Constant Speed... Why Not?...

[DENNY]

I am 68 years old and had seven bypasses. I have no problem with stick pressure on a full power, full flap, full nose up trim go around. You need to do a few push ups if you do. Once you shove the black knob forward just dial the trim back, what does that take 2 seconds? The reality is a cub will stop descending and start slow climb at 1800-1900 RPM in that configuration. Do you really need to go full power??? Use the power needed to to clear what is in front of you. Remember go arounds are not always free. Sometimes it is just better to land and take what you get.
DENNY

I want full power on any go-around

Then that is what you should do. I prefer to treat a go around not as an emergency but rather as a change to the flight plan and adjust the aircraft as needed. I don't think I have ever needed a VX climb, just miss whatever is at the end of the runway by a few feet is the goal. I am not a crop-duster but I do spend a lot of time below treetop so for me it is just flowing with what is ahead of me. I have practiced the settings in both my cub and my 180, you notice it more in the 180 but it nothing to fear once you practice it. I think one issue is people are used to always pulling back on the stick a bit when they fly (they like the feed back). they think nothing of a strong stick back pull. So why is a strong nose forward push no natural? If you always flew with excessive nose up trip you would always be pushing slightly on the stick and that would be become natural feedback for you. It is like heel and toe brakes once you get used to them it does matter what you have you do it without thinking. I land with a lot of stick forward pressure on short final releasing to a hands off flair at 42 mph. I had my CFI take the stick once I was set on final and it he hated it. I have converted some to the dark side but others tried it and just did not like it. Fly how you like, this was all started on that CS speed prop and then went to nose heavy, then to light is better, but can't flair because of elevator, just wanted to add the stabilizer is a greatly under utilized control when landing!! No real right or wrong just pontification.
DENNY

 

[TVATIVAK71]

If you need/want more elevator authority in the flair use that trim handle on the left side of the seat and adjust the stabilizer properly. That is the cheapest fix around.
DENNY

Just pontificating.

If that doesn’t work (along with re rigging stab). Then it’s either lose weight up front or make it heavier in the back. Pretty frustrating when you want to fly solo and LIGHT and the fair amount survival equipment all the way back with either Hyd skis or 35‘s isn’t enough to make it feel comfortable. Ran outta trim all the time. Lighter prop setup and problem solved (At the expense of speed the CS provided) So IN MY CASE I think it’s a relevant commenting on pros and cons of a CS. As far as trim not everyone has unlimited stabilizer trim travel to ease up the stick forces.
On landing in a cub depending on the conditions if I’m running out of stick I use the a bit of trim (earlier it was to the stop).

I was curious about this thread discussing CS pros and cons on a 150-180hp certified Cub then realized the big performance pimping was for a IO-520D on an experimental Cub on steroids. Guess I figured if it has that type of engine it would also always have a CS prop. Anyone flown a 520 or 540 with a fixed pitch prop? I’d be curious how it does (Didn’t the original ranger widgeon have fixed fitch? No idea what hp those engines were.)

As far as go around power use whatever you need to get to where you wanna go safely.

 

[FatCub300]

Just pontificating.

If that doesn’t work (along with re rigging stab). Then it’s either lose weight up front or make it heavier in the back. Pretty frustrating when you want to fly solo and LIGHT and the fair amount survival equipment all the way back with either Hyd skis or 35‘s isn’t enough to make it feel comfortable. Ran outta trim all the time. Lighter prop setup and problem solved (At the expense of speed the CS provided) So IN MY CASE I think it’s a relevant commenting on pros and cons of a CS. As far as trim not everyone has unlimited stabilizer trim travel to ease up the stick forces.
On landing in a cub depending on the conditions if I’m running out of stick I use the a bit of trim (earlier it was to the stop).

I was curious about this thread discussing CS pros and cons on a 150-180hp certified Cub then realized the big performance pimping was for a IO-520D on an experimental Cub on steroids. Guess I figured if it has that type of engine it would also always have a CS prop. Anyone flown a 520 or 540 with a fixed pitch prop? I’d be curious how it does (Didn’t the original ranger widgeon have fixed fitch? No idea what hp those engines were.)

As far as go around power use whatever you need to get to where you wanna go safely.

I think you just called me a pimp….


I like it. Fatcub pimp daddy…

 

[peterdillon]

Just sold a cub with an MT with reverse on Aerocets we had for over 10 years. Would get off better with a big load than the borer we took off and easily cruise at 95 knots. Same speed as our Beaver. Had my fill of cubs with engine screaming going 80 mph on long flights on floats with a borer. Like driving your pickup at 60 mph in second gear. Best thing we ever did for our mission was put on that MT.

 

[TVATIVAK71]

I think you just called me a pimp….


I like it. Fatcub pimp daddy…

Yup I did!

 

[TVATIVAK71]

Just sold a cub with an MT with reverse on Aerocets we had for over 10 years. Would get off better with a big load than the borer we took off and easily cruise at 95 knots. Same speed as our Beaver. Had my fill of cubs with engine screaming going 80 mph on long flights on floats with a borer. Like driving your pickup at 60 mph in second gear. Best thing we ever did for our mission was put on that MT.

80 mph is just fine.

 

[sixmile]

80 mph is just fine.

yup 80 is just fine. I get paid by the hour

 

[FatCub300]

You say Potato… I say potahto….

They both make French fries.

Do what you like and for the mission you have.

Steve

 

[skywagon8a]

(Didn’t the original ranger widgeon have fixed fitch? No idea what hp those engines were.)

Yes fixed pitch 200 hp. Changing to a controllable Hartzell made a huge improvement in take off performance, because full power became available.

 

[akavidflyer]

If a CS on a 150-160 cub was truly a performance boost, especially when heavy, EVERY SINGLE working cub would have one on it. That is simply not the case though.

 

[peterdillon]

If a CS on a 150-160 cub was truly a performance boost, especially when heavy, EVERY SINGLE working cub would have one on it. That is simply not the case though.

Well first of all you need an engine with a hollow crank which few have and then you need about another 25K for the prop and STC governor etc and some complications removing the plugged crank. There is no reason why a Borer at 82 in is going to outperform an 82.7 inch MT. You can dial the governor to get exactly 2700 on take off. I understand why some peoples mission speed is not important and the borer is a good choice. Had a lot of super cubs and a lot of borer props and on floats that MT performs better out of the hole. Dont see anybody taking the prop off a Husky and putting on a fixed pitch.

 

[Steve Pierce]

I have never seen a solid crank O-320. A heavy Husky is not a good comparison to a light weight Cub in my world. Different plane and different mission. Both are great but for different reasons.

 

[peterdillon]

Been awhile so dont remember all the details and am not a mechanic but there are only some models that are suitable. Lycon had the crank out and identified it as the right one and removed the plug to accommodate the governor system.

 

[Steve Pierce]

Is more prevalent in O-360s. Several hollow crank and solid crank models.

 

[mvivion]

As steve says, it really depends on your mission. Nowadays, with the advent of composite ground adjustable props, that gap has widened.
But, it’s hard to justify adding the weight of an O-360, then not taking full advantage of that extra go, especially on floats.
Huskys are always going to be heavier than Cubs…..O-360, CS, but there’s also more structure than any Cub. i flew a very light Husky, and I’d put it up against any O-320 Cub. I once asked the owner of Aviat why they push out such heavy planes. He groaned and said “because thats what buyers order”. True that.

 

[TR Dunn]

As steve says, it really depends on your mission. Nowadays, with the advent of composite ground adjustable props, that gap has widened.
But, it’s hard to justify adding the weight of an O-360, then not taking full advantage of that extra go, especially on floats.

Mission indeed. I found it very easy to justify staying with the McCauley 1A200 when I converted our O-290D2 powered PA-18A to the O-360 with the Penn Yan STC over 20 years ago and it still holds true today. Our Cub is pretty much full-time on floats now and used predominately for training. The cost/performance ratio for CS does not come close to reaching my threshold. For reference, this old working girl came in at 1196 after O-360 conversion. This includes; Airglas 32 aux, 3" gear, 31" ABW's/BBW and Wip 2K upgross.

TR

 

[TR Dunn]

My big fat cub thing swings an 88" MacCaulley and is impressive from climb, to cruise to massive aerodynamic braking when you want it. Nothing shy of impressive. It gives you a whole different realm of performance than what you contemplate without...

Steve.

"massive aerodynamic braking"?

Placing a controllable pitch propeller in flat (low) pitch does indeed increase total drag when the propeller is driven by the airflow. This is opposite the results of feathering. By definition, the engine is being driven by the propeller in this scenario. Before employing this “technique”, I encourage a thorough understanding of ones powerplant and the manufacturers guidance of such operation.

No intent to open a discussion on this subject, my objective is merely to place a “caution” placard on this “technique” as certain engines will not respond well to this abuse. Drive a 985 or 1340 with the prop for any length of time and you will be rewarded with a teardown. Different anatomy than an opposed, I understand, however, opposed engines are not immune to some of the negative impacts of being driven by the propeller. In reality, I expect "big fat cub thing" to be rid of that puny 520 and rightfully install a 985 turning a 2D30 with AG200 blades and I don't want to see that 985 destroyed by an abusive procedure.

TR

 

[mvivion]

"massive aerodynamic braking"?

Placing a controllable pitch propeller in flat (low) pitch does indeed increase total drag when the propeller is driven by the airflow. This is opposite the results of feathering. By definition, the engine is being driven by the propeller in this scenario. Before employing this “technique”, I encourage a thorough understanding of ones powerplant and the manufacturers guidance of such operation.

No intent to open a discussion on this subject, my objective is merely to place a “caution” placard on this “technique” as certain engines will not respond well to this abuse. Drive a 985 or 1340 with the prop for any length of time and you will be rewarded with a teardown. Different anatomy than an opposed, I understand, however, opposed engines are not immune to some of the negative impacts of being driven by the propeller. In reality, I expect "big fat cub thing" to be rid of that puny 520 and rightfully install a 985 turning a 2D30 with AG200 blades and I don't want to see that 985 destroyed by an abusive procedure.

TR

Oh, man, talk dirty to me…..a 985 with a 2D30 and AG 200 blades…..cool!

 

[FatCub300]

"massive aerodynamic braking"?

Placing a controllable pitch propeller in flat (low) pitch does indeed increase total drag when the propeller is driven by the airflow. This is opposite the results of feathering. By definition, the engine is being driven by the propeller in this scenario. Before employing this “technique”, I encourage a thorough understanding of ones powerplant and the manufacturers guidance of such operation.

No intent to open a discussion on this subject, my objective is merely to place a “caution” placard on this “technique” as certain engines will not respond well to this abuse. Drive a 985 or 1340 with the prop for any length of time and you will be rewarded with a teardown. Different anatomy than an opposed, I understand, however, opposed engines are not immune to some of the negative impacts of being driven by the propeller. In reality, I expect "big fat cub thing" to be rid of that puny 520 and rightfully install a 985 turning a 2D30 with AG200 blades and I don't want to see that 985 destroyed by an abusive procedure.

"massive aerodynamic braking"?

Placing a controllable pitch propeller in flat (low) pitch does indeed increase total drag when the propeller is driven by the airflow. This is opposite the results of feathering. By definition, the engine is being driven by the propeller in this scenario. Before employing this “technique”, I encourage a thorough understanding of ones powerplant and the manufacturers guidance of such operation.

No intent to open a discussion on this subject, my objective is merely to place a “caution” placard on this “technique” as certain engines will not respond well to this abuse. Drive a 985 or 1340 with the prop for any length of time and you will be rewarded with a teardown. Different anatomy than an opposed, I understand, however, opposed engines are not immune to some of the negative impacts of being driven by the propeller. In reality, I expect "big fat cub thing" to be rid of that puny 520 and rightfully install a 985 turning a 2D30 with AG200 blades and I don't want to see that 985 destroyed by an abusive procedure.

TR

"massive aerodynamic braking"?

Placing a controllable pitch propeller in flat (low) pitch does indeed increase total drag when the propeller is driven by the airflow. This is opposite the results of feathering. By definition, the engine is being driven by the propeller in this scenario. Before employing this “technique”, I encourage a thorough understanding of ones powerplant and the manufacturers guidance of such operation.

No intent to open a discussion on this subject, my objective is merely to place a “caution” placard on this “technique” as certain engines will not respond well to this abuse. Drive a 985 or 1340 with the prop for any length of time and you will be rewarded with a teardown. Different anatomy than an opposed, I understand, however, opposed engines are not immune to some of the negative impacts of being driven by the propeller. In reality, I expect "big fat cub thing" to be rid of that puny 520 and rightfully install a 985 turning a 2D30 with AG200 blades and I don't want to see that 985 destroyed by an abusive procedure.

TR

I should have been more specific.
When you pull power off, as you touch down.
The aerodynamic braking from the prop going flat shortens the landing g roll out.

Not suggesting trying to re-create beta in flight… leave that to the PT-6’s…

S

 

[Dog]

The cub I did fly with a constant speed nearly 30 years ago was sold a couple years later to and old timer bush-pilot.

The first thing he was going to do is rip that stupid constant speed prop off and put a borer on. I talked him into giving the CS a try.

Now almost 30 years later he is in his 80s and complained that he had to overhaul that darned prop again, but he will not get rid of it.

He probably forgot more about cubs than most of us know and he still rather fly's his CS cub.

I am first in line to Buy it if he ever sells.

 

[FatCub300]

The cub I did fly with a constant speed nearly 30 years ago was sold a couple years later to and old timer bush-pilot.

The first thing he was going to do is rip that stupid constant speed prop off and put a borer on. I talked him into giving the CS a try.

Now almost 30 years later he is in his 80s and complained that he had to overhaul that darned prop again, but he will not get rid of it.

He probably forgot more about cubs than most of us know and he still rather fly's his CS cub.

I am first in line to Buy it if he ever sells.

That seems to be a common occurrence.
No one likes them, no one needs them, no one wants to pay for them…. And then, you try one.

And then…no one will give them up.

Steve

 

[FatCub300]

That seems to be a common occurrence.
No one likes them, no one needs them, no one wants to pay for them…. And then, you try one.

And then…no one will give them up.

Steve

I’ll add one more silly thing I hear a lot of… and before I say it. I’ll grant everyone is welcome to do whatever they like and think whatever they like….

The idea that the big heavy prop on the nose screws up the light feeling of a supercub and all that… if you offset the additional weight and moment arm of that big awful prop… then your CofG is exactly the same.

You lose a little useful load, you gain a pretty incredible amount of climb performance, you have the ability to tailor the power settings pretty finitely and your takeoff and landing zones reduce…

There is the slightest little bit of increased inertia to learn to deal with from the prop.
( not much with the MT)

And all in all, your pocket book takes the brunt of the hit… everything else about your aircraft operating scope opens up, giving additional performance.


Steve