stall speed on Just?

I'm thinking 3 point landing on me Citabria stall speed with 5th notch of flaps in will be upper 30's so short final low-mid 40's (me-no Bob Hoover) and I might can get it stopped in 400 feet.

Hi Brad:
Here are the advertised numbers for a stock 7GCBC and based on my 7GCAA I think the take off distances are reasonably achievable but the landing distances will require a lot of practice . You have VGs so the stall speed is at least a couple of mph slower so the numbers all get better. I assume the stopping distances are for hard surface with better braking than on grass.

Takeoff Distance, Ground Roll: 412 ft.
Takeoff Distance Over 50-ft Obstacle: 756 ft.
Landing Distance over 50-ft. Obstacle: 740 ft.
Landing Distance, Ground Roll: 360 ft.

Hi Brad:
Here are the advertised numbers for a stock 7GCBC and based on my 7GCAA I think the take off distances are reasonably achievable but the landing distances will require a lot of practice . You have VGs so the stall speed is at least a couple of mph slower so the numbers all get better. I assume the stopping distances are for hard surface with better braking than on grass.

Takeoff Distance, Ground Roll: 412 ft.
Takeoff Distance Over 50-ft Obstacle: 756 ft.
Landing Distance over 50-ft. Obstacle: 740 ft.
Landing Distance, Ground Roll: 360 ft.

Citabria NOT a STOL airplane...fully agreed

practicing 3 point landings more now will still help me regardless of STOL airplane I end up with.

My current grass field is open on 23 end and 80-90 foot trees on 050 end.
With wheel landings I am taking up probably 1200-1300 feet of runway measured from the trees.
With 3-point landings I might can get down close to 1000 feet...maybe

Stalling/mushing right over the trees trying to get slower....doesn't sound very wise so I will not push it too much.

Ace in the hole...my tailwheel instructor spent former life as an Alaskan bush pilot. Time to take him up again and practice 3-point short field

I had the opportunity to tour the Legend Aircraft plant in Sulpher Springs,Tx on Saturday. I would encourage anyone considering a Cub style plane to give them a hard look.
Double doors, massive storage that can be accessed from the top of the empenage like a trunk, leading edge slats, Beringer wheels and brakes, full G3X panel with autopilot, and all for $275,000 or so.
They truly give the Carbon Cub a run for their money, not to mention Darren Hart and his team are outstanding people.

I agree! Just by the numbers, if you pull out all the stops and make a purpose-built super STOL wing then it'll make double or almost triple the lift than a typical general aviation wing. Work backwards by thinking how much that rolls back the stall speed, subtract headwind, and the result is amazingly slow ground speeds of almost a walking pace. The takeoffs and landings appear cartoonishly short.

What a really cool niche in aviation!

After owning a 7ECA for a number of years, I completely agree with Douglas' statement. Given the low power available, the 7ECA takeoff numbers aren't particularly helpful to the discussion... But the landing numbers should be as good or better. Stall speed was claimed as 51 mph, and I found that reasonably accurate. On short final, flying in ground effect, it might still be "flying" at 45 mph IAS. But no matter what I did, I couldn't get anywhere close to the claimed ground roll distance of 335' (at 2500' DA), even with maximum use of the heel brakes...

I'm now flying a RANS S-6ES Coyote II (E-LSA with 100 HP Rotax), and it makes an interesting study in contrast to the 7ECA, which also has 100 HP (O-200). A "modern" design versus a "classic."

Here's some comparison data, based on owning and flying both planes for a while. The numbers are for the Coyote, followed by the Citabria:

Gross weight: 1320# vs 1650#
Empty weight: 750# vs 1027# (lightest 7ECA I've ever seen)
Full-fuel payload: 447# vs 453# (Citabria would be 484#, fueled for equal endurance)

Cruise speed: 100-105 mph (5.2 gph) vs 90-95 mph (5.7 gph)
Max cruise speed: 115 mph (6 gph) vs 102 mph (8 gph)

Stall speed (clean): 41 mph vs 51 mph
Stall speed (flaps): 36 mph vs (N/A as the 7ECA has no flaps)
Note: My Coyote has VGs, and stalls at ~32 (flaps), ~38 mph (clean)

Takeoff performance (calm wind, 2500' DA, solo with full fuel unless noted otherwise)
__Claimed takeoff ground roll: 210' vs 455' (Sea level @ 59ºF, gross weight)
__Best takeoff ground roll: 250' vs 750'
__Typical (avg) takeoff roll: 300' vs 850'

Initial rate of climb: 1000 fpm vs 350 fpm
Cruise climb: 750 fpm vs 250 fpm

Landing performance (calm wind, 2500' DA unless noted otherwise)
__Claimed landing ground roll: 260' vs 310' (Sea level @ 59ºF, gross weight)
__Best landing ground roll: 250' vs 600'
__Typical (avg) landing roll: 300' vs 750'

When you're buying a slower airplane and will fly anything over 2-hour legs, do yourself a favor sit in the plane (seat belts fastened, doors closed) and stay there a while. Reach around the cockpit, imagining where you would put your water bottle, iPad (or maps), etc. If it's side-by-side seating, do the same with someone else in the plane with you. Tandem planes are really roomy feeling initially, but in the Citabria, I found it really hard to find a place to put my flight bag where I could still reach it, or to keep a bottle of water handy for hydration (especially important in out 95-100ºF summers here in Texas). I find the Coyote's side-by-side seating, with baggage area accessible right behind the seats, to be much nicer for longer-distance flying. I just put my flight bag behind the pax seat, and I can easily reach into it. When solo, I just strap it into the pax seat.

Finally, evaluate the comfort of the seats themselves. I've owned four airplanes, and flown a bunch of other types. The Citabria was by far the least comfortable seating of any of them – despite recently re-worked seats (new Airtex covers and new "factory" cushions). Anything over 2 hours had me begging for mercy... The Coyote has Oregon Aero seats, and way more comfortable. I've flown it for 8+ hours in one day (3 legs), and while I might not have been eager to get back in at that point, it had more to do with the headwinds and turbulence aloft than the seats themselves. I could have flown another couple of hours in calmer winds without complaint.

Helio Stallion!!!
Jon D (posted here a few times) owns the type for the Helio's. Tells me the stallion is a beast.

Helio has no stall speed

Re: Helio - a good place to insert in the discussion that the Just Aircraft SUPERSTOL has incorporated slats AND spoilers (Helio called them "interceptors"), for the same characteristics in flight as the Helio... with the same hardly-believable handling. Have any other kitbuilts added the spoilers? https://www.bydanjohnson.com/midwest-lsa-expo-2014-highlights/

After-market Maxwell slats can be added to some more conventional Cub-style aircraft for the slow speed benefit, with somewhat less cruise penalty than slots(fixed). They are branded Mackey in this new life. Only what I read, no personal experience.

This material is all well covered on Supercub.org, btw.
Edit added URL and interceptors.

A little surprised nobody has mentioned the AirCam!

I’ve taken off behind numerous single engine STOL airplanes, I’m in the air in 150-200’. Land in the grass without flaps in less than 300’.

Didn’t really think I’d like the Rotax engines, I love them. They’ll burn just about anything, 50 hour oil changes and the oil looks brand new. Super simple, and that second engine lets you fly over virtually anything.

There’s a few for sale on Barnstormers, put big tires on it and it can land anywhere.

Butch

How does Maule stack up against these others?

Seconding Douglas Jackson's comment on the Legend Cubs (and my previous comment).

The cool thing about Legend Cub is that they are basically a custom shop. You can order a factory light sport anyway you want subject to the certification/weight restrictions, or you can go build the experimental cub of your dreams. Go light, go big, pick you engine and pick your price. When we bought our Super Legend brand new, it was much cheaper than the Cubcrafters comparable product. Darin has been a stand up guy to work with. I know the people who built my airplane and the owner of the company answers my questions.

Of course, I think all of the other airplanes on the list a great as well. As a family, we have owned two Super Cubs and a PA-14 (plus a passel of non-Cubs.) Cubcrafters makes great airplanes, as does Aviat, Rans, etc. I like Maules, but for a fun airplane I think you need a stick.

We use our Legend Cub for four basic purposes: personal therapy flying around Fort Worth, the occasional long multi-state cross country adventure, going to friends' ranches to hunt and tooling around our ranch in South Texas. It excels at all of these missions.

Stock birddogs like mine won't work with 300' but a Superdog might. A good friend of mine has one of Steve Noyes Superdogs. You might want to check them out. The nice thing about the birddog versus the other tandem seat planes like Cubs is that they have a much larger cockpit.

Butch, are you trying to crank up the "twin vs single" debate again? (Just kidding!)

The Air Cam is a really cool airplane, but in my view it fits into a definite aviation "niche." The open cockpit offers amazing visibility, and possibly the perfect aircraft for aerial photography or videos, which was the purpose behind the design, right? While I think that open cockpit would be great in the spring and fall (both of which seem to last about two weeks down here), it could be pretty uncomfortable in our summer heat (95-100ºF typically), and it would likely be absolutely miserable in the winter. (We don't have "winter clothes" down here, much less snowmobile suits, face masks, etc. to wear while flying.)

But probably the biggest reason is that I'm not rated for flying twins, and my budget contra-indicates any change to that status. Two engines (even at only 5 gph) and two props – basically paying double for all the "expensive stuff" – adds up in a hurry! So unless I win the lottery, there will be no AirCam in the future for me.

No, what I want is a friend nearby with an AirCam, so we can give each other rides! Now THAT would be really cool!

James, not trying to start a single vs. twin debate. I will tell you that if you had a MEL rating, that second engine gives you a tremendous feeling of confidence to do things and go places you normally wouldn’t in a single. The Rotax engines are bulletproof, and the single engine performance is better than most high powered twins. It is definitely a niche market.

I totally get your requirements, just pointing out that the AirCam can get into and out of short fields anywhere. I just had to throw it in the STOL thread.

The open cockpit is both a blessing and a curse. I live in Tampa so I feel the heat, but once you get in the air, it’s not bad at all. Sunburned knees are a very real problem! Cold days are a different story, you have to dress up on those days. I have heated seats but that’s not a total solution. There is a full canopy and enclosure by Lockwood, but I like the open front cockpit (I built an enclosure for the rear seat).

Best of luck on your search. Happy to give you a free ride anytime you’re in Tampa.

Butch