Could not agree more, H.Riblett was a great guy, but he missed that 2D computer models of airfoil, although revolutionary at the time where still bound by the limits of 2D theory and the approximations where not always viable for a 3D wing, much less prove 100% behaviour (notice I did not use performance) on a 2D airfoil theory. That is a fact for all airfoils, not just Riblett. Are they bad airfoils, no, are they better than x, for certain X airfoils they certainly provide better behaviour, and is that's you propose, then yes. Now, will they provide more lift like it was claimed, certainly this is a very grey area in aerodynamics, and so far, there has been no single proof that this is certainly the case, win tunnel 2D or 3D tested. Did he fix some behaviour from the NACA 4 series, yes, is that better, it depend.... and we can continue on and on.
If you are looking for STOL, then your have to consider two factors, CL_Max of your wing configuration and wight, and then it's all about wing loading and power the weight ratio, no way you can move out of those constrains, as this influence is directly responsible for your Take Off performance. Landing is a combination of when're the Cl_Max is produced vs the attitude go the airplane and weight (and most important the pilot to take it to the leading edge).
I think the conversation would be most interesting from a objective approach to consider the benefits of either BH or the Super Stol around your own needs and piloting skills. Then you can focus on how each of those airplanes could be improve to move then in the direction of each pilots needs. Comparing one vs the other or x foil vs another will lead us to a bias discussion about what each of us favours. As an example of that bias, I'll kick it off with my own bias observations:
- I like Stol, getting in and out of tight places, for that feat alone, than single piloting is the best approach and the Super Stol is a great platform. If you are consider greater performance, look at what the Breeden's have done, extended the cord, and looked for maximum CL_max with a light airplane behind a very powerful platform. That's a new class of airplane, and yes it looks like a cub so if you are into that look, great! I dig it, and Bobby is a kick ass pilot. Then there is Lil'Cub, and man, I would love to fly the airplane.... Frank is not very far behind Bobby, and I sure would love to see those two in actions.
Now, if you need to haul you family around, and consider getting into some tight (not extremely tight) places for camping, the BH is a great platform. I'm bias in believing that the Cub wing (keeping cord and span from the original design of the BH) will make this a better performer for Stol, and if you consider that the best Stol improvement to the cub platform has been Mackay's Slats, then adding those will certainly get you sorter while keeping you safer doing it. Now speed will not be all that bad, sure you will loose some performance, but considering that this is still a draggy platform, you will not impact it more that 10-15% overall, so it's something to consider. If I owned one, I certainly would design slat for them.
Now, from imprecise data (all the test done out there), nothing makes a better platform than a fine tuned 23012 + Slat (CL:Drag improvements at the loss of CL_Max, you go a little faster, but land a little longer) or a Goe 387 + Slat ( CL:Drag is in the 38, so forget about exceeding 100mph, but you can hang your plane on the wing when you put it on your hanger
)
Will either of those improve the Cub, BH, or Super Stol, you have to try it out to see... but most likely you can expect behaviours similar to those that used that framework to build an airplane.
Hopefully I will not shot at, but I do enjoy the discussion.
Cheers! and I hope my souther friends are safe from hurricane!
