Jasers, I know the guys in Douglas quite well, and think very highly of their birds. I'm headed over there tomorrow to bring this SQ home for a friend. I flew this one to Idaho in 2011 and had the time of my life (230 hp and slats is a pretty magical combination). I also sat in the -4 in that video back when they were fitting the tubes together for the kit. PM me if you want to chat.

Jasers wrote:What happens in March, Barnstormer?

Barnstormer takes delivery of his new to him SQ2.

whee wrote:Very cool plane. I too like to rudder pedals, keeps the floor clean and solid. I like to long wing is another feature I like. It made me think twice about my planes to eventually buy a Bearhawk kit...then I saw the price tag for the BOSS kit, 60K

Is the bearhawk kit much cheaper? By the time you buy fabric, windows, etc. If this is all included in the SQ then the price wouldn't be much difference.

A1Skinner wrote:Is the bearhawk kit much cheaper? By the time you buy fabric, windows, etc. If this is all included in the SQ then the price wouldn't be much difference.

Bearhawk is 40K. The BOSS kit might be slightly more complete but not by much IMO. Side note Murphy Moose kit is about 60K.

Hi All,

This Backcountry Boss SQ4 STOL is just so amazing. I have narrowed my choice of a 4 place EAB down to two models, and the SQ4 is just in a league of its own. I have received several texts from Bruce Reed and spoken with Wayne Axelson; the staff at Back Country Super Cubs seem ever so friendly and helpful.

There have been some comments on this thread regarding the complexity of the build. I am listing several links which potential SQ4 buyers/builders may find helpful.

The first one is an Amateur-Built Fabrication & Assembly Checklist put out in 2009 that explains just how builders can more easily conform to the 51% rule. It has helpful photos and diagrams. It is an 83 page long PDF file.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultr ... ob_Aid.pdf

The second link is the actual Backcountry Super Cubs builder check list for the Backcountry Boss SQ4 aircraft kit. It is dated October 24, 2013 so it is relatively recent ( I am writing this in January 2014). A relatively high % of the kit has been already completed by the manufacturer, which bodes well for the builder interested in a quick-build approach. That includes me

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultr ... keySQ4.pdf

Although I am not quite ready to pull the trigger on this kit, I am extremely interested, and would welcome comments and emails. Wayne said that with luck they will have an SQ4 at Oshkosh 2014.

Engine options are fascinating, but the Lycoming based IO-375 by Aerosportpower seems like a sound choice.

http://aerosportpower.com/375.html

Finally, I'd like to ask what readers think of the name. Backcountry Boss seems like a very awkward name. They renamed it from SQ4 I suppose because it is a slightly updated & different design from the STOL Quest (SQ) aircraft built previously by Mackey. Maybe an unofficial "SQB4" would work. My withered little brain and limited vocabulary just has a hard time wrestling with a convoluted name like Backcountry Boss. They need something quick and easy for marketing IMHO. YMMV

Crzyivan13 wrote:

Jasers wrote:What happens in March, Barnstormer?

Barnstormer takes delivery of his new to him SQ2.

I bought Randy Goza's SQ-2. Randy and I are bringing it down from Alaska in March when there is a weather window.

I'm jealous. They don't get any sweeter than Randy's SQ. I'd like to sit in that thing for a few minutes, just in hopes that some of his skills would rub off on me. He's a hell of a stick.

Barnstormer wrote:

Crzyivan13 wrote:

Jasers wrote:What happens in March, Barnstormer?

Barnstormer takes delivery of his new to him SQ2.

I bought Randy Goza's SQ-2. Randy and I are bringing it down from Alaska in March when there is a weather window.

That would be an awesome trip, let alone in that airplane with that company! I'm jealous too!!

I bought Randy Goza's SQ-2. Randy and I are bringing it down from Alaska in March when there is a weather window.

Epic! That's one famous bird.

Just thinking what competes in the EAB Experimental market in the 4 place STOL capable category.

1) Zenith 801
2) BearHawk
3) Dreamaircraft Tundra
4) BackCountry Boss ( SQ4)
5) Murphy Moose
6) BushCaddy

I like the idea whereby 80-90 % of your defined mission ought to be met by your primary airplane, and the remaining 10-20% you can fulfill by renting. Given my criteria, that 80% category currently seems to be best met by the SQ4.

I have several cars, and a pickup truck and a Jeep. I only wish I could likewise cover all the bases with several aircraft as well.

I am wondering if 4 place EAB STOL capable aircraft represent just a small niche, or define an emerging cool category of " whats hot and trending". They can not be LSA by definition due to having4 seats.

It would be very interesting to compare the useful load of all of the above EAB 4-place options (Denali's post), and their STOL performance when loaded.

If you just wanted to play around locally, and land real short, then don't you think a 2-place or LSA seems an obvious choice? I guess 4-place can still do 80% of the same things, if kept light, but it seems to me the main reason for going 4-place over 2-place is load / family hauling capability, and for some people, getting there a little faster too.

@ Battson:

but it seems to me the main reason for going 4-place over 2-place is load / family hauling capability, and for some people, getting there a little faster too.

Amen. I am beginning to give that increasingly more thought. The BearHawk with its 33 foot wingspan and airfoil can slither thru the air much quicker than the SQ4, yet still provide reasonable STOL performance.

Then there is the all metal, cool Dream Tundra with its 36 foot wingspan with its aluminum bounce bounce bounce Grove landing gear.

The SQ4 with its 40 foot wingspan can haul a lot of stuff too, it's just how quickly and how much fuel do you want to burn getting there.

It is all so overwhelming....I may just sit at home and start drinking heavily.... again....

Hahahahaaa - yes - drink will make the sore head go away, then give you a new one!

One other thought to further confuse the mix, the longer wingspan might allow for higher speeds at high altitudes, depending. Certainly in some high speed aircraft like a Lancair, their longer wing options give more airspeed during high alt high speed cruise. I am not show how applicable to a STOL wing the principal is, whether the AoA of least drag falls at the same point.

The 4 place Bearhawk uses the NACA 4412 airfoil, same one used on Champs Citabrias and Scouts. It is a high lift airfoil, but more of a general purpose one. Most of the Bearhawk's speed over Cub based aircraft comes from the reduction is parasitic drag. 1 strut instead of 2, no jury struts, no cables or pulleys exposed, no hinges hanging out in the breeze, no fat bungies out in the air stream etc.

On wing length, for a given wing area, a longer narrower wing (high aspect ratio) produces smaller tip vorticies, and therefore less induced drag at high lift coefficients. High speed aircraft use long narrow wings because they typically have higher wing loadings, and especially at high altitude are cruising at high lift coefficients. In a STOL aircraft a high aspect ratio provides more efficient lift, especially during climb. However, longer narrower wings are harder to build strongly, and typically require longer struts, or more struts, adding drag and weight. On the Boss, I suspect the longer wing is mainly to add wing area, as the 2 biggest factors in take-off performance are wing loading and thrust/weight ratio. The Bearhawk's wing is a compromise, having a lower aspect ratio to give it the strength needed without a second strut or overly heavy spars.

Hope this helps, the engineer in me tends to come out a little strong sometimes. And yes, I'm a little biased as my user name implies.

Phil

Bear_Builder wrote:Most of the Bearhawk's speed over Cub based aircraft comes from the reduction is parasitic drag. 1 strut instead of 2, no jury struts, no cables or pulleys exposed, no hinges hanging out in the breeze, no fat bungies out in the air stream etc.

*Almost* no cables and pulleys exposed
I wish I made those fairings before I flew, they are soooo hard to get around to making afterwards!

I was interested by your perspective on the speed increases. I would like to think all that work with the flush-riveted wing pays off... But my guess is it's simply a horsepower thing?
Maules have the dual strut and a few other non-aerodynamic cub-like features, and they achieve similar speeds. I'd hazard a guess that a 260hp Citabria would do similar speeds too.
But the main thing is you're not going 80kts x-country!

I note the BOSS spec-sheet doesn't boast about the cruise speeds - does anyone know what airspeed it can achieve at a certain throttle setting?

Battson wrote:One other thought to further confuse the mix, the longer wingspan might allow for higher speeds at high altitudes, depending.

Blaze your way through the stratosphere in the all new 4-place Super Cub!

Zzz wrote:

Battson wrote:One other thought to further confuse the mix, the longer wingspan might allow for higher speeds at high altitudes, depending.

Blaze your way through the stratosphere in the all new 4-place Super Cub!

I'm sold!!

While I'm being biased and obtuse, reading the spec-sheet I noticed the Bearhawk only needs 20ft more take-off roll that the SQ4 when loaded at MTOW, 200lbs heavier than the SQ4. All that wing is no substitute for raw horsepower.

Battson wrote:

Bear_Builder wrote:Most of the Bearhawk's speed over Cub based aircraft comes from the reduction is parasitic drag. 1 strut instead of 2, no jury struts, no cables or pulleys exposed, no hinges hanging out in the breeze, no fat bungies out in the air stream etc.

*Almost* no cables and pulleys exposed
I wish I made those fairings before I flew, they are soooo hard to get around to making afterwards!

I was interested by your perspective on the speed increases. I would like to think all that work with the flush-riveted wing pays off... But my guess is it's simply a horsepower thing?
Maules have the dual strut and a few other non-aerodynamic cub-like features, and they achieve similar speeds. I'd hazard a guess that a 260hp Citabria would do similar speeds too.
But the main thing is you're not going 80kts x-country!

I note the BOSS spec-sheet doesn't boast about the cruise speeds - does anyone know what airspeed it can achieve at a certain throttle setting?

The Maule M-7 has 12 sqft less wing area than a Bearhawk too. That cuts down on the drag at speed too. The M-4's had even less.

Edit: For that matter look at a Pacer vs. a Cub. The biggest difference is the tiny wing area. Same airfoil, similar struts, and they hid the bungies in the fuselage. Much faster plane, but faster take off and landing speeds too.

Battson wrote:

...While I'm being biased and obtuse, reading the spec-sheet I noticed the Bearhawk only needs 20ft more take-off roll that the SQ4 when loaded at MTOW, 200lbs heavier than the SQ4. All that wing is no substitute for raw horsepower....

It would be interesting to see take off figures for a Backcountry Super Cub Boss with a 240-260 hp engine. All that bigger engine weight though also affects landing. I'd think the sweet spot engine combo for takeoff/landing might be a 360/370/390 range engine to balance power vs weight. The Boss cabin is wider and it has retracting anterior slats.

It seems Bearhawks are often scratch built and there are so many variations re weight, cowl, engine etc. The Boss on the other hand is a relatively recent design, and I don't know how many 4 place examples of this supercub are actually out there in the wild. I'd venture to guess not many.

Folks inclined towards the Boss probably favor short takeoffs AND landings, as well as slow flying, and perhaps a bit more room and comfort in the cockpit. Bearhawk buyers/builders probably favor a bit more speed, decent takeoff/landing distances, and like the metal wing. They also don't mind bigger engines, and burning fuel for the speed they want to achieve.

I think they are both great planes. The Boss will not likely ever achieve the higher speed capabilities of the Bearhawk. The BH will not likely achieve the landing/takeoff balance, and slow stall speed of the Boss. Given the engines, wings, and slats ..you get performance based on what you choose.

The comment that there are no published cruise figures for the Boss is interesting. With so few out there, maybe they are still tweeking things. I'd make a WAG wild assed guess, that with a 180 - 200 HP mill they'll achieve 110-115 MPH @ 75%, maybe more with a cruise prop? With 200 square feet of wing area I imagine the glide ratio will be pretty cool, and gusty landings will take some concentration. Oh yeah..and if it rains at Johnson Creek, cue up the Rolling Stones' " Give Me Shelter" and stay dry under the wings; the Boss rules.

Anyone venture to guess air speeds ?