SpeedBump caused me to think again about an idea that I have for a two-seat bush plane. His post is about 4-seaters, so I started my own.

I fly a '58 Champion 7ec, behind a C-90. For what little it has in its favor, it's a pretty decent ride. The 7-series (and 8, I guess) Aeronca/Champion/Bellanca/ACA aircraft have (in my opinion) some of the most user-friendly features in aviation. If you have any time in a Cub, you appreciate flying from the front. If you know the Super Cub, you'll like the ease of getting in and out. If you've ever tried to fly a PA-12 from the rear, you'll appreciate the excellent visibility from the back of a Champ.

The cabin is nice and wide (vs. the Cub) and the controls are friendly. Everything is where it needs to be. One down side is the heavy aileron feel but I can live with that. My one- or two-seat bush plane would be something like this:

A late-model Champ frame - 7EC/FC/GC/GCA/GCB - bare, of course. Move the rear landing gear attach points back, in order to fit extended Super Cub (type) gear legs. Enlarge the baggage area, bury the elevator cables beneath the floorboards, make a quick-remove rear seat and a big cargo 'rack' to take the seat's place. Remove the rear controls.

Use Burl's AOSS and safety cables for suspension.

Big, soft tires (29-inch ABWs, I presume) required.

Use metal wing spars - ala Milman or ACA or, since it's EXP, make your own.

Lift struts similar to the Scout are about perfect - they're open top and bottom, and aluminum, I believe.

Flaps are optional; some swear by them others swear at them. I'm ambivelant. They add to both the utility and the weight. If you add them, make 'em *big*. (See Greg Millers Bushwhacker)

Enlarge the tail and provide a balanced (aerodynamically) elevator. The rudder on these is pretty powerful, and may be fine as is.

A bigger tailwheel (ABW Baby Bushwheel) is a must. Add a leaf to the spring, maybe; Champ tails are heavy.

Up front, she needs about 160 hp. Since she's EXP, build a hot-rod engine. Or, keep the cubes up and compression down for car gas. No fuel injection, since mine would be non-electric to save weight.

Long, flat (as in Borer) prop. CS is nice but heavy and complex.

The panel is left nearly empty, with the bare necessities and a portable GPS and hand-held radio. Mount the radio antenna outside for better performance.

Cover the belly with metal for durability and ease of repair.

What have I missed? Unless you're hauling mooses (mooseses? meese?)or groups of fishermen, big cabins aren't necessary. Most of the time I fly by myself.

Jon B.

Alot of what you've touched on is what I have in mind for my Tcraft. It will end up as experimental/homebuilt, but the fuselage is already built, so why not use most of it?? My reasoning for the Tcraft is that it does more on less power than anything I've ever been around. I do like a stick and tandem seating a bit better at times, but don't feel the need to build another airframe just to get that. I'm getting ready to start some serious work on it, and will be filling my photo gallery with pics as I go along.
JH

I agree with you about the Champ, it was the second plane I flew, and is still one of my favorites.
I often dream of a one seat bush plane. Something that looks like a Bounsall Prospector, but with 150hp, extended beefed up gear, flaperons, Bushwheels, and floorboard behind the pilots seat long enough to sleep on.

Take a look at the Bearhawk Patrol, Jon.

I like the looks of the Highlander,a 51% kit experimental produced by Just Aircraft (what a goofy name,BTW). A descendent of the Avid/Kitfox line, but with flaps & ailerons not flaperons. One of these with 100-120 horsepower would be the ticket for me. The preferred powerplants are the Rotax 912 & the Jabiru 2200 or 3300.
The Rotax is too complicated for my tastes: reduction-drive, twin carbs, and water-cooling. I kinda like the Jabiru's, but their high rpm requires a short prop which isn't the best for TO & climb.
They say a Continental is a bit too heavy for the airframe, CG-wise, but I think a C90,stroked C85, or O-200 would work just fine, if the electrics were eliminated to save weight. There was some discussion about this kit on the supercub site a while back.
The Airdale Flyer (another Avid descendant) is another one that I like the looks of. Same powerplant issues as the Highlander. Plus, with either one, you have to build it (I'm too lazy). Bummer.

Eric

hardtailjohn wrote:Alot of what you've touched on is what I have in mind for my Tcraft. It will end up as experimental/homebuilt, but the fuselage is already built, so why not use most of it?? My reasoning for the Tcraft is that it does more on less power than anything I've ever been around. I do like a stick and tandem seating a bit better at times, but don't feel the need to build another airframe just to get that. I'm getting ready to start some serious work on it, and will be filling my photo gallery with pics as I go along.
JH

Hi John.....I agree about the T-Craft. It's the most underrated plane around. I have 2. 1 has a C85, the other a C90...both are excellent performers and can land and takeoff short......once you learn how to handle one you can dispell the rumors that a T-Craft is a notorious floater....come in too fast...she'll float. Come in slower...50-55 with a little power and you can stick it anywhere you want it.

I have yet to see anything out there that can beat a Rans S-7 Courier VG'd) in the short and slow department, AND with Super Cub like interior volume. I put 1300 hours on my first one, all out of my 6,000' high plus strip, sold it, and am currently building a new one. The thing is a practical plane with a lot of utility, a major plus is the Rans company, its been in production since '88 or so, and they have tweaked it to its current state of near perfection. Building it is a no brainer. Take the doors off and slow fly with the slowest ultralights, while carrying a passenger. Put the doors on and throw in a couple hundred pounds of gear (when solo) including the full size folding bike (the Courier and the Montague are made for each other) and cruise at 90 to 100 on 4gph or so. It ain't a 200 horse cub, but very close and WAY more affordable.

Your first one was powered by Subaru, eh? Whatcha gonna hang on the front of the next one?

Eric

Well.....while the Soob conversion (Stratus) was a great engine choice at the time (only 80 horse 912's in '93), and it was utterly trouble free and an honest 100 horse (103 according to Reiner), the bottom line is it was too big for the Courier, not power wise but size wise. Plus it was heavy, about 40lbs at least heavier then a 912. So it took lead in the tail, about 13lbs, and a hogged out cowling to let the engine parts stick out, kinda like a J-3. I never got around to fairing in the cowl over the protruding engine,I was loath to add any more weight up front, and the thing was flying so well,(one advantage of the hogged out cowl was GREAT cooling) it was not an issue. I told myself the drag penalty was minor, and when I flew with other Couriers it kept up just fine due to the extra power. 1300 hours went by, and then I made the mistake of flying a long tailed 100 horse 912, all stock, and the cruise speed increase and the poweroff glide told me the light engine and faired cowl was the way to go, talk about re-inventing the wheel! So I have a 912S sitting in the shop, ready to install. It had better be as reliable and simple to operate as the Soob,for what it cost, (I paid $5500 for the ready to go Stratus) I know it will offer the same cruise I was getting at a gallon less per hour, or at the same fuel flow 10 to 15mph faster cruise. These were the rough numbers I came up with flying along Neil Salmi's stock Courier.
About T-Crafts: I rebuilt (new wings anyway) and flew a BC12-D with the 65 Connie, what a great plane, and looking back I think a Soob in it would be the hot ticket, plenty of room under the cowl,and the extra power would be nice. I flew my old Courier on a couple trips along with a 0-200 T-craft, I'd outclimb him, he'd outcruise me. Only problem is its certified of course, so you'd probably be limited to a exhibition airworthiness certificate.

I like a tandem airplane for the good viz over the sides, but prefer to be able to make eye contact with my companion when not solo. So I think I'd prefer a side-by-side. Plus the baggage area in one of those isn't as far aft as a tandem, so loading a big bunch of camping gear or whatever wouldn't tend to effect the CG as much.
T-Craft fans might want to check out www.bushwhackerair.com/bushwhacker
These folks are (supposedly) developing a new experimental kit based on the T-Craft. Sounds like a good thing, other than the "alternative" powerplants mentioned, but I don't know if they've actually produced anything other than a webpage.

Eric

Hadn't seen or heard of that one before ZeroOneVictor.... interesting machine... wish they had more done!!
JH