Zlin Aviation Outback Shock Cub

[Mauleguy]

You guys have sweet aircraft; courierguy’s S-7S sounds amazing!

Last word. To those of us lucky enough to have slats. Be very careful the day you take them off. They provide the aircraft with some exceptional qualities. The kind of comfort that you like and get used to. When you go fly your aircraft without the slats she’s a very different animal. Not to be rude but why on earth, when you’ve gone to the trouble and expense of putting those slats on the wing, would you be inclined to take them off?

Slats are drag and that equals worse climb, slower cruise speeds, longer take off runs and require a high angle of attack to become effective and they add extra weight. This is not to say some pilots would not benefit, there are probably a few pilots that would still be here had they had slats. They are not going to help you get into a tight spot unless you plan on flying blind. From my point of view and the kind of flying I do the negatives don't out weigh the positives for me, so I would never put them on a bird and therefore would never have to take them off.

 

[Selvaoscura]

Slats are drag and that equals worse climb, slower cruise speeds, longer take off runs and require a high angle of attack to become effective and they add extra weight. This is not to say some pilots would not benefit, there are probably a few pilots that would still be here had they had slats. They are not going to help you get into a tight spot unless you plan on flying blind. From my point of view and the kind of flying I do the negatives don't out weigh the positives for me, so I would never put them on a bird and therefore would never have to take them off.

for most of the pilots I know, the extra safety that slats offer is more than enough to balance all the negativities...You can still approach flat and slower than normal being sure that you will never spin or enter in stall in those conditions..and since most of the pilots are not super capable bush pilots as you are, I think this is a plus at the end of the day..but you are right about how they work and their negativities. And this is why Zlin's new wing and bird coming soon could surprice more than one pilot even in this Forum...Sure not the real Alaskan bushpilots that have different needs and need different engines too in the wild, but world is big enough and there is a big demand of light recreative STOL planes for the companies (not many) involved in this sector. Huge flaps with big pitch moment that will allow to see in front during approach (as you need ), controlled retractable slats and so no negativities and higher cruise speed, crazy camber, lighter plane similar to Shock Ultra ( a weight that a real SC or clones can only dream), higher MTOW and payload, bigger cabin and baggage compartment, unfortunately at least for me, much higher end price ..Can't wait.

 

[4Holer]

I’m seeing a steady TAS of 70 knots (80 MPH) in the cruise Cooley. You could go a little faster but the drag curve is steep. Relax on the 115 VNE if you have slats and big wheels, you will never see 110, not even going straight down. But that’s the way I wanted it ��

 

[Selvaoscura]

About cruise speed some my personal considerations.. For example Frank Knapp with his Lil Cub (I heard about) is flying with about 185 hp at 60, max 70 mph...but then when it is time to take off he simply jump on the air...The Gary Green Shock Cub that has flown in Valdez, is capable to fly at 95/100 mph with bushwheels and the French Duc 3 blade propeller (I was told) at about 5000 rpm, but climb will suffer a little with this setting.I also heard that Gary engine was not running more than 5000 rpm during the race (with another propeller not the Duc) so would have been interesting to see the propeller running at the max allowed rpm to get the best during the race..and not just at 5000 rpm. So it really depends on what you are doing when you are setting your prop I think and on which prop you are using. The Shock Cub with the 915 and constant speed propeller is cruising at >100 mph without any effort and with big tires, but this engine has 141 hp of course..and a better prop .
I really would like to know which cruise speed would reach a standard Super Cub or Carbon Cub (just to mention a more modern plane), with at least 29" tires, fix pitch prop and just 115 hp as the Rotax turbo offers .Any idea ?

 

[jetcat11]

Slats are drag and that equals worse climb, slower cruise speeds, longer take off runs and require a high angle of attack to become effective and they add extra weight. This is not to say some pilots would not benefit, there are probably a few pilots that would still be here had they had slats. They are not going to help you get into a tight spot unless you plan on flying blind. From my point of view and the kind of flying I do the negatives don't out weigh the positives for me, so I would never put them on a bird and therefore would never have to take them off.

Mauleguy, slats are what make these aircraft! They also weigh practically nothing. The Shock Ultra will fly at 18 mph ground speed. Show me another factory produced aircraft that can do that? I’d also take the 91 octane smooth running 914 turbo any day over an O-360. The 914 is the perfect blend of modern and tried and true technology. Learn a little more about the engine and you’ll realize it’s not that complex. It’s more than proven it’s reliability. The 915 is a completely different story.

These are STOL aircraft, why do we care so much about what are cruise speed is? If you do, buy an FX3! After flying a Shock Cub and FX3 back to back, nothing on the market factory produced can touch the Shock Cub’s STOL ability. You can say Valdez doesn’t mean anything, but the difference is quite clear. They’re all operating under the same wind conditions and sea level altitude.

It all comes back to what your mission is though, and if you wanna play and don’t need to haul a huge load, the safest factory produced aircraft to do that in with a spin resistant wing, 18 mph flying speed, and a ballistic parachute, is the Shock Cub/Ultra.

Selvaoscura, I think you’re right on. The Shock Ultra is definitely going to put some people on notice!

 

[Mauleguy]

Mauleguy, slats are what make these aircraft! They also weigh practically nothing. The Shock Ultra will fly at 18 mph ground speed. Show me another factory produced aircraft that can do that? I’d also take the 91 octane smooth running 914 turbo any day over an O-360. The 914 is the perfect blend of modern and tried and true technology. Learn a little more about the engine and you’ll realize it’s not that complex. It’s more than proven it’s reliability. The 915 is a completely different story.

These are STOL aircraft, why do we care so much about what are cruise speed is? If you do, buy an FX3! After flying a Shock Cub and FX3 back to back, nothing on the market factory produced can touch the Shock Cub’s STOL ability. You can say Valdez doesn’t mean anything, but the difference is quite clear. They’re all operating under the same wind conditions and sea level altitude.

It all comes back to what your mission is though, and if you wanna play and don’t need to haul a huge load, the safest factory produced aircraft to do that in with an unstallable wing, 18 mph flying speed, and a ballistic parachute, is the Shock Cub/Ultra.

Selvaoscura, I think you’re right on. The Shock Ultra is definitely going to put some people on notice!

I am the wrong audience, shock cub does nothing for me Frank Knapps lil cub does nothing for me, Cub Crafters FX 3 or whatever does nothing for me. If landing slow at high angles of attack and only playing by myself with-in 50 miles of my home airport where my thing then maybe I would be that guy.
18 mph is great if you can see where you are going, what angle of attack is that?
I want a STOL plane that can haul a load and play and cruise at 100 mph minimum

 

[Eddie Foy]

You would have a bit more credibility if you would tell us who you are and establish some credentials. Right now you are faceless at your keyboard.

Mauleguy, slats are what make these aircraft! They also weigh practically nothing. The Shock Ultra will fly at 18 mph ground speed. Show me another factory produced aircraft that can do that? I’d also take the 91 octane smooth running 914 turbo any day over an O-360. The 914 is the perfect blend of modern and tried and true technology. Learn a little more about the engine and you’ll realize it’s not that complex. It’s more than proven it’s reliability. The 915 is a completely different story.

These are STOL aircraft, why do we care so much about what are cruise speed is? If you do, buy an FX3! After flying a Shock Cub and FX3 back to back, nothing on the market factory produced can touch the Shock Cub’s STOL ability. You can say Valdez doesn’t mean anything, but the difference is quite clear. They’re all operating under the same wind conditions and sea level altitude.

It all comes back to what your mission is though, and if you wanna play and don’t need to haul a huge load, the safest factory produced aircraft to do that in with an unstallable wing, 18 mph flying speed, and a ballistic parachute, is the Shock Cub/Ultra.

Selvaoscura, I think you’re right on. The Shock Ultra is definitely going to put some people on notice!

 

[jetcat11]

Aren’t we all faceless at our keyboard here? I’m a kid that has an aviation addiction. Does that help haha?

Mauleguy, I can totally see where you’re coming from. It’s hard to argue with the use case you’ve presented.

 

[Eddie Foy]

I am not faceless. People here know me. For all all we know that is exactly what you are. One reason I use my real name.

I’m a kid that has an aviation addiction. .

 

[stewartb]

Why do guys feel the need to piss in somebody's Wheaties? Slats are friggin awesome. Not for everything, but nothing in aviation is awesome for everything. Pick what suits you and go have fun. Respect that the other guys should do the same.

 

[aktango58]

One reason I use my real name.

And here I thought that was the one Witness Protection had given you!

 

[RoddyM]

I am not faceless. People here know me. For all all we know that is exactly what you are. One reason I use my real name.

Not everyone here knows you. How could we?

 

[jetcat11]

https://youtu.be/7AFvq7FxbqQ

 

[skukum12]

https://youtu.be/7AFvq7FxbqQ

Looks like fun. I enjoyed doing the same things with my PA12 when I wasnt so rusty. I agree that this plane will fill the fun factor role, but lots of us need to see it full of moose meat and camp first.

 

[damiens]

The only thing I would add as a Shock Cub owner is, the high angle of attack caused by the slats is very short lived. Hence the loss of over the cowl vision is very brief and by then you are going very slow. The low speed handling qualities are stunning. You come in, spot your landing, pull your power, pull the nose up, pull it up some more and plonk you are down. The only similar performances I have seen (on video and in person) would be the back country super cub (SQ2) and the Storch.

Just as an aside, the shock cub can be stripped back and made lighter (like all aircraft), but the fuselage and general attachments are fairly ruggedly built (not SC rugged, but definitely LSA rugged). Super light/Strong, pick one I reckon or find a compromise.

It's not a SC or a Maul, they are for different missions. It's a very good aircraft, there is a lot of reasons to like them. I have let a few people fly mine, the only constant theme seems to be the grin after their landing and tiny rollout.

Hope this helps.
D

Edit. Ps. it did occur to me that having this discussion on a Supercub forum may be a challenge and that's fair enough.

 

[courierguy]

A real nice video, great scenery obviously. Good production values too. I wear a cowboy hat time to time, but never flying, always baseball caps so I can wear my headset, not just for noise attenuation but for the Sirius sat radio. I'm impressed he figured out how to wear his while flying!

I saw nothing though that any SC or my RANS S-7S couldn't easily do though, I saw no jaw dropping short landings or takeoffs, and that's fine, not bad mouthing it at all, just pointing out how in most back country/off airport flying, past a certain point, real short is short enough, ultra short is very rarely needed, especially if you need to takeoff again. The rest of the time, 99% of the time, you're packing extra weight and drag, have less range and duration, have less payload, and use more fuel. Speaking just for myself here, (and a few S-7's played around with slats years ago) cool plane nonetheless. I enjoy and make practical use out of having an easy 8 hour duration, which is extremely practical in the back country.

Alaska scenes like this always confuse me, I mean the mountains are obviously big, but what was the average ASL of the valley floors? Is it mostly near sea level, with big ass mountains, or is there lots of high valley flats also?

 

[skukum12]

A vast majority of Alaska flying is sea level to 3-4000 feet. There are of course the Denali pilots, Paul Clause type guys, etc that utilize the upper altitudes.

 

[thaefeli]

I know a guy in northern New Mexico that had a 914 on a home built pegazair. He actually set an altitude record with it. He got tired of the endless service bulletins. He also had a buddy die in an inflight fire that was attributed to a 914 turbo failure. He now has an IO-360 installed.
I have a friend here in Del Norte that has an S7 with 912. Two partial power landings now due to carb failures.
Another S7 here with big bore 912, no issues.
Tom

 

[4Holer]

This thread was a highjack on the Supercub forum, however I did say I’d give a shout when all my initial post-delivery issues were resolved and I’m very happy to now be in a position to do so.

The inability to select the final notch of flap in flight has been rectified and was a control cable rigging issue. I’m carefully starting to explore that end of the envelope and can comfortably fly level at the 18 knot (IAS) advertised stall speed with (about 60% with 1/2 fuel, 1-up) power on, with no altitude loss or directional control issues. Granted, the nose is pretty high at that speed. I’ve beefed-up the cushioning on the front seat without adding much weight, which has significantly increased my forward visibility.

We’ve found the (10.5°) sweet-spot for the ground-adjustable Kiev 293 prop and are getting 5,200 RPM static, close to red-line (5,800) in the cruise with full throttle. This prop-pitch still allows a 70 knot cruise (at around 4,950 RPM) at sea level. Fuel burn right on 20 liters (5.3 USG) an hour.

The Beringer brakes were always working fine - it was my inexperience; used to sophisticated, conventional brakes which was the problem. We jacked each wheel and a tap on each brake locks the wheel. I’ve adjusted my technique; maintain the brake application for at least a 1/4 turn of the respective wheel to allow it to be effective, then release it before you need to do it to the other side. Tapping the brakes like you would in a conventional airplane is a waste of time. She’s still a beast, with the largish 31” Desser Aero Classics and the castoring fat Matco tailwheel and will ground-loop if you let her get around 20° of nose, off the line of direction. Practice and having my finger out is what this is going to take.

The aft control stick has been modded that it no longer impacts the back of the forward seat.

I’ve had 2 mandatory Service Bulletins on the Rotax 914 in the 8 months since delivery; replacement of the sodium-filled valves and recently replacement of cir-clips on the carburetor needles, both of which have been extremely well advised and supported by both Zlin & Rotax. Zlin have just issued a Safety Bulletin, based on findings on an older aircraft, based in a corrosive environment, where significant corrosion was found in the sleeves/ heat-shrink around control cables. I’ll address this at the annual inspection.

Simply put, I’m now a very happy and satisfied Zlin Shock owner. It ain’t a Supercub, it ain’t a rocket-ship but it is right on the money what I want in a personal bush-plane that doesn’t need a runway and costs very little to operate or maintain.

Safe flying out there.

 

[Dog]

One of the issues with the super light play aircraft is that they do not stand up if used with a load and in the long run.
Very few have ever taken them to 4 -5 thousand hours ( nothing special for regular aircraft )

One Guy missed Valdez last year because the tail post area was cracking out on his shock cub (Its build very light back there according to him) Another one just took some structural damage in turbulence on a ferry flight north.
Play easy pick nice days to fly you will be fine.

If you want to really depend on your plane for more get a cub or a good cub clone with a proven engine and track record.

I guess I get pounded on just like Maule Guy, someone has to keep the record straight so people reading this forum can decide whats right

for them and what level of risk they are willing to take.

 

[courierguy]

I'm at 3400 hours, with very little, less than 10 a year on average, pavement landings, with my RANS S-7S, and like my T-Craft, which I saw naked during a recover, see no reason it won't be around for a while longer. Real similar tubing sizes etc., and come to think of it, the T only had 2700 hours on it then. I'd prefer it was TIG or gas welded, but the MIG welding seems to get the job done. The best mod to date: cub style gear, 29" Airstreaks, and a T-3 tail, make life on the airframe a lot easier. If I had a continual need to pack more weight, I'd being building a BLT by now, but like some my payloads needs are mostly just me, full fuel (7+ hours duration with the economy of the Rotax) and 100-150 pounds of gear, and even that's the exception, 95% of my flying is boonie bashing with much less onboard and I'll take it places I wouldn't want to take a plane that cost hundreds of thousands.

 

[stewartb]

Huh. I have two friends (guys whose cell numbers are in my phone) who’ve bent wing spars in Cessnas on approach to Lake Hood during casual flights in good weather (wake turbulence.) Coincidentally, both planes had WingX. Are Cessnas flimsy or is WingX the problem? Which should I bash? Stuff breaks. I’ve seen lots of bent and/or broken tubes in operating Cubs. Use ‘em, break ‘em, fix ‘em. Or build it tough, which adds ounces, and get beat up for that. Make up your freakin’ minds!

My fav? Slats only work at high AoA. No view out the front. I read it on the internet.

 

[Dog]

There are for sure some good designs and some not so good ones out there. Any airplane can be broken if you try hard enough.
Rans and Kit-foxes do have lots of hours and are relatively well documented and proven. I even have some flight time in them and various other Homebuilt and ultralight aircraft. In some of them you are more of a test-pilot than in others. With all of them you need to stay well within the save envelope. Maintaining them properly is the next Hurdle to stay save. Not everyone is capable of doing that well.
One thing about slats!!! in severe turbulence the wing will build up stress until it stalls — slats do not stall easy so the stress builds up more and in severe cases does damage to the airframe. One case here involved a Helio where the doors did not close afterwards, the fuselage was actually bend.
And Stewardb, as far as the Cessna's are concerned usually the ones with the tip tanks that are prone to bend spars and early 206 models had light rear spars that could be bend by extending the flaps at to high a speed in turbulence—that was fixed in the early 70s.
Just because you have the skill level to look after your plane and be save with it does not mean everyone should try.
Its all about Balance — that can be different things for different people , but 90 % just need a good save all around little bush plane — that is where the old cub just shines. No slats no crazy mods no wing extensions just a honest forgiving plane to live and learn with.
Down the road with a few thousand hours under the belt that may change for some.

And Slats are a crutch

 

[WWhunter]

My son and I just flew his RANS S7 from my strip in north central Minnesota all the way across the mountains to GP, Oregon. Not a single issue. With the plane. Sips fuel compared to flying a 172 on the same adventure a few years ago. I said no issues, but we did have severe turbulence and ended up turning around to take a different route due to DA. We had a ground speed of mid 40 mph for awhile! Gets a bit ‘sporty’ in these light wing loaded planes.