaches in IMC. It has no RAIM capability. If you take the trouble to create user defined routes that include all the approach and missed approach waypoints is is possible to fly practice instrument approaches with the standard system. It's fun to fly a Super Cub clone coupled for an entire RNAV GPS approach, not disconnect until below below 50 ft, and be perfectly aligned with runway center line. Doing it legally in IMC requires adding an approach approved GPS. I plan to add a GPS175 one day. I have already added a G5 backup EFIS and heated pitot with current monitoring.
It depends on the planned mission for the airplane. I'm instrument rated and I want to be able to keep instrument current.
Weight on 26 inch (heavy tread) ABW is 1173 lb. I weight 161 lb so not concerned about the weight.
Last edited:
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
Fuel injection does not necessarily preclude an engine primer. Primer was an option on Cessna 185/206.
If it were me, an Alaska Cub would have a good basic VFR panel, maybe with a glass PFD. I'd keep the engine instrumentation separate with an JPI or EI engine gauge, and a portable GPS as a MFD. That way, if one screen goes dark, you at least still have engine instrumentation and nav.
I would NOT try to make it IFR capable. More weight, and frankly, in Alaska, there's too much opportunity for ice. I like an attitude instrument, so if I get somewhere I shouldn't have, I've got a decent chance of a descent. But, IFR in a Cub in Alaska may not be a great idea.
Keep it light. Most of the current production airplanes I've been around (and I haven't been around any of the EX/FX cubs) wind up significantly heavier than "advertised". Try not to fall into the trap of "Adding this, then adding that....". You'll likely have a nasty weight surprise at the end of the day.
Cubs work best as light as possible. You've already added some weight with CS prop (That said, I too would go there, so not being critical), so be conservative on other "stuff". And, remember, little things add up....amazingly fast.
MTV
Last edited:
The G3X alone adds 4-5 lbs compared to the steam gauge 4-pack with Airspeed/Altimeter/VS/engine monitor and an Ipad or Garmin Airgizmos mount. The weight is from all the extra sensors and tubing/wiring for it afaik.
Then again, the steam gauge weight doesn't count the weight of the Ipad or garmin, plus whatever external handheld gizmos you use for GPS and ADS-B, etc, which would be at least a pound or two.
The FX3 should weigh about 1160 empty on 31's with the VFR steam gauge panel, about 1170 with the avionics for IFR including a separate Garmin IFR GPS navigator. 2000 lb MTOW. These weights includes 30 lbs of unusable fuel.
I'm going to Tac Aero to get trained up in the type and will fly the G3X there; I'll make the final decision on avionics after I play with it live in the real airplane.
Then again, the steam gauge weight doesn't count the weight of the Ipad or garmin, plus whatever external handheld gizmos you use for GPS and ADS-B, etc, which would be at least a pound or two.
The FX3 should weigh about 1160 empty on 31's with the VFR steam gauge panel, about 1170 with the avionics for IFR including a separate Garmin IFR GPS navigator. 2000 lb MTOW. These weights includes 30 lbs of unusable fuel.
I'm going to Tac Aero to get trained up in the type and will fly the G3X there; I'll make the final decision on avionics after I play with it live in the real airplane.
aeroaddict
MEMBER
Boise ID area
I'm probably going to step on someone toes here but you can build a glass paneled light weight cub. No negativity toward ones decisions nor the FX-3. Nor am I implying 'my plane is better than yours'.
Point is as MTV stated, lighter is better!
My plane is the EX-2. No constant speed (obviously), 340 180hp, 3X3 gear, extended range tanks, 26" Airstreaks (weigh 1 lb more than 850's+tubes), T3 tail wheel (Scott 3200), full Dynon 10" (which I believe is lighter than Garmin) and provides more information than could ever be needed, 2020 compliant, 2 steam gauges (airspeed/altimeter), 2 EarthX batteries (main & backup), Poly Fiber cover/paint. Empty weight: 932 lbs.
My whole build goal was to keep the weight off. Nothing fancy, just basic everything.
Now 200 hrs, how does it fly? Incredible!
I understand that one can be option limited when building factory assisted, and there is nothing wrong with Garmin, or the other offerings, but I do see people load their plane up with all the options and then wonder why the performance isn't as expected.
Point is as MTV stated, lighter is better!
My plane is the EX-2. No constant speed (obviously), 340 180hp, 3X3 gear, extended range tanks, 26" Airstreaks (weigh 1 lb more than 850's+tubes), T3 tail wheel (Scott 3200), full Dynon 10" (which I believe is lighter than Garmin) and provides more information than could ever be needed, 2020 compliant, 2 steam gauges (airspeed/altimeter), 2 EarthX batteries (main & backup), Poly Fiber cover/paint. Empty weight: 932 lbs.
My whole build goal was to keep the weight off. Nothing fancy, just basic everything.
Now 200 hrs, how does it fly? Incredible!
I understand that one can be option limited when building factory assisted, and there is nothing wrong with Garmin, or the other offerings, but I do see people load their plane up with all the options and then wonder why the performance isn't as expected.
Last edited:
No toes stepped on. That sounds like a great airplane! You can definitely get a lot more flexibility and potential utility if you put in the time for a custom built EX!
aeroaddict
MEMBER
Boise ID area
As many people have said, it's all about weight vs. performance.
Actually the build is all CC kit, only non CC custom features are the T3, EarthX and the panel wiring/breakers/instruments.
I'm sure your FX-3 will be a nice plane. I have flown with some of them and they definitely cruse faster.
Actually the build is all CC kit, only non CC custom features are the T3, EarthX and the panel wiring/breakers/instruments.
I'm sure your FX-3 will be a nice plane. I have flown with some of them and they definitely cruse faster.
Very interesting, I didn't know carbon concepts made a combo pod. That sounds excellent. Just 18 gallons would give it the legs to fly Ketchikan-Bellingham, which would be nice to be able to do, as long as you picked your day carefully and packed along the appropriate survival gear.
Gordon Misch
MEMBER
Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
Last winter a 172 went in the drink just shy of Port Angeles doing that. Never found. LOTS of reserve fuel, sir!
That makes sense, flying that in a 172 would be about like trying to fly it in an FX3 without a fuel pod (assuming the 172 didn't have some kind of STC'd additional fuel tank).
AdirondackCub
Registered User
Ballston Spa, NY
Narwhal I'll suggest a cargo pod vs fuel or comb. Particularly if you can lug the bags up to the wing. The cargo pod has much more utility for a variety vs a fuel only. Carry fuel bags and a lot of them if need be. I find you can elimate a heavy nose when landing by just keeping the prop back. Hope it helps. You will enjoy the 3. Heat particularly and the extra speed.
Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org
Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
I don't understand what you are suggesting. Every landing I make the engine speed is below the prop governing range and the prop pitch setting does nothing. I set prop full forward (fine) as soon as I drop below governing speed and that's usually before turning base.
I've had the plane for about 2 months now, with about 90 hours on it. The 40 hour phase 1 EAB flyoff and ferry through Canada went great! I did have one ignition coil pack fail in an insidious way in July; it was causing erratic tachometer indications, but we got it fixed with the help of cub crafters and a few members of the forum! Other than that, no problems! Flies great. Flew a bunch of instrument approaches on IFR flight plans including one a few down to LPV minimums of 200 ft above field elevation (although the weather was > 1000 and 3), it's actually a really fun IFR platform, which I know is blasphemy for a cub!
Here's a video about the airplane. I start flying at 07:30 if you get tired of me yammering in the hangar. I'm sure there were a few mis-speaks about the airplane, and I'm not the best pilot or movie maker so take that into account. Landings at the end of the video on a runway 16, winds were about 100 at 10 (although they were 100@30 at about 500 feet), so a 5 mph or so headwind component.
So, right now I'm just focusing on learning to fly the plane well, which you can tell needs some work. Once I can hit my spot every time, on speed then I'll venture more away from established airports/airstrips.
Here's a video about the airplane. I start flying at 07:30 if you get tired of me yammering in the hangar. I'm sure there were a few mis-speaks about the airplane, and I'm not the best pilot or movie maker so take that into account. Landings at the end of the video on a runway 16, winds were about 100 at 10 (although they were 100@30 at about 500 feet), so a 5 mph or so headwind component.
So, right now I'm just focusing on learning to fly the plane well, which you can tell needs some work. Once I can hit my spot every time, on speed then I'll venture more away from established airports/airstrips.
Last edited:
soyAnarchisto
MEMBER
Boulder, CO
I don't want to speak for Narwal, but I think he's referring to setting the prop at coarse - opposite of full fine - and that will significantly reduce drag which I think he's attributing to the heavy nose feel. I do the same thing in my 180 if I need to either stretch the glide for whatever reason or just not drop out of the sky at 1200 fpm when mushing out of the pattern. I have a big seaplane prop, and a STOL cuff on the wing - so if you fly it slow it will come down fast.
I only have a bout 45 minutes of time in a new FX-3, but I could certainly feel that drag and how nose heavy it is. You should be able to feather the prop back to coarse when the engine is at idle. You just have to be mindful - very mindful - if you need to go around that you need to shove the blue lever in first before cramming in the onions with the black go-knob.
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
I have about 200 hours in my FX-3 and have never noticed any change in feel, sound, or sink rate when I advance the prop lever with engine rpm below minimum governing speed. That's typically a change from a prop setting that gives 2,100 in cruise to one that would give 2,700. I had always assumed the prop was full fine regardless of control lever position when below governing speed. I think I'm being told that's not true.
Why wouldn't the engine fail checklist include prop full coarse? It doesn't on the FX-3. Does it on any other aircraft with non-feathering prop?
I like data so a calm air fight test seems to be required. I propose two descents at best glide speed one with throttle idle, prop lever full fine. Second with same conditions except prop lever full coarse. Any suggestions on how to improve those test points?
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Try it. With the throttle closed in a glide, pull the prop control all the way to course pitch. You will be amazed at the reduction in sink rate. Do push it forward again on short final in case you do need the power to be available as it will take a period of time to "spool up" again.
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
I attempted the test on Sunday but started too late in the day. Tried again this morning with takeoff about 5:15 am.
Before flight I verified full governor stop to stop control from the front cockpit prop lever. Each test descent was with throttle on the idle stop and with autopilot engaged in Heading and IAS hold modes. IAS target was 70 mph which is close to best glide speed at max gross. Actual aircraft weight was well below max gross so actual best glide speed would have been lower.
Each test point started with a climb to 4,500. Aircraft was slowed to 70 IAS, throttle was retarded to idle stop and prop was set as required for the test point. The descent to 4,000ft was used to stabilize on point. The descent rate was evaluated between 4,000 ft and 3,000 ft. The first 3 runs were reasonably stable but the sun was up before the test was completed and the later runs were less stable.
The test runs were as follows:
1. West heading prop fine
2. East heading prop fine
3. West heading prop coarse
4. East heading prop coarse
5. East heading prop coarse
6. West heading prop coarse
Cockpit observation showed approx 900 fpm for each of the test runs.
An additional test point was hand flown with throttle idle, 70 mph IAS, and prop lever cycled several times between the fine and coarse stops. There was no change in noise, rpm, sink rate, or pitch feel.
Quick look data shows no obvious change in sink rate for the evaluated throttle and propeller settings. Data for the first 5 descents attached.
Attachments
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
That's interesting frequent_flyer. I used to own a Lake LA-4 which had a higher drag component than your Cub. With the gear and flaps up and power at idle, pulling the prop control to full high pitch would produce a very noticeable lower rate of sink. That was too long ago for me to remember any numbers, but it was considerable. The glide distance was much further than it would have been with the prop in fine pitch.
