Just aircraft looks like they have a backcountry winner, wish they would take it to Valdez

http://www.aopa.org/sunnfun/2013/130412 ... WT.mc_sect

Looks like a carbon cub beater

[quote="Blu"]Just aircraft looks like they have a backcountry winner, wish they would take it to Valdez

http://www.aopa.org/sunnfun/2013/130412 ... c_sect=tts

SKIP To THE 7:58 mark

Saw that yesterday, looks like too much fun.

What's old is new again. WACO's, New Standards, and a host of others were using long stroke outrigger style gears as early as '28. They had too...there weren't hardly any airports to land at yet, virtually every landing was on an unimproved strip.

Blu wrote:Just aircraft looks like they have a backcountry winner, wish they would take it to Valdez

http://www.aopa.org/sunnfun/2013/130412 ... WT.mc_sect

Looks like a carbon cub beater

Looks more like a contest winner than a back country winner to me... Chop and plop is less than effective where I tend to play, And I have no doubt your Carbon would leave the Just wimpering in that aspect ...

Just goes to show, there are more definitions of back country than one

The 40 MPH stall sounds fast. I would hope your carbon cubs are better than that.

But........If its someone's dreams, let me dream big. They will be happy, and it won't matter to you

Chop and plop is definetly not ideal. But I wonder how it does if flown normal.? And probably designed to fit more people with less skill or practice with a greater safety margin. I'm sensing the "backcountry" type of flying is catching on more and more. And a lot of people may not be that capable lending to a lot of accidents.. Maybe..? I'm torn over the "more the merrier" idea in this field. Really cool to have more people involved and understanding of it. More places to go. More support in fighting off the government in keeping or expanding or freedoms in this area. But with that comes more accidents and casualties. Which to me should be an understood risk and no big deal. But in today's America that means lawsuits and more laws(stolen freedom)to keep us safe and comfy. That's the only reason I'm torn. Sometimes staying off the radar is good. Not that I don't want everyone to experience my favorite thing to do on this earth. Well maybe 2nd favorite...it's a close one there Little off for a bit there but basically saying maybe this is a backcountry plane with training wheels for those that want to have fun but don't have the know how..? Maybe beats buying a maule or 180 and wadding it up in a pile. Idk. Just a thought.

That's kinda what I was thinking.
What if you where to drag it in. I bet with some power the stall would be more like 33-35 ish then from 5' up you chop power and PLOP it on. Might be even shorter landing and a more useful backcountry method.

Sure would like to play with it for a couple days and see

If you have two people aboard and are near gross weight and have to chop and plop to land in a clearing, how do you get back out over those trees again? Sorry. Never landed in the back country.

Blu wrote:Just aircraft looks like they have a backcountry winner, wish they would take it to Valdez

http://www.aopa.org/sunnfun/2013/130412 ... WT.mc_sect

Looks like a carbon cub beater

There are two parts to the Valdez competition, and a landing roll of 50' combined with a takeoff roll of 150' (according to the article posted) doesn't beat a Carbon Cub with a combined score of 133'.

Actually he comes in about 7th.

http://www.cubcrafters.com/pdfs/valdez_results_2010.pdf

The wind always blows right up the runway in Valdez. And its cold in first week of May.

Still don't see it happening with a 100 HP Rotax 912S vs. a 180 HP CC-340. The Carbon Cub (empty) has a 5 Lb/HP weight to power ratio, while the Highlander in the article is at 7.8 Lb/HP (empty). That's a pretty big difference, a lot bigger than 20 or so feet on landing.

But hey, I'll be the first to admit I'm biased.

The Porter and the single OTTER have the same main gear. I understand the gear on those planes are VERY TOUGH

With all sincerity, can one of the high time back country guys explain to this city boy why the "chop and plop" does not work, or is less desirable in any particular area?

On the surface, there would seem to be some advantages to this method for landing over obstacles. You can put the airplane into a steeper flight path, and your touchdown point would be closer to the obstacle than it could be with a shallower approach path.

Fisherman pegged it. Ya gotta be able to get out of wherever you get in.

EZFlap wrote:With all sincerity, can one of the high time back country guys explain to this city boy why the "chop and plop" does not work, or is less desirable in any particular area?

On the surface, there would seem to be some advantages to this method for landing over obstacles. You can put the airplane into a steeper flight path, and your touchdown point would be closer to the obstacle than it could be with a shallower approach path.

In my experience not being able to see where you are going into tight off airport landing sites is a very bad thing, at this high angle of attack you can not see. In my own airplane I can land slower if I pull back and just drop it in, probably a good 5 mph but I would rather have total control over my bird (be flying in front of the power curve rather then behind and see where I am going), so the way I do it is to land with some power, I can see everything that is coming and I am not tearing up the back of the airplane by just dropping it on. The first time you land on volley ball size rocks the tail of that airplane is going to be gone and you will probably be on you nose because you just got bucked off your horse. The same would go for rough operations where the ground is very undulating, it does not work except in certain very easy off airport operations. I invite anyone that thinks this works to come fly with me a little bit, 1 hour should be enough to wreck your airplane if this is the only technique you have in your arsenal. It looks really good on video as a marketing gimmick but lets see some real world Alaska bush flying LZ's or even some Pacific NW ones in video. I can drop the tail of my airplane on smooth ground the same way, maybe not over and over again with out breaking the forward spring bolt but this is how I use to land in my early days of learning the craft of off airport and believe me when I say I am glad I learned a new way of landing (wheel landing) because this does not work in the real world.

Greg

EZFlap wrote:With all sincerity, can one of the high time back country guys explain to this city boy why the "chop and plop" does not work, or is less desirable in any particular area?

On the surface, there would seem to be some advantages to this method for landing over obstacles. You can put the airplane into a steeper flight path, and your touchdown point would be closer to the obstacle than it could be with a shallower approach path.

Use "chop and plop" on soft ground and you'll land short alright!

Greg, took the words right out of my mouth, and they probably were way more palatable coming from him

Chop and plop super heavy, (which ain't much in a cub) and things break.
Anything from bungees to gear fitting clusters...

Chop and plop in the mal pai desert we are surrounded by and things break.
Usually starts with the tail wheel departing, which eats the rudder while dangling on a chain...

Chop and plop in river slime and the second bounce will be off the wings...
Muck sucks... Usually sucks the wheel to a complete stop using this technique...

Chop and plop in the sage is very similar to the same on tussocks...
Lack of fwd vis will inevitably lead to one main going in a 2' void, it will then depart the aircraft...

Chop and plop on the water?


Does anyone else remember the you tube on the knik of Mike O's cub demonstrating the chop and plop?
This was on a smooth strip that could essentially be an airport...
I'm probably imaging it all, but vague recollection has me thinking it was a certain anch. mechanic at the wheel, and that one (albeit very short) landing was a classic demonstration of why chop and plop doesn't fit my style.... And that was on 35's...


In the end, the Just is a really cool airplane, and I'm just a hamfisted ag pilot, drawing from the experience of what mostly amounts to self inflicted damages.... I wasn't trying to convince anyone one way or another, just making an observation ....

Carry on

I think most are missing the marketing point. The whole point of the video is to show off the "new" gear design and the ability to soak up a good hit. The video nor the marketing states that this is the best way to land the plane, it only states that it can handle it.

akavidflyer wrote:I think most are missing the marketing point. The whole point of the video is to show off the "new" gear design and the ability to soak up a good hit. The video nor the marketing states that this is the best way to land the plane, it only states that it can handle it.

Point well taken.... this was similar to the video that was first going around of the SQ2, and then too it wasn't to say a guy should land with his nose pointed at the moon it was just to show how well the aircraft still behaved at those angles.