Carbon Cub EX VS Mackey / Backcountry SQ2

If there were more airplanes with slats there would be more old pilots!
Doug

Couple thought, I have been flying a CC for 5 years

I think the slats are a great.
I got to fly a plane with slates recently and I agree that they offer additional safety and margin on the edge.

On the other side is the speed difference. The CC is noticeable faster, 110-115 mph on 7-8 gph with 29" tires. I know, i know none of us care about speed but there are days on a long trip with a 30 mph head wind that 80-90 Mph starts to seem mighty slow.

Gordon Misch said:

If I may, a slightly different perspective on "safe" wings. I think it's how close to the edge of the wing's capability that one flies, that determines safety, assuming the wing is predictable.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, Gordon--I never got stuck until I got a 4 wheel drive, and the same is true with airplanes!

I also think it makes sense to look at what happens after the stall occurs, and this is where the slats really shine, IMHO. We all know how gentle the break and stall is with a standard Cub wing but, at the same time, we've all heard too many stories of stall/spin fatalities in Cubs. Slats do make the stall even less severe on the front end (it's honestly hard to get an actual break with someone in the back seat--it's more like a perpetual mush, and you're also only going about 26 mph when it happens), but once the plane stalls I think they dramatically increase post-stall stability. In other words, with slats on, you're much more likely to be staring out the window at a mushing plane in a level attitude than watching the world go round in a sudden and unexpected spin.

I aren't no engineer, and I'm not claiming that they make a Cub spin-proof. However, they do make the initial break much more gentle and, more importantly, they tend to make the plane mush straight ahead rather than letting a wing drop off into a spin. That's been my experience, anyway.

I agree with Brown Bear--if there were more slats, I believe there would be more old pilots.

Serious questions.
1) has anyone out there fitted slats to a Carbon Cub wing?

Click to expand...

Stewart, I don't know if anybody has ever mounted them on a CC wing, but I've flown a Rans S-7 with slats and it's pretty darn impressive as long as you've got enough motor to pull them through the air at low speeds.

On the other side is the speed difference. The CC is noticeable faster, 110-115 mph on 7-8 gph with 29" tires.

Click to expand...

The SQ I fly cruises between 95-100 with slats and 31" tires. It was 220 hp on the dyno (souped up O-360), and my fuel burn averages about 9 gph (I took on 35 gallons after my last 4 hours of flying).

This is a great thread. I've enjoyed reading all the comments and I think they both great airplanes. I've been lucky enough to fly more than one CubCrafter's Cub, an SQ-2, and Piper PA-18s. Personally I felt that the CC planes were the real showboats of the bunch, but I LOVED flying them. I think the CC Cubs are just wonderful flying machines. I've also put a CC cub through a decent amount of Idaho backcountry abuse, or at least as much as a pilot getting out and exploring could expect to encounter. I've landed it on gravel bars with big rocks, grassy slopes, and high ridges and it did the job admirably. I work in northwestern arctic in Alaska with a 206 part of the year landing on everything you can think of... Would a CC stand up to that kind of use and abuse every day?? I don't think so. But take a good look at how CC EX cubs are usually used... They are recreational planes. Yes they can take some abuse and rough conditions. You don't have to baby them, but then again they don't usually see those conditions every day.

My experience with SQ-2 is much less, but I have been around one and flown PIC front and center. It's a wonderful machine too. Bringing it in at 28mph and dropping on marshmallow 35" bush wheels make the landing a non-event. Come land a 3600# C-206 with me on a 700ft gravel bar with 8" rocks in the rain and I'll show you what an eventful landing is...lol. The SQ-2 does have a pickup truck feel to it not like the CC. Using cars for comparison I had the impression I was driving a Land Rover with the CC EX... Extremely capable, comfortable and can hold it's own in the city and on rough roads, kind of the cadillac in the off airport environment. The SQ-2 felt like a rebuilt '70s Chevy or Ford (loyalists don't hate on me) with a lift, big tires, loud exhaust and that monster truck invincibility. You can just feel that it's capable of withstanding more abuse. Sure it was robust, sure it was fun to fly, but it wasn't exactly like the tight "finished" feel of the CC EX.

I was very impressed with the slats. If you have a lot of time flying airplanes slow you WILL notice the difference.

Honestly I wouldn't turn up my nose at either airplane. I'll drool over a nice CC EX just as much as an SQ-2 or some variation there-of. THEY ARE DIFFERENT AIRPLANES, both exceptional aircraft, one (CC EX) has a "finished" feel to it and the other (SQ-2) has more options and hence reflects the owners desires and ability and could be made to have that "finished" feel.

Do I dare make the Apple vs Microsoft comparison?? Both computers/operating systems capable of outstanding things, but one has a closed loop of development hence a shinier (albeit less adjustable) product and better customer support?? Hope I didn't kick over a bee's nest...

My only suggestion,don't get bitten as I was,ask for the previous ten buyers name from each manufacturer and dis\cuss the pros and cons with them.Don't fall for the coloured brochures or the untried.My choice based on this would be javron or cubcrafters.

rtones said:

I've landed it on gravel bars with big rocks, grassy slopes, and high ridges and it did the job admirably. I work in northwestern arctic in Alaska with a 206 part of the year landing on everything you can think of... Would a CC stand up to that kind of use and abuse every day?? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

thanks for the review. It is always interesting to read others experiences with different planes. I wonder though about the above comment. The CC EX has 3" extended PA18 gear and with tires like 31's there is no reason to think it won't hold up as well as a PA18 in the same circumstances. I have 31's on mine with a Baby Bushwheel and Pawnee tail spring. And in the last three years have a couple of thousand off airport landings with it and other than rock holes in the tail feathers it is none the worse for wear.

I also have a C-T41B which came from Cessna with a 206 nose gear. Last summer I made one landing with it where a friend and I landed our Cubs on his ranch and got my teeth rattled. I wouldn't do that again in the Cessna. My point being that what seemed like a non-event in the Cub was terribly rough in the Cessna.

The CC EX is as tough as any Cub. And in the opinion of those who've compared the fuselage of the CC to a PA18, stronger in that regard too. The big difference is that the top longerons on the CC replaces the turtle deck and puts bigger triangles between the upper and lower longerons.

rtones said:

...Using cars for comparison I had the impression I was driving a Land Rover with the CC EX...

Click to expand...

I've only ridden in the back seat of a CC. Never flown one. But I can see where you might make this analogy. Although I'm not sure I'd want to sit in a fishing net 11 hours a day for six days. Might be fine, I just don't know. But I sat in my SQ-2 for 11 hours a day for six days. Zero pain or discomfort. Oregon Aero makes fantastic seats.

rtones said:

The SQ-2 felt like a rebuilt '70s Chevy or Ford (loyalists don't hate on me) with a lift, big tires, loud exhaust and that monster truck invincibility

Click to expand...

I'll have to assume your knowledge of american trucks is stuck in the 1970's (Damn good time the 70's - at least until 1974, then things went to hell) You'd be correct to compare the SQ-2 to the Ford Raptor - a purpose built production desert racing truck born and breed in Baja. Every other 4x4 ever made would have parts flying off if they even attempted to keep up with a Raptor in a serious off-road environment. Oh yea, I drive a Raptor.

rtones said:

Do I dare make the Apple vs Microsoft comparison??

Click to expand...

Nope. Like comparing Mercedes to Yugo. Although who knows what Yugo might have come up with if NATO hadn't bombed the factory.

Great thread, thanks guys!

spinner2 said:

I also have a C-T41B which came from Cessna with a 206 nose gear. Last summer I made one landing with it where a friend and I landed our Cubs on his ranch and got my teeth rattled. I wouldn't do that again in the Cessna. My point being that what seemed like a non-event in the Cub was terribly rough in the Cessna.

The CC EX is as tough as any Cub. And in the opinion of those who've compared the fuselage of the CC to a PA18, stronger in that regard too. The big difference is that the top longerons on the CC replaces the turtle deck and puts bigger triangles between the upper and lower longerons.

Click to expand...

That's great to hear that your plane has stood up to harsh operating conditions of the backcountry. I really do like the CubCrafters product. I've been seriously considering one for myself. They are really a joy to fly. I was kind of making a silly comparison of a supercub to one of the 206s I fly. But you hit the nail on the head that the weakpoint is the nose gear. We have oversized nose gear with an 8.50 up front with 29" tires on the mains. Makes for a nice setup, but we still baby that nose gear as much as possible. Where my head was going with my comparison was if a CC EX cub had to do the same work that we do side by side with a 206 I don't know that it would stand for it, but I can see that it's a silly comparison because they are very different airplanes. More than likely the cub could do the work with twice the trips and avoiding some of the rougher conditions that the extra weight of the 206 helps in.

Strong airplanes can be bent, and less strong airplanes can do a lot of work by a talented pilot with wise judgement.

At the end of the day it's usually the pilot that's the one responsible for bending an airplane. Know your limits and the airplane's limits and it will go far, do work, and last a long time.

Thanks to everyone that replied. The wealth of opinions and information has been great. After this thread and after having talked to Jay at Javron I'm leaning towards his kit rather than the Carbon Cub or the SQ2.

Reasons:
I question the carbon cub's ability to withstand the abuse that my lack of good judgment and poor piloting skills inflict on an airplane! In all seriousness I haul some heavy loads out of short rough places too often and I'm not made of money so I need something durable.

The SQ2 seems like a very strong plane, but stiffer/stronger doesn't always equate to better. Therefore, I think I want something closer to the original fuselage design with it's 60 years of improvements.

This is what I'm thinking as of now:
Javron regular width cub with all the strength modifications, extended baggage etc.
Javron square wings with performance stol flaps and likely the backcountry cubs' leading edge slats.
Oratex fabric
Titan IOX-409
IFR instruments (Garmin G3X or G500) and heated pitot tube. I know many would question this, but I've spent many nights sleeping in the baggage area of my cub due to bad weather. Those nights I dreamt of a Husky.... Sometimes a simple IFR capable airplane and pilot can get you home safely rather than another night out and about or scud running through mountains to try to get home.

My goal is a plane that weighs in the same or less than my current cub, 1191 LBS, with much more horsepower and lift generation.

supercub83a said:

...This is what I'm thinking as of now:
Javron regular width cub with all the strength modifications,...

Click to expand...

Sounds good however I recommend that you give serious thought to using the wide body fuselage for just a little bit more elbow room with a very small weight penalty. I did and am pleased. I would now find a stock width Cub very cramped.

What's the weight difference between a wide body and a regular javron cub all other things being equal after finished?

Re the wide body selectionI would second that,I feel like I am flying a boeing cockpit when I sit in ours,it is SOOOOOO much better!

Soy

Don't know for sure but my guess would be close to 20 pounds. Windshield is wider and thats pretty heavy, frame is 5 to 6 pounds, floor boards are wider, skylight, boot cowl, etc. If you need it, it is great!!! But if you are a skinny, lightweight kinda guy you might not need it. More room in the winter when you are wearing extra clothes. More room for the rear seat pax feet on the rudders. For a small guy you don't feel as much like you are "wearing" the plane, a bigger guy would not experience that. Its pretty personal.

Bill

Bill Rusk said:

Its pretty personal.

Click to expand...

Sums up the whole Super Cub experience.

One advantage of the Jarvon cub is when you bend something 4 hours out of Fairbanks there might just be a part hanging on a cabin wall nearby that will fit and get you home. Wingtips, Landing gear, prop, struts, and tail feathers are things that you will need when you screw up. Having a one off part is great until you need another one and you only have 24 hours before the snow starts blowing. I think I could find any new stock cub part in ANC by 0830. Even if you bent up the leading edge slats just cover with aluminum and tape.
DENNY

ever had a corvette,slipping into a good cub feels as good as slipping into a hot vette!!! a widebody or pa-12 just feels sloppy to me,long trips ya got a place to brace your knees!!


jr. :smile:

Great thread! I have read and re-read just about every word. I have even spoken to several of you. My Backcountry Cub kit has been ordered. Delivery date is sometime around July 10th. Keeping the 180...need to start a new thread on the many ways to save weight.

AKT

Congrats, saving weight is key, as the carbon cub demonstrates. Lighter cub just flys better. I put my cub on a diet, I'm interested to see what it weights in at

them thar Ohio lads talk about weight in one of our laddy Greg's videos
https://vimeo.com/126962696

Love the Swingle video.

God bless those who can afford to dream, but at $575 per pound I could afford a lot of mogas to go figure out how to land my heavy old Cub!:lol:

Can't wait to hear about your experience with Backcountry.

My experience to date will both Bob and Bruce have been nothing short of exceptional at BCSC.

Here is a question that I continue to think about as I lye wide awake at night thinking about my build. People always stress how they want a light weight cub yet they end up putting every mechanical advantage in the plane (IO- engine) (constant speed prop) (electronics out the ying yang) all just adding more and more weight. Why would you not put a fixed pitch on the bird, run with a carbonated engine and go vey basic on your instrumentation? I realize much of it is personal preference but my only interest is beating my bird to death while keeping me safe and keeping it as light as possible.

I should also put a disclaimer in that I have elected to have Bent Wing Aviation (down the road from BCSC in WY) build my plane. With as much as I would really like to build, my time really does not allow for such...and I like flying way to much. So I have more ideas than one person should have. I would love to hear your opinions and ideas for for a light weight build. My kit is perchased and the build begins in a couple weeks. Literally. Almost bought Kirstens that was just listed but wanting to modify this to my specs. Light being key.

Looking seriously at the R409 but like the Aerosports, Oratex (maybe) Fixed pitch with a Cato or possibly a Pawnee prop for cooling, basic instruments. I really dont think you need the 35's with how slow the plane lands already....however... Also pondering on the TK 1 Shock system however some recent events have me pondering on that as well. I sure like the tried and trued so the jury is still out. Let me hear it. No need to discuss CC or any other kit. Im in the SQ game now.

AKT

IMHO, having an IO engine adds power & saves fuel with negligible weight addition.

Constant speed prop involves a hollow crankshaft (weight savings) with the additional weight of the rest of the affair--again with the positive aspect of more efficient performance. Plus, the additional constant speed weight (can anyone give me a real lb #?) is up front, giving one extra baggage capacity in back. So that's a win-win IMHO.

Regarding "electronics" today's solid-state EFIS have everything at a fraction of the weight of traditional round-face instruments. Another no-brainer IMHO.

OK, were only adding weight if it improves some other aspect.
Trade-offs. Lots of things add weight and affect speed. Are they worth it? Your thoughts please.
On the wing..thoughts on Backcountry (Mackey)slats and Keller flaps.
Gear..main and tail tire size. Is bigger better?
Interior..metal liner with extended cargo?
Electrical system...battery, alternator, starter, wiring, etc.
Engine/prop combos also greatly affect CG.
Obviously, all choices should be made with your mission in mind.

Not concerned with speed or going anywhere fast

Slats and Keller flaps without question

31's for certain...plane already flys slow let's see about 35's

mission? To beat this bird to death and do so while keeping myself and passengers safe. Contest flying is also a bonus not the true mission

interior 3/8 foam


EarthX battery, 409 angle valve, p mags...much if this is per my conversation with Goza. He is a heap of info! I feel like I owe him bigtime.

Avionics...Dynon more than likely

Prop- fixed or constant speed...TBD one is obviously lighter one has better performance out of the hole

my mission is the same as my 180...god made mountains to land on....I'm just tired of beating my 180 to death

Akt

I flew my SQ-2 for about 40 hours with the Mackey slats, then took them off and flew for about 10 hours. Conclusion: slats cost me about 8 to 10 mph in cruise while gaining at least 6 to 8 in lower stall/better low-speed performance.

Keller flaps: Would be nice to have, but at $15,000? I've heard rumors of perhaps slower approach speed by 4 mph...need input from someone please.

I have the Matco WHLT-11D tailwheel. No problems so far. I have the Alaskan Bushwheel tailwheel on another aircraft. Both are good tailwheels--constructed well IMHO. Having both, with perhaps 200 hours on the AK version and 150 hours on the Matco, I don't see any particular service issues to note. Haven't compared weight.

I have a 0.020" powder coated interior with carbon fiber floor panels (that I vacuum bagged myself). I saved 10 lbs with the carbon fiber floor vs the std plywood.

I have a Lamar 40 amp alternator. Someone told me (not verified) that it is the same alternator that they have in their Kubota tractor. Skytec starter. 2+ lb Aerovoltz battery, which so far, works absolutely great. Aerovoltz will have a new battery out later this summer with a built-in battery management system, which will be an important upgrade (so I'm told).

Oh, and I have dual P-mags. They perform flawlessly and are a no-brainer to time/set.

Kellers are listed at $6,200 to $8,200 for custom down to $4,200 for PA18.
What's weight diff vs. standard?
What change to cruise/stall speed?
What kind of deck angle difference at high alpha?

I have stock wings with vg's and can slow down to the point that my tailwheel is 1-2 ft lower than my mains. I would do Kellers extended flaps before the slats, they will slow you down without being so nose high. Giving you better vis in the rough stuff.
DENNY