New member - Patrol vs PA-18

[Flyincajun]

I'm kinda thinking the Carbon Cub is for folks with more dollars than sense.
bcross2160, does the aircraft not have trim changes between flight configurations (landing, takeoff, fuel loading)? Or perhaps it does and you just ignore it? I did that with a three-axis ultralight I owned, but didn't like it. It's workable during the transition phases, but when purposely engaging in slow-flight for extended periods, it gets tiresome.

[jaredyates]

Generally speaking, the more forward the CG, the more pitch trim change you'll need to correspond with speed change. This is very noticeable in the 4-place as I fly different loads. As CG moves aft, trim changes with speed changes diminish because the center of lift is closer to the center of gravity. When there is less difference between the two, the tail also needs to generate less downward force, so you have less induced-by-the-tail drag. This is why racers prefer to run with the CG as far aft as they can go and still control the airplane.

In the Patrol and LSA, there is another factor at work too, which is the lower pitching moment of the Riblett airfoil. The airfoils that Bob chose for these airplanes have, by their design, less tendency to pitch forward than other airfoils have. This trait pays off in many areas. First, it diminishes the need for elevator trim changes as speed changes. It requires less downward tail force in flight, which in turn reduces that induced-by-the-tail drag. Also, it reduces the size needs of the horizontal stab, allowing for a smaller tail that further reduces parasite drag and weight. Combine these factors with Bob's choice to go with a profiled tail rib shape, which makes the tail surface operate more efficiently (he estimates by 20%), further allowing for a reduction in the size, weight, and drag of the tail. These are some of the reasons that the Patrol and LSA are so much faster (or, shall we say, more efficient) than their elder competitors. This is one of the main selling points of the Patrol and LSA in my opinion- that you get the low-end performance of a Super Cub, but at a much higher cruise speed (or at the same speed with a much lower fuel burn, if you prefer). I should point out that all of the above is me paraphrasing what I've heard from Bob, and I may not have it quite right.

[Battson]

I'm kinda thinking the Carbon Cub is for folks with more dollars than sense.
.

In the defence of the Carbon Cubs, I think when they are registered as GA aircraft (not LSA) they make a lot more sense.
My friend has one and it's an extremely capable two-person aircraft, if you can afford it, when kept light the take-off performance is marvellous.