• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

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

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.
 
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
 
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:
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. 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:
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.
 

Attachments

  • 8D6DD8EC-B2DD-4904-8F98-6E3F97763750.webp
    8D6DD8EC-B2DD-4904-8F98-6E3F97763750.webp
    18.9 KB · Views: 481
Last edited:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
toiu0FQ.jpg
 
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?
 
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.
 
“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.
 
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:
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?
 
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: nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
What kind of computer do you have?? :???:
 
OK holding my finger on the zero key: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Now holding down the "n" key: nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
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.
 
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.
 
Ive burned AV gas on long trips in my Rotax 80 hp 912...i just use the decaline lead scavenger additive to help reduce the build up. What did they have for engines in the S7's? What do you have for an engine in your cub?

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.......
 
I was trying to "reply with quote" to the couriorguy with the pic...still getting used to this site...and my computer was locking up when i tried to reply with quote...must been because of the big photo
, thanks for all the replies guys

What engine do you have? You fly a Rans S7 ?
 
Good stuff BDA...
“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.”
I have heard several guys claim that regarding their cub with slats as well. However I have slats on my cub and find that I can still wing over if I choose, as well as enter a spin...maybe I am just that good at being bad...to spin you really have to get the thing “ugly”...and it will enter a spin...however when flying normal, and even getting a bit uncoordinated in a tight turn it will NOT spin... However, we all did see the exp cub in Talkeetna STOL comp start to fall out of the sky...technically the beginning of a spin...

on another issue...I do not feel stats add to surface area for wing loading as one poster posted...if I understand they force air over the wing, aiding it to hold on logs...thus creating a better vacuum...I could be wrong...

again...good stuff...be safe everyone!
 
Handley Page style slats add wing area.

I guess I respectfully disagree from a couple standpoints...one the structural integrity of carbon fiber stats would not withstand “load”, but can withstand horizontal pressure due to aerodynamic design - unless they were positively connected to the spar which mine are not...leading edge. Next in my research of slats prior to putting on my cub I reviewed hours and hours of Handley page information and studies. I believe in my reading H.P. slots did contribute to surface area and wing load...however they also contributed to increases drag...Page first tried slots on the
H.P. 17. around 1917. In 1919 Page developed the H.P. 20, which were fitted with what he first called controllable slots, and later became know as slats Slots and slats do increase lift coefficient when deployed in takeoff or landing configurations at high angle of attacks.

As as usual I could be completely wrong, but feel pretty confident my slats, the carbon fiber version would rip off if they were a significant factor in surface area for wing loading purposes.

Fun discussion...for what it’s worth on the original topic, I am a cub guy, but have been intrigued by the numbers of small STOL type aircraft. I feel they are WAY overpriced, but pretty neat planes...on that note I feel many cubs a way overpriced as well.

Respectfully,
 
If you think your slats would rip off you had better do a major rethink of your engineering and material properties.
 
I guess I respectfully disagree from a couple standpoints...one the structural integrity of carbon fiber stats would not withstand “load”, but can withstand horizontal pressure due to aerodynamic design - unless they were positively connected to the spar which mine are not...leading edge. Next in my research of slats prior to putting on my cub I reviewed hours and hours of Handley page information and studies. I believe in my reading H.P. slots did contribute to surface area and wing load...however they also contributed to increases drag...Page first tried slots on the
H.P. 17. around 1917. In 1919 Page developed the H.P. 20, which were fitted with what he first called controllable slots, and later became know as slats Slots and slats do increase lift coefficient when deployed in takeoff or landing configurations at high angle of attacks.

As as usual I could be completely wrong, but feel pretty confident my slats, the carbon fiber version would rip off if they were a significant factor in surface area for wing loading purposes.

Fun discussion...for what it’s worth on the original topic, I am a cub guy, but have been intrigued by the numbers of small STOL type aircraft. I feel they are WAY overpriced, but pretty neat planes...on that note I feel many cubs a way overpriced as well.

Respectfully,


Ron , ya might want to rethink your mindset on the slats adding to the wing area. Good post , Would love to see some pic’s of your bird.
 
Ron , ya might want to rethink your mindset on the slats adding to the wing area. Good post , Would love to see some pic’s of your bird.

DBDD2F24-FD9C-4886-AE20-F887E52CA93A.webp8A80673C-E4DF-468F-837D-5E01CB31AB7F.webp
Mine basic Carbon concept slats, with a minor change in positive connection to the leading edge...my exp cub is basic cub design...lots of carbon fiber parts. I can only imagine flyrite you have vast experience with these slats...I am poised to learn...would love some pics of your slat equipped plane. I am here to learn...
 

Attachments

  • DBDD2F24-FD9C-4886-AE20-F887E52CA93A.webp
    DBDD2F24-FD9C-4886-AE20-F887E52CA93A.webp
    135 KB · Views: 314
  • 8A80673C-E4DF-468F-837D-5E01CB31AB7F.webp
    8A80673C-E4DF-468F-837D-5E01CB31AB7F.webp
    206.3 KB · Views: 332
  • 87763EEC-5DEF-49FA-9EDC-A18676848E72.webp
    87763EEC-5DEF-49FA-9EDC-A18676848E72.webp
    42.1 KB · Views: 252
Wow, Like the plane. Ya got it setup right, belly pod, slats, Do you have the VG’s as well?
On the slats adding to wing area, Obviously slats add to the cord so that adds wing area.I Like the trailing edge adjustable slats like yours and the Backcountry planes, Got to help cruise. Simpliar and lighter to install , Unlike the Super Stol and the Helios that retract , Reducing cord.
Mine are fixed , Wasn’t that concerned bout the cruise hit so kept it as simple as possible. Below is a link to my Vimeo page that tells about my plane.

https://vimeo.com/284611435
 
Back
Top