LowNSlow Re 912 - That's the Escapade you're talking about - looks pretty good, but for me it loses out with side-by-side vs tandem (s-b-s good if you fly with a passenger a lot, but otherwise not for me), and also the load-carrying is compromised. The Easy Raider is exceptional for load, the Escapade is pretty average for a microlight. The aerodynamics have been cleaned up a bit over the Easy Raider, so cruise speed is published as being better despite the extra width, but the difference is not night & day.

Re the sub-thread on Cubs - I really love these too, but age & cost do make them 2nd (3rd/4th/5th ...?) choice for me - apart from which with my NPPL(M) I can't fly them without all the additional grief and expense of an SEP rating......:{

Algirdas

If you get an Easy Raider then bagsy a go!

They look like a right laugh..........good luck

M

I've not flown a Kitfox, but suspect from those I've looked at that it's a basically sound aeroplane, but probably not quite as a refined a design as either the Easy Raider or the Cub. As to how refined the individual aeroplane is - well that depends upon the actual aircraft and the design isn't really the issue.

Comparing the Easy Raider and Super Cub, and I've a reasonable number of hours in each. Construction is similar, the Easy Raider is the better short field aeroplane, cheaper to run and much more fun to throw about, the Supercub is more comfortable with more elbow room, is by far the better tourer - and offers a certain olde-worlde chique.

No idea about the J3 versus PA18 Cubs, since I'm afraid I've only flown the PA18.


Where the Easy Raider or Escapade are concerned, they're both homebuilts, so the builder has the right to fit any engine they can within the power and weight limits, and I doubt that a 912 would give you a problem on either. But, I'm not sure either needs the extra power of a 912.

Incidentally, I've flown the Escapade (the twin-stick / side-by-side version) also - which gives you a choice of which end you prefer the third wheel, and much prefer the taildragger to the nosewheel version. Mainly I don't like the lack of a steerable nosewheel (the tailwheel IS steerable), which makes it a bit of a beast on the ground.

G

Genghis,

I've flown both the J3 (L4) Cubs and PA18s and can tell you that the J3 is much nicer to fly - more direct controls, far more chuckable and no silly flaps to worry about. If you ever get a chance, have a go in a J3 - you'll like it!

Kingy (still lovin his tatty old Cub..)

Are you genuinely comparing like with like? Will an Easy Raider at gross perform as well as a PA18 and, if so, how do the useful loads compare? The PA18 one-up, half tanks, no bags, is a different aircraft to one at gross, although even then it's performance is excellent. The PA18 is a true bush aircraft, a load hauler with the strength to get in and out of some very rough, very short strips. This is short field:

http://www.supercub.org/copper/displ...tup&cat=&pos=4

QDM

QDMQDMQDM That looks more like a variable length strip to me - somewhat dependent on tide level????:E

I believe that's a mud flat in a river.

Seriously, alleging that there are aircraft superior to a Super Cub when it comes to overall STOL performance is an unwise occupation. You end up very quickly with a swarm of irate, rednecked Super Cub pilots on your tail. :D

QDM

Kingy,

The PA18-150 needs flaps. It's a lot heavier than a J3 and they improve the performance dramatically in all respects.

Comparing like with like....
 

Stripping out any safety factors, and taking a fully loaded aircraft (both sets of values are from my own notes taken from official operators manuals)...


Super-cub
TODR 153m
LDR 270m
Climb Rate 960 fpm
Glide: 12:1
Useful load - no idea, anybody ???

Easy-raider Jabiru
TODR 255m
LDR 279m
Climb Rate 740 fpm
Glide 7.5:1
Useful load - about 225kg / 495 lb.


Which is pretty similar. But personally I found the Easy Raider easier to get in and out of a short strip - that's a personal impression only but the steeper power-off glide and slower flying speed are probably the reasons for those impressions.

And I'd certainly agree that both aeroplanes are very different beasts at MTOW compared to solo with half tanks. But both are pretty damned good aeroplanes in both cases !

G


N.B. If we are comparing serious STOL performance, I'd suggest that an aeroplane called the Savannah , whilst a much less cute aeroplane than either - knocks both into a cocked hat.

Qdm,

Sorry mate disagree with this, they don't really lower the stall speed much do they, what 2-3mph on the second stage? They add a lot of drag though and make it easier to see over the hose.
Cubs are just about the best slipping machines ever invented - give me variable drag I can throw away in an instant any day over drag flaps. Of course you could slip a PA18 as well as using the flaps, but most Super Cub fliers seem not to...

Also on the STOL thing, Super Cubs are not the last word. I've seen a Yak 12 in action - almost unbelievable STOL performance. I'm talking a few feet take off roll - makes my L4 and probably your PA18 look like like an overloaded PA28 on a hot day! Damn it

Kingy

PS come and have a go in my Cub if you've not flown a L4.

Kingy,

We disagree. I think you can land a lot slower and shorter with full flap in a 150 than without it and take off slower and shorter. In my opinion, a 150 without flaps would be partly disabled.

Genghis,

My book (the pre-1974 SC manual) gives a take-off run for the PA18-150 of 200 feet (61 metres) and a landing roll of 350 feet (107 metres). I'm guessing you're using figures there for a 50 foot height obstacle? Even so, the SC beats the Easy Raider on take-off by 100m which is a lot. Useful load for the 150 is approx 820lbs (371kg).

The Super Cub clearly beats the Easy Raider for STOL performance and carriage of useful load. Yes, it's an older aircraft and uses more fuel, but there is also a wealth of experience behind it. I'm not saying there should never be a new aircraft developed and flown, but how many hours has the Easy Raider flown and how many hours have the world's 10,000 Super Cubs and countless J3s and L4s flown? It's fair to say the flight envelope, structual integrity etc etc of the Cub family have been more thoroughly explored than the Easy Raider. For me that's a very important issue in an aircraft I may want to fly into tight situations.

QDM

I am quoting take-off and landing distances to/from 50ft - the only other method is that used by salesmen !


I'm not arguing that either aeroplane is necessarily better than the other - I'm comparing the two from a position of reasonable knowledge. Hopefully other people deciding whether to buy or build, and if so what, can get something from that.

The Cub is bigger, faster, with a better payload - it's also more expensive to buy and run and doesn't ground-transport with anything like the same ease. They are different aeroplanes with their own strengths and weaknesses - all I'm saying is recognise that (between two excellent flying machines) rather than discount either. And the thread was started about the Easy Raider !

G

Fair enough, good point. QDM will shut up now.

Best,

QDM

Genghis
Having started the thread - I have certainly gotten a lot from it - and from your comments in particular.
Funnily enough, one of the other planes you mentioned was one I considered - the Savannah. But I'm not keen on side-by-side, and it doesn't seem to transport easily.
The other 2 I discounted for the same reasons are the SkyRanger and the Escapade.
I think I'll just bite the bullet come summer and get a shiny new Easy Raider Jab kit.
Thanks for the views, all!

QDM,

Thanks for posting the supercub.org link. I'd been trying to remember where to find this amazing photo that you once posted.