Alaska Weekend

[VictorBravo]

Re: Alaska Weekend

You are exactly right Len, the Zenair 701 is not as fast or efficient as the Taylorcraft. But there are things I would try with the Zenair that I would not try with the Taylorcraft.

The CH701 has a much higher lift coefficient, and can fly much more slowly, and most importantly the flaps can also be used for high drag. Most of the Taylorcrafts don't have any glidepath control except a forward slip, and even with that the glide is not as steep as you would want.

If you happen to see Chris Heintz you can ask him one question for me: Zenair says that the maximum engine weight for the 701 is 185 pounds all-up installed. Is this because of the engine's load on the structure, or is it only because of CG limits? If it is because of CG limits then perhaps you can install a heavier engine and replace the nosweheel with a tailwheel, with no negative overall effect ???

Anyone else, Id still like to know if there are any big dis-advantages (other than the experimental certificate) that would make a CH701 less capable than a Super cub in real-world bush flying.

[Dusty]

Re: Alaska Weekend

Having never flown a CH701, I'm shooting from the hip here but...

There is next to zero prop clearance with skis on. I ran a Tripacer on skis one winter, and it was HORRENDOUS off-airport. I don't see how the CH701 would be any better. I assume that teeny little propeller is fragile. I wouldn't land it in the places I land the Tcart on a bet. Imagine the prop tips a couple inches above the ski in 3' of powder (the T-cart sinks about 2' in that) with a one-inch crust of ice on top.

The same thing could be said of big rocks, holes, stumps, etc. on wheels.

Tricycle gear might be great on a runway, but it's next to uncontrollable on anything but a straight landing. That might be different with the right brake/nosewheel setup, but I sure scared me a few times trying to land the Tripacer in anything but a straight line.

The tubing is teeny. I don't believe the airframe would last at the typical "just at" gross abuse on rough strips that Tcarts and Cubs and Champs take decades of.

Slow the Tcart down, mash a rudder ALL the way to the floor, and she'll come down just fine.

I have no doubt that the 701 - and lots of other experimentals - outperform Cubs/Champs/Tcarts under the right conditions. I seriously doubt that any of them would hold up under the abuses that working airplanes are subjected to.

22hr X 5GPH (wild guess) * 6lbs = 660lbs of fuel on a good airstrip. That's just over gross, assuming you can believe the numbers on their website, on a presumably smooth surface. What airplane wouldn't take that?

[N96337]

Re: Alaska Weekend

Anyone else, Id still like to know if there are any big dis-advantages (other than the experimental certificate) that would make a CH701 less capable than a Super cub in real-world bush flying.

Bill, other than not being able to use it for hire, I've yet to see any real disadvantages to experimental...and the advantages seem to keep growing...
Am I missing something???
JH

[VictorBravo]

Re: Alaska Weekend

What I was trying to zero in on is whether a Super Cub is or is not "better" of a bush STOL airplane out in the backwoods than a Zenair 701. I realize you cannot operate a Zenair carrying passengers for hire... but I was trying to find a direct comparison of airplane versus airplane, paperwork notwithstanding.

The highly modified Super Cubs appear to have a takeoff distance of 60 feet in racing trim and in competition. This leads me to believe that the Super Cub in actual working conditions would take off in about 150 or 200 feet. A Zenair 701 has a quoted takeoff roll of about 100 feet at gross weight.

The Zenair has a useful load of about 500 pounds. I don't know what a Super Cub's legal useful load is. The stall speed of a Zenair 701 under normal conditions is about 27 mph... I don't know what the "book" stall is in a Super Cub. I don't know whether a Super Cub can operate out of a strip that a Zenair 701 can't, or vice versa.

I assume that they both cruise at something less than 100 mph when rigged out for bush flying, moose antlers strapped to the struts and monster truck tires installed, etc.

I know there are advantages to having an all-metal airplane in terms of field repair. I have to assume that there are advantages to having a more maneuverable airplane (701 has a shorter span than a Cub, full span ailerons, all flying rudder). The one piece zero maintenance main gear and one-bungee nosegear are probably advantages, although if I built a 701 the nosewheel would be under the rudder like it ought to be.

Having read and studied the 701's literature, on the surface it would seem that it has a lot of advantages over a PA-18 in Alaska. But I'm not a PA-18 expert, and I'm just trying to figure out if there is still some advantage the PA-18 has over the Zenair 701 for bush flying.

[Dusty]

Re: Alaska Weekend

The highly modified Super Cubs appear to have a takeoff distance of 60 feet in racing trim and in competition.

That winning sub-60' distance was with a mostly-stock PA-11. The guy who used to win Gulkana every year had a "highly modified" cub, and his distances were generally 1/3 of that.

Most working cubs probably weigh between 1050 and 1150 lbs. With a 2000 lb gross, you can't quite legally haul a mushed-up 701 loaded to gross in the back seat. Light cubs without the gross increase generally have a useful of something on the order of 700 pounds. Cubs - and Champs, and, to a lesser extent, Taylorcrafts - handle just fine "exactly at" gross. I'm guessing those stubby little wings are a bit like a Pacer, where gross is just about all she wants to fly with - meaning you don't have much of a safety margin when you're loaded to gross.

Most cubs stall just under 40.

Have you seen the lift struts on a 701? I sure wouldn't strap a set of moose horns - or even snowshoes - out there.

What advantages are there to having a metal airplane? I always thought of that as a SERIOUS handicap. You can put fabric back together with duct tape. Tubing is bendable and weldable, and gas pipe and hose clamps will get you home.

I wonder what the crash survivability of a 701 is?

I wonder if the 701's gear is any stronger than every other spring gear airplane? Spring gear likes to fold up in the rough stuff, particularly with side loads. It's also heavy.

One huge advantage that Cubs have is parts availability. There's not much you can bend on a cub that can't be shipped to you in a day or two. Want 6' baggage? 70 gallons of fuel in the wings? 90 gallons on the belly? Belly pods? Lumber rack? Slotted wings? Longer wings? Square wings? Droop ailerons? It's all STC'd for the Cub.

I don't fly a PA-18 - I would if I could afford it. I wouldn't really seriously consider a 701. They're teeny - where exactly ARE you supposed to put the dead moose, assuming the thing actually will fly off with a load of moose meat? They're unproven - the Taylorcraft has some serious issues as an off-airport airplane, but they've been being abused for 65 years and are still holding together, while I don't know of a single 701 that's being "played hard."

I'd LOVE to have an experimental, I just don't think the 701 is a real off-airport airplane.

Now the 115HP Rotax hanging on the nose of a light PA-11.. The radiator and big D-ring for the rope pull starter hanging off the cowl would make it easier to find at the airport.

And somebody, anybody, what the heck is up with (;f this thing???

[Dano"T"]

Re: Alaska Weekend

I agree with Dusty....I have flown the PA18 and many others....I learned in my dad's J-3...also a very good off airport machine. He's certainly right about a tube and fabric plane being MUCH more repairable in the field....there is a reason the Super Cub is the most popular bush plane and don't kid yourself to think that these experimentals can match up apples to apples....they publish these takeoff and landing performance numbers under controlled conditions....try flying one out of a long hay field or deep snow etc...and like Dusty says...they are too flimsey to be practical in the bush....I also agree that the T-craft has a FEW shortcomings as a bush plane....but not many. An 85 or 90 horse T-craft if light and rigged right is an awesome short field machine but is certainly not a heavy hauling workhorse that a Super Cub is....why are we always comparing to the Super Cub anyway? It's a different class machine.....we can compare to J-3's, PA-11's, and Champs with 65 to 100HP if each plane is of similar weight and HP and the T-Craft will smoke em all in cruise we all know that....but a Super Cub it ain't.....niether is a Zenair. Just my 2 cents.

[VictorBravo]

Re: Alaska Weekend

Well, that's the kind of information I was looking for, although I am disappointed that the Zenair may not be as good as I hoped it would be. I'm getting a ride in one Thursday and I'll post whatever my opinion is.

[VictorBravo]

Re: Alaska Weekend

I also agree that the T-craft has a FEW shortcomings as a bush plane....but not many. An 85 or 90 horse T-craft if light and rigged right is an awesome short field machine

Rigged how? I've never really gotten into the rigging of a Taylorcraft. How would you rig it for short field flying... wing wash...aileron droop or reflex...incidence or thrust angles???

[Dano"T"]

Re: Alaska Weekend

Factory Rigged.....I said that because some of the folks here say they have struts adjusted to the max and they complain of high stall speeds etc. That's all. If it's rigged correctley it'll fly beautifully. I'm not sure if that is their problem...but I threw it in there anyways. I just did a W&B on the new 90HP BC12D and it came out to 795 EW! That's great for a C90 non Electric T-Craft w/ 2 wingtanks and float fittings....she really gets off quick....I'mImpressed.....and very satisfied.

[Dusty]

Re: Alaska Weekend

Just to clarify, my issues with the Tcart as a working airplane are:

The stall isn't as nice as a Champ or Cub. I'm confortable flying the Champ on short final about 1/2 MPH above stall - the stall is predictable, obvious, and very docile. The Tcart has snuck up on me a couple times. Add a teeny little skim of ice and things get really interesting. I fly it about 5MPH faster than ideal, and that extra 5MPH is hard to get rid of in a Tcart. I'm getting better at managing that (I just fly it in a slip all the way to the ground).

Takeoff performance is pretty good - no complaints there. I REALLY like the prop/engine combo (C-90/74-40 Mac).

Visibility is pretty bad. I just won't take it into tight places where I have to dodge stuff because I can't see across the nose. I don't have the situational awareness that I do in the Champ in the air - you just can't see as much out the windows. Get enough cushions to see over the nose and you bang your head on the skylight and can't see out the sides. Get down where you can see under the wings and you can't see over the nose. If I didn't have a skylight I'd log all my Tcart time as IFR!

The brakes are horrendous, and I haven't had any luck figuring out how to get juice brakes approved. Disregarding paperwork, I'd have to weld on straight axles and do something about those goofy little pedals that I can't ever seem to find. I can take the Champ into REALLY short places, use those wonderful brakes to shut down in a hurry, then worry about making enough room to get out. I can take off from anywhere I can land in the Tcart, and that's not because it gets off any shorter than the Champ!

Access is nasty. Try stuffing a couple frozen wolves in there. Moose quarters are almost impossible to get over the seat, and then you have a bloody seat. Getting a gas jug out after a hard day isn't much fun either. I can haul a 55gal drum in the Champ. Maybe I'm just a weenie!

The seats aren't very comfortable, and I haven't figured out anything to do about it.

The wingtips are too low and the ailerons aren't very effective at low speeds. This makes dog-leg strips, circle lakes, etc. that are accessable in the Champ or a Cub off-limits to the Tcart (at least with me driving!).

Mine stalls a little fast, but I can live with that. It also cruises a little fast.

The gear is way better than the Champ gear, but not (quite) as good as a Cub.

Mine weighs 840 with a minimal electrical system (Comm, intercom, nav & landing lights), C-90/O-200, float fittings, 2 wing tanks, extended baggage, and beefed up gear. That's not bad, considering what it is. There's an 85HP for $14K in North Pole. That'll just about make a down payment on a ratty Cub.

Even with these limitations, the Tcart is a pretty good poor boy's working airplane. It ain't a Cub, but I didn't pay for a Cub either. I suspect it's several orders of magnitude more useful than a 701, or any other almost-ultralight experimental.