PDA

View Full Version : Wag Aero Wagabond vs Sportsman 2+2



fish2keel
10-31-2019, 09:31 AM
Hello everyone,

I've been doing a ton of research, love the forum, and I could be over complicating things, but I wanted some opinions.

I am interested in a Wag Aero build but I am unsure which would fit my needs more, the wagabond or the sportsman 2+2. I am used to Cubs and Super cubs, although I trained in a Cessna 172. I am looking for something that has similar performance of a supercub for bush flying and getting my tail wheel endorsement. I am originally from the Alaska Bush and STOL is almost all I can eat or sleep.

The wagabond was very interesting due to the stall speed, side by side seating, and parts available due to the basis of the cub. Although after reading about the AOI and changing wings or stretching the wagabond to get the low stall speed (or adding flaps), it seemed the sportsman was a better fit, although I have zero need for a back seat. I am about a light weight, functional aircraft over astatics.

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions?

dgapilot
10-31-2019, 09:37 AM
Wag a bond is a short wing. Lots of fun, but not in the super stol category. Why don’t you just build a Super Cub knock off? That sounds more like what you want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fish2keel
10-31-2019, 09:40 AM
Wag a bond is a short wing. Lots of fun, but not in the super stol category. Why don’t you just build a Super Cub knock off? That sounds more like what you want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dgapilot, Only reason is because its not a side by side seating. That was something I was never a fan of with the cub or supercub.

Stephen
10-31-2019, 10:12 AM
The longer wing version will fly very similar to a Cub. I went from a Pacer to a Bushmaster and there is a significant difference in low speed handling. I rarely put the rear seat in my plane and use the space for hauling my camping gear. Yesterday, I had the back filled from my COSTCO run to the mainland. I'm very happy with my stretched Pacer. My wife likes the side by side seating.

fish2keel
10-31-2019, 10:17 AM
The longer wing version will fly very similar to a Cub. I went from a Pacer to a Bushmaster and there is a significant difference in low speed handling. I rarely put the rear seat in my plane and use the space for hauling my camping gear. Yesterday, I had the back filled from my COSTCO run to the mainland. I'm very happy with my stretched Pacer. My wife likes the side by side seating.

Stephen,

I've read alot of your post actually! Thank you for commenting. It sounds like by turning the sportsman 2+2 into only a 2 seater, I might not be losing anything over the wagabond. Is that correct?

I would like to keep things as light as possible though.

dgapilot
10-31-2019, 10:51 AM
Dgapilot, Only reason is because its not a side by side seating. That was something I was never a fan of with the cub or supercub.

I much prefer sitting on centerline. I know of a lot of 2+2 builds where they made the front seat a single in the center just for that reason. Now if you are taking your special someone, side by side is nice, but chances are going into the back country won’t be in the cards then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fish2keel
10-31-2019, 10:58 AM
I much prefer sitting on centerline. I know of a lot of 2+2 builds where they made the front seat a single in the center just for that reason. Now if you are taking your special someone, side by side is nice, but chances are going into the back country won’t be in the cards then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? The kitfox is a side by side and is a backcountry plane. That was my reason for looking at the wagabond over the 2+2 and making supercub mods to it.

@Stephen, Do you have thoughts on that?

Flyjeep
10-31-2019, 01:55 PM
There is a 4 place PA 18 fuselage on airframes Alaska site and I think Javron had a 4 place cub at Oshkosh this year, but it was a one off to see if there was any interest.

Stephen
10-31-2019, 08:12 PM
Really? The kitfox is a side by side and is a backcountry plane. That was my reason for looking at the wagabond over the 2+2 and making supercub mods to it.

@Stephen, Do you have thoughts on that?

I learned tail wheel flying in a J3. Adjusting to a side by side PA 22/20 was no big deal. Flying side by side has many advantages when taking passengers. Side by side planes do fine in most back country strips.

Steve Pierce
11-01-2019, 06:34 AM
I would not call the Kitfox a backcountry airplane. It is an airplane adapted to the back country by a market demand. Yes, you can go fly with Trent Palmer but doesn't meet my mission for backcountry. I want to be able to carry two people and a weeks worth of camping supplies 1,000 miles plus. Having flown Pacers and Super Cubs on gravel bars I like the centerline visibility. It was always hard to see what was on my right side in the Pacer, not so in the Cub. Pacer was a lot faster and carried a lot more stuff easier. It is all acompromise.

fish2keel
11-01-2019, 07:06 AM
I would not call the Kitfox a backcountry airplane. It is an airplane adapted to the back country by a market demand. Yes, you can go fly with Trent Palmer but doesn't meet my mission for backcountry. I want to be able to carry two people and a weeks worth of camping supplies 1,000 miles plus. Having flown Pacers and Super Cubs on gravel bars I like the centerline visibility. It was always hard to see what was on my right side in the Pacer, not so in the Cub. Pacer was a lot faster and carried a lot more stuff easier. It is all acompromise.

I was not fully aware that the kitfox was not designed around backcountry flying. For someone that wants something light weight, side by side, a few bags or fishing gear, would a wagabond with supercub style wings work better than a sportsman 2+2, or can the sportsman have weight savings to compete with the wagabong (pending longer wings).

Stephen
11-01-2019, 08:29 AM
I believe the key difference between a stock Pacer and SC when flying in the Backcountry is the advantage of the slower approach and landing speeds of the SC.

I don't think I would put SC length wings on a short Pacer type fuselage. The plane will likely lack stability in Yaw and Pitch axis. It will also have a shorter lever arm to the tail with and increased center of lift force which may effect stalls and landings. A shorter fuselage is not significant as far as weight increases. My Bushmaster added two feet to the fuselage length and 8 feet to the wing span and only 80 lbs to the GW. There are better ways to cut weight.

fish2keel
11-01-2019, 08:32 AM
I believe the key difference between a stock Pacer and SC when flying in the Backcountry is the advantage of the slower approach and landing speeds of the SC.

I have never flown in a pacer but have in many SC. I would prefer the SC slow landings and approach over the faster cruise speeds of a pacer. Although I would prefer the side by side, which is why I was thinking wagabond would fit the bill. Im not so sure the 2+2 can do those super cub speeds.

Stephen,

Can you have some insight on the performance of your bushmaster build? That's a 2+2 turned backcountry, correct?

Stephen
11-01-2019, 08:58 AM
There were no Kitfoxes in the STOL drag finals. Highlander makes a good Backcountry airplane. Although, it does not out perform the SC in STOL flying. The PA 14 with a 180 is a good compromise.

fish2keel
11-01-2019, 09:01 AM
There were no Kitfoxes in the STOL drag finals. Highlander makes a good Backcountry airplane. Although, it does not out perform the SC in STOL flying. The PA 14 with a 180 is a good compromise.

I did not realize the kitfox did not make the STOL drag finals.

The PA 14 is very nice

Stephen
11-01-2019, 09:24 AM
The 2+2, PA 14, Double wide SC, Bushmaster, Stretched Pacer, and Super Pacer are all very similar. They all have the SC wing and the same fuselage lengths. They can all have the same tail. The empty weights can all be similar depending on the builder. The 2+2 and the double wide SC have sticks. SC and Double wide SC will have a couple of degrees AOI, while the PA 14 and modified Pacers have zero AOI. Zero AOI will have faster cruise speed but a longer take off roll. My Bushmaster with zero AOI, uses 150 feet for takeoff. Modified Cubs can beat that. But, I cruise faster even with my 82 44 prop and 29 inch tires. I can use 50 mph approach speeds easily and stall sub 30 mph. BTW, when building any of these planes, you can change the AOI to match the SC or even more. Wing modifications such as tips, VG's, leading edge mods and flap type and size are choices the builder has. I've owned a J3, stock Pacer and now Bushmaster. The BM meets my needs best. Backcountry flying, off airport landing, camping and XC flying.

I've also got time in SC's and a PA14. The 14 is a bit tight for me. I'm 6'4" and 200 lbs. The J3 was not so good for camping or XC.

Stephen
11-01-2019, 09:27 AM
I did not realize the kitfox did not make the STOL drag finals.

The PA 14 is very nice

I should have said the final two. It was Steve Henry's highly modified Highlander and I believe a modified Carbon Cub.

fish2keel
11-01-2019, 09:36 AM
The 2+2, PA 14, Double wide SC, Bushmaster, Stretched Pacer, and Super Pacer are all very similar. They all have the SC wing and the same fuselage lengths. They can all have the same tail. The empty weights can all be similar depending on the builder. The 2+2 and the double wide SC have sticks. SC and Double wide SC will have a couple of degrees AOI, while the PA 14 and modified Pacers have zero AOI. Zero AOI will have faster cruise speed but a longer take off roll. My Bushmaster with zero AOI, uses 150 feet for takeoff. Modified Cubs can beat that. But, I cruise faster even with my 82 44 prop and 29 inch tires. I can use 50 mph approach speeds easily and stall sub 30 mph. BTW, when building any of these planes, you can change the AOI to match the SC or even more. Wing modifications such as tips, VG's, leading edge mods and flap type and size are choices the builder has. I've owned a J3, stock Pacer and now Bushmaster. The BM meets my needs best. Backcountry flying, off airport landing, camping and XC flying.

I've also got time in SC's and a PA14. The 14 is a bit tight for me. I'm 6'4" and 200 lbs. The J3 was not so good for camping or XC.

Stephen, this is great information! If it's not to much trouble, where does a wagabond fit in here? Or a modified one?

Stephen
11-01-2019, 10:25 AM
Stephen, this is great information! If it's not to much trouble, where does a wagabond fit in here? Or a modified one?

Wagabon is short winged and will be a lighter version of a Pacer. It will be a responsive plane and light weight. Depending on the engine it should have a decent take off and climb. It is not a SC when it comes to Backcountry flying. More wing and hp will give better BC performance. For BC and off airport landing SC is the standard, then comes the PA12, 14, and stretched Pacer mods. Maule and 180,s are also good for BC but, got necessarily for off airport stuff. A stretched and wing lengthened Wagabon would be a great option.

Since a Wagabon is light, maybe an 18 inch stretch with SC wings and tail and 120 to 180 hp engine could be a cool airplane. With extended gear and few wing mods it might perform as good as a SC.

fish2keel
11-01-2019, 10:27 AM
Wagabon is short winged and will be a lighter version of a Pacer. It will be a responsive plane and light weight. Depending on the engine it should have a decent take off and climb. It is not a SC when it comes to Backcountry flying. More wing and hp will give better BC performance. For BC and off airport landing SC is the standard, then comes the PA12, 14, and stretched Pacer mods. Maule and 180,s are also good for BC but, got necessarily for off airport stuff. A stretched and wing lengthened Wagabon would be a great option.

Stephen,

Would you stretch both the fuse and wing wagabon to SC dimensions, or is there a combination of things that make a great BC aircraft.

Thanks for all your help btw!

Stephen
11-01-2019, 10:42 AM
Stephen,

Would you stretch both the fuse and wing wagabon to SC dimensions, or is there a combination of things that make a great BC aircraft.

Thanks for all your help btw!

We missed each other in the last post. Definitely, SC wing span. I have 37' 2" on my Bushmaster. I don't think you would need the full SC fuselage length. There lots of stretches ranging from 18 to over 24 inches. If you keep the Wag light 18" should work fine.

You can choose your own AOI, I think Javron Cub sells kits for adjusting AOI. SC tail with or w/o the jack screw should work well. Extended V type gear work well off airport.

fish2keel
11-01-2019, 10:46 AM
We missed each other in the last post. Definitely, SC wing span. I have 37' 2" on my Bushmaster. I don't think you would need the full SC fuselage length. There lots of stretches ranging from 18 to over 24 inches. If you keep the Wag light 18" should work fine.

You can choose your own AOI, I think Javron Cub sells kits for adjusting AOI. SC tail with or w/o the jack screw should work well. Extended V type gear work well off airport.

I will go reread your super pacer thread again, to see what you have done. I guess I need to order some plans and start reading them over.

Stephen
11-01-2019, 10:48 AM
Make sure you are satisfied with the cockpit width in a Wag.

fish2keel
11-01-2019, 10:50 AM
I will do more research on the cockpit width. I see some people stretch the width by 4 or so inches.

fish2keel
11-01-2019, 12:35 PM
Make sure you are satisfied with the cockpit width in a Wag.

Stephen, What are your thoughts on the "Super 17"?

Stephen
11-01-2019, 02:29 PM
Stephen, What are your thoughts on the "Super 17"?

I had to look it up. Wow, it looks great. I did not see what his wing span is. That would be interesting to know. I like the doors, landing gear and engine choice.

Stock Pacer wing span is 29' 3" if I remember correctly. My Pacer prior to the BM mod was just over 31' using Pacer struts. Now, at 37' + I'm using custom struts which are a bit longer than SC struts.

blueshortwing
11-01-2019, 06:55 PM
After sitting in the prototype 2+2, I realized that the firewall was still PA-12 and so you actually sit at an angle with your feet towards the center of the airplane. It felt kinda awkward to me. If I do build one it will have the PA-12 seating configuration. Owned a PA-15 for about 10 years and it is very roomy.-Ross

fish2keel
11-02-2019, 03:46 PM
After sitting in the prototype 2+2, I realized that the firewall was still PA-12 and so you actually sit at an angle with your feet towards the center of the airplane. It felt kinda awkward to me. If I do build one it will have the PA-12 seating configuration. Owned a PA-15 for about 10 years and it is very roomy.-Ross

Ross, Have anymore information on your PA-15? Do you know the cabin width by chance? Seems to be harder to find than I imagined.

fish2keel
11-03-2019, 11:45 AM
I had to look it up. Wow, it looks great. I did not see what his wing span is. That would be interesting to know. I like the doors, landing gear and engine choice.

Stock Pacer wing span is 29' 3" if I remember correctly. My Pacer prior to the BM mod was just over 31' using Pacer struts. Now, at 37' + I'm using custom struts which are a bit longer than SC struts.

I ended up messaging the original builder of the "Super 17" here on the forum. He mentioned he left the stock length wings and was not a fan of the short wing, therefore he sold it and bought a long wing.

I did some research and saw a plane that is rather interesting, it goes by SQ 4 by Mackey. He did the SQ 2. His slat system is interesting in itself. That is the exactly the performance im after. I just need to figure out how to make the empty weight of the 2+2 lighter or stretch the wagabond to being able to carry more load.

Stephen
11-03-2019, 01:49 PM
I ended up messaging the original builder of the "Super 17" here on the forum. He mentioned he left the stock length wings and was not a fan of the short wing, therefore he sold it and bought a long wing.

I did some research and saw a plane that is rather interesting, it goes by SQ 4 by Mackey. He did the SQ 2. His slat system is interesting in itself. That is the exactly the performance im after. I just need to figure out how to make the empty weight of the 2+2 lighter or stretch the wagabond to being able to carry more load.

Wayne Mackey's SC's are amazing performers. Be aware that slats or cuffs get their performance by increasing the AOA. I watched Wayne years ago putting his SQ 2 to the test at Johnson Creek. His deck angle landing was very high, he walked the plane down the field with very little visibility. Big flaps will lower the deck angle. You are on the right track, lots of wing surface, good engine/prop performance and light weight. Pacers with a few mods can come close to a stock SC performance. You might check out the Highlander. What is the difference in empty weight of the Wag and 2+2?

fish2keel
11-03-2019, 02:06 PM
Wayne Mackey's SC's are amazing performers. Be aware that slats or cuffs get their performance by increasing the AOA. I watched Wayne years ago putting his SQ 2 to the test at Johnson Creek. His deck angle landing was very high, he walked the plane down the field with very little visibility. Big flaps will lower the deck angle. You are on the right track, lots of wing surface, good engine/prop performance and light weight. Pacers with a few mods can come close to a stock SC performance. You might check out the Highlander. What is the difference in empty weight of the Wag and 2+2?

Wag Classic empty weight = 700 lbs
Wag Traveler empty weight = 800 lbs

2+2 empty weight = 1080 lbs

I have looked into the high lander. It is rather interesting, although not up to the mission I am trying to accomplish, which is not necessarily carrying a fully quartered moose, but to have SC performance (or better).

You brought up the wing surface, engine prop performance and weight, I have actually been looking at several of the most popular bush/STOL aircraft and comparing there wing surfaces, wing lengths, fuse lengths and widths, and there weights. It is very interesting to see some things change over different aircrafts but other attributes dont.

Stephen
11-03-2019, 03:06 PM
Wag Classic empty weight = 700 lbs
Wag Traveler empty weight = 800 lbs

2+2 empty weight = 1080 lbs

I have looked into the high lander. It is rather interesting, although not up to the mission I am trying to accomplish, which is not necessarily carrying a fully quartered moose, but to have SC performance (or better).

You brought up the wing surface, engine prop performance and weight, I have actually been looking at several of the most popular bush/STOL aircraft and comparing there wing surfaces, wing lengths, fuse lengths and widths, and there weights. It is very interesting to see some things change over different aircrafts but other attributes dont.

Useful loads for the Wags maybe be around 600 to 700 lbs, the 2+2 might be 800 to 900. Cubs maybe 800 to 900 lbs. The Highlander is about 700 lbs. Stretched Pacers 800 to 900 lbs.

Can you stretch a Wag and keep it under 900 lbs and have a GW of 2000 lbs.? And, have SC performance? Stretching my Pacer only added 80 lbs. My BM empty weight is 1160 and GW is 2100 lbs.

fish2keel
11-03-2019, 09:14 PM
Useful loads for the Wags maybe be around 600 to 700 lbs, the 2+2 might be 800 to 900. Cubs maybe 800 to 900 lbs. The Highlander is about 700 lbs. Stretched Pacers 800 to 900 lbs.

Can you stretch a Wag and keep it under 900 lbs and have a GW of 2000 lbs.? And, have SC performance? Stretching my Pacer only added 80 lbs. My BM empty weight is 1160 and GW is 2100 lbs.


Interesting that you say that. Wag aero puts the traveler wag at a gross weight of 1450. They put the 2+2 at 2200 lbs.

Here is the link for the 2+2 specs. https://www.wagaero.com/wag-aero-kit-airplanes/sportsman-2-2.html

It seems for what im looking to do, is to build the 2+2 since it already has pretty close SC specs for length and wing space. It will need flaps but atleast the plans are set up closer to SC specs then the wag. Would you agree or is it best to go with the plans for the wag, stretch it and use Northland CD SC plans for tail feathers and wings?

I did want to note in the means of saving weight, I will be using wood and carbon fiber throughout the build, as well as aluminum.

fish2keel
11-04-2019, 08:06 AM
It seems like the producer is the way to go, which seems to be the experimental version of the bushmaster.

Stephen
11-04-2019, 11:36 AM
It seems like the producer is the way to go, which seems to be the experimental version of the bushmaster.

The Bushmaster is generally the experimental version of the Superpacer (stretched PA22) which uses some SC features. The Producer is also a stretched PA22 but, it uses some PA14 features. You cannot purchase plans and build a Producer. The Superpacer plans are available.

The GW's for the Wag are higher than I assumed, I figured 1320. I would not stretch the Wag unless you figured you could go to at least a 2000 GW. Possibly using a SC wing design would meet most of these loads. Engineers multiply GW by 3.8g plus reserve to calculate the max wing loading. I'm curious what the 2+2 did to get to a 2200 lb GW. I know that the Superpacer (Bushmaster) designers did all the required load tests to get a 2100 GW. I have videos showing the tests. I assumed the 2+2 is basically the PA14 which I believed had a GW just over 1800 lbs. Maybe they use a beefed up SC wing.

fish2keel
11-04-2019, 11:42 AM
The Bushmaster is generally the experimental version of the Superpacer (stretched PA22) which uses some SC features. The Producer is also a stretched PA22 but, it uses some PA14 features. You cannot purchase plans and build a Producer. The Superpacer plans are available.

The GW's for the Wag are higher than I assumed, I figured 1320. I would not stretch the Wag unless you figured you could go to at least a 2000 GW. Possibly using a SC wing design would meet most of these loads. Engineers multiply GW by 3.8g plus reserve to calculate the max wing loading. I'm curious what the 2+2 did to get to a 2200 lb GW. I know that the Superpacer (Bushmaster) designers did all the required load tests to get a 2100 GW. I have videos showing the tests. I assumed the 2+2 is basically the PA14 which I believed had a GW just over 1800 lbs. Maybe they use a beefed up SC wing.

Stephen, I believe it is the beefed up SC wing that you mention. I think this all points to starting with the 2+2 plans for the fuse, then going with SC tail feathers and wings. Would you agree? Do you have any recommendation on where to go for these? I have also looked at the STOL V6 for plans as well.

Stephen
11-04-2019, 11:48 AM
Contact August2whls on this site for the Superpacer (Bushmaster) plans. He owns the STC and has all the plans.

As far as saving weight goes. I'm not sure using wood will help much. Assuming you are referring to wing ribs. I would compare the weight of a hand made wooden rib to an original type aluminum truss rib Piper made. Most newer Piper style ribs are heavier. Using carbon fiber is helpful but, limited. I have a carbon fiber wing tip which saved me about 4 lbs over the fiber glass. The carbon Cub uses carbon fiber interior panels, I removed all my interior panels and insulation.

It seems the 2+2 or an experimental Bushmaster are good choices.

fish2keel
11-04-2019, 11:50 AM
Contact August2whls on this site for the Superpacer (Bushmaster) plans. He owns the STC and has all the plans.

As far as saving weight goes. I'm not sure using wood will help much. Assuming you are referring to wing ribs. I would compare the weight of a hand made wooden rib to an original type aluminum truss rib Piper made. Most newer Piper style ribs are heavier. Using carbon fiber is helpful but, limited. I have a carbon fiber wing tip which saved me about 4 lbs over the fiber glass. The carbon Cub uses carbon fiber interior panels, I removed all my interior panels and insulation.

It seems the 2+2 or an experimental Bushmaster are good choices.

Stephen, Would I need the STC bushmaster plans to get the SC plans? I was assuming I should get the Wagaero 2+2 plans for the fuse, then get SC plans for the wings and tail feathers, both being separate sets. Is this incorrect?

Stephen
11-04-2019, 11:55 AM
Stephen, I believe it is the beefed up SC wing that you mention. I think this all points to starting with the 2+2 plans for the fuse, then going with SC tail feathers and wings. Would you agree? Do you have any recommendation on where to go for these? I have also looked at the STOL V6 for plans as well.

The Bushmaster wing is significantly stronger than a SC, you should look at their wing for what ever design you do. It has more ribs, leading edge and compression struts. I my BM wing span is also longer than a stock SC.

Stephen
11-04-2019, 12:03 PM
Stephen, Would I need the STC bushmaster plans to get the SC plans? I was assuming I should get the Wagaero 2+2 plans for the fuse, then get SC plans for the wings and tail feathers, both being separate sets. Is this incorrect?

If you go with the 2+2 look over their wing plans. You can PM me and we could compare what I have regarding the BM wing. Also, ask the Wagaero people what was done to the 2+2 to up the GW from the old PA14. Also, make sure you will be happy with the interior cockpit width. The PA14 was a bit too tight for me and someone sitting beside me. Two big people in my PA22/BM is cozy.

martyop
12-14-2019, 10:51 AM
There was a PA-15 for sale in northeast Ohio recently, try www.bobessellairshows.com to see if it is still for sale. That is what the basic Wag-A-Bond design came from.
I am building a Wag-A-Bond slowly but surely.

SClow303
12-17-2019, 08:18 PM
My project is basically a Wagabond stretched to the length of a pacer with pacer wings stretched 18 inches. My fuselage has also been widened at the panel and shoulders 4.5 inches. Overall I will have the same length and wingspan as a pacer with the extended tips but my flaps are extended and the ailerons pushed out to the end of the square wing tips. With the enlarged baggage door on the right side and 6 foot of baggage area it should fit my mission well.

Stephen
12-17-2019, 11:54 PM
My project is basically a Wagabond stretched to the length of a pacer with pacer wings stretched 18 inches. My fuselage has also been widened at the panel and shoulders 4.5 inches. Overall I will have the same length and wingspan as a pacer with the extended tips but my flaps are extended and the ailerons pushed out to the end of the square wing tips. With the enlarged baggage door on the right side and 6 foot of baggage area it should fit my mission well.

What is the status of your project? It sounds interesting.

SClow303
12-19-2019, 01:41 PM
I a finally back on track with it. I went through a divorce starting one year ago this month after finding that my wife was having an affair..... it took a lot of my steam away. Currently I need to wire the engine monitor and panel then it’s ready for final rigging. Gas lines are are all ran but I want to mount a fuel flow transducer. I will make an update with the most recent pics on my thread!

Stephen
12-20-2019, 01:44 AM
Looking forward to your update and glad you are getting back to on track. Take care.

bluejeepdad
12-20-2019, 08:52 AM
Another option for side by side:

https://bearhawkaircraft.com/bearhawk-aircraft-announces-new-side-by-side-seating-bearhawk-companion/


Tim

120mm
09-30-2020, 07:13 AM
Not trying to bring up a necro-post, but I've been considering a slightly stretched Wagabond with longer wings as well.I'm intending to stay LSA, so weight is even more an issue.I'm considering either a lightweight PA-11 with PA-18 features (but no flaps) or a slightly stretched Wagabond. The main attraction to a Vagabond clone for me is the simplified fuselage design (and the side by side seating), which I believe would be stronger for the weight. Interested in others' thoughts on this.

rowdy49
10-05-2020, 07:29 AM
If I wanted to improve the STOL of the Wagabond Traveler how much would I have to extend the wings? If I extend the wings how much longer would I have to make the fuselage? Is there any type of formula you use that says if you extend wings this much you lengthen fuselage this much? How could I get the Traveler to be more of a STOL aircraft instead of a cross country aircraft? I have to keep it in the LSA category for the present time.

Stephen
10-05-2020, 03:01 PM
If I wanted to improve the STOL of the Wagabond Traveler how much would I have to extend the wings? If I extend the wings how much longer would I have to make the fuselage? Is there any type of formula you use that says if you extend wings this much you lengthen fuselage this much? How could I get the Traveler to be more of a STOL aircraft instead of a cross country aircraft? I have to keep it in the LSA category for the present time.

The Super Pacer adds 6 feet of wing span and 22.5 inches to the fuselage.

Stephen
10-05-2020, 03:05 PM
Not trying to bring up a necro-post, but I've been considering a slightly stretched Wagabond with longer wings as well.I'm intending to stay LSA, so weight is even more an issue.I'm considering either a lightweight PA-11 with PA-18 features (but no flaps) or a slightly stretched Wagabond. The main attraction to a Vagabond clone for me is the simplified fuselage design (and the side by side seating), which I believe would be stronger for the weight. Interested in others' thoughts on this.

Sounds like an excellent plan. Any added wing surface area will lower the approach and stall speeds. Lengthening the fuselage like increase stability during cruise. When I converted my Pacer to a Bushmaster I gained about 80 pounds.

120mm
10-07-2020, 06:59 AM
Sounds like an excellent plan. Any added wing surface area will lower the approach and stall speeds. Lengthening the fuselage like increase stability during cruise. When I converted my Pacer to a Bushmaster I gained about 80 pounds.I'll start with 18 inches, as you suggest, with standard cub wings and o/a 100-120 hp.