Baumann / Aerocet Comparison on Carbon Cubs

[chipallen]

Last month, the CubCrafters Service Center in West Palm Beach, FL installed a pair of Aerocet Floats on Carbon Cub #340.The install went very well and the post-installation test flights demonstrated a very nice handling airplane on both water and land.

I thought readers of this forum might be interested in a comparison gained by a couple of Carbon Cub owners who flew the airplane and were kind enough to provide pilot reports on their experience. It should be noted that both of these owners have Carbon Cubs on Baumann 1500A amphibious floats, so this is a very real comparison. <Gary> is Gary Lickle and <Chuck> is Chuck Kinberger, both from the West Palm Beach, FL area.

<Gary> Let the challenge begin!!

<Gary> On May30, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Gary Lickle <gary@gdlickle.com> wrote:

Here is my PIREP:

1) Overall the Aerocets are excellent amphibs and comparable to the Baumanns with some pluses and minuses as follows:

2) The larger rear tires and brakes together with the easier swiveling front gear offers easier ground handling on Aerocets.

3) Aerocets in water taxi and turning seems more responsive and despite smaller rudders it turns well both with and without rudders and I would say has an edge on the Baumanns but think it’s because there is no ventral fin on the aft fuselage with the Aerocets; I was able to turn the plane in 15kts with rudders to the right; a full 360 but not left

4) Take-off and landing distances felt comparable but since I will be back on Baumanns next week we plan a side by side fly off. That said I did not notice any dramatic difference but Chuck may have a different opinion hence the fly- off needed.

5) I did not prefer the gear system on the Aerocets as it takes 7-8 pumps to deploy or retract vs Baumann direct quick Johnson bar. You also know with Baumann immediately if it works or not. The Aerocet gear audio warning was too quiet but suspect it can be louder. Simply the whole system is much more complicated for the Aerocet so Bauman wins there.

6) Aerocets float a bit higher but nothing dramatic to say “wow! feels like more float.”

Time will tell re how the carbon fiber holds up vs aluminum and assume corrosion issues with the floats themselves that carbon fiber wins. The gear (wheels, brakes, etc.) and systems corrosion will have to be monitored to see which is better over time.

I like them very much and great to be able to fly them. I did not test airspeed loss or gain so tbd.

<Chuck>On May30, 2015, at 10:08 PM, Chuck <pa11890ck@gmail.com> wrote:

The Aerocets are very nice floats. They are attractive, and the attention to detail is there; the quality of the float I feel is superb!

Very nice in the air; just like the Baumanns, you almost don't even know you’re on floats unless you look out the window.

I think Carbon Fiber a plus for sure.

I don't care for the gear system. It's almost like work to cycle the gear; twice I had to pump quite a few times when it got air bubbles (probably owing to being a new system). Gear warning volume is way too soft. I tried to find a way to turn up volume but no luck. Mirrors on the wing don't work at all. I took Karen for a ride and she couldn't see the gear in mirror at all either. You can see the tip of the front wheels when they are up out the window other than that there no visual to know where the gear is except for the lights on dash. If the micro-switch goes out, you’re on your own. Overall, just too complicated compared to the Baumann manual system.

Water Rudders work excellent but I always thought mine did too, so I'm neutral on that.

Performance off the water; I feel these are pretty sticky, just doesn't seem to get off the water as fast at all. I haven't flown mine on floats in 8 months but that's not how I remember the performance at all.

Ground handling on Aerocets is way better than the Baumann’s. You’re not fighting/riding the brakes the whole time your taxiing.

Performance on the step was great!

It seems to want to porpoise a little when you land unless you dump the flaps; they seem to want to stay on top and not settle in the water. Almost like it was pushing the nose down a little. It would settle instantly when you got rid of the flaps.

It has a funny bump in the stick from the elevator when you’re on final with 2 notches of flap; must be getting some dirty air in that configuration - it did it every time.

Stalled clean in all configurations when you can actually get it to stall.

Floatation seems considerably better - I always felt Baumanns were a little weak there.

There was no water in storage compartment and the water wasn't going over the top of the float when taxiing. I liked that.��

Suspension seems a lot stiffer, but seems to be quite a bit heavier duty from what I looked at so I like that too. Thought Baumann gear was just little on the weak side.

I think from my memory that airplane on Aerocets is a little slower. I think these speeds are close to mine with my prop and Gary can run off and leave me but he would know more about the speeds. @2600 RPM it was indicating 122mph

<Gary> I got to fly the Aerocets again yesterday and this time winds were calm and the floats were definitely more sticky than the Baumann’s and had to horse them off to break adhesion , I suspect I did not experience that on first round as winds were 15 and a nice chop. Rest of my comments remain the same.

In the end, the Baumann and Aerocet Floats were declared equal by both pilots. Their “ideal”float would be the Aerocets with the Baumann gear retraction system.

Since these Pilot Reports were written, Gary and Chuck did,indeed, have an opportunity to fly the two Carbon Cubs (one with Aerocets andone with Baumanns) in a side-by-side comparison. It was a little “lopsided”, due to differences in pilot weight, fuel load, and the fact that the two airplanes are propped differently.After spending the afternoon with each pilot having an opportunity to fly both airplanes, the final decision was in fact a “tie”.