Except for the plastic fuel parts. When I built my EXP's I toss the plastic parts and use a flaring tool to build an AN fuel system. Its really easy, tubing and hdwe all lightweight aluminum, why would anyone dub around with plastic? What about crashworthiness of plastic? Never saw a piece of plastic that didn't get brittle after time or lo temps.
Working CarbonCub
- Thread starter Scouter
- Start date
Mauleguy
MEMBER
This was something I noticed on the first Carbon Cub (Doug Kellers). We were each in our own airplane playing around off airport in Alaska using Ultima Thule Lodge as our home base. We had flown up for the Alaskan Airman's show and Valdez STOL and had a week to kill so what better place to be then the Wrangell Mountains. There was still snow on the ground at around 2000 and the temperature was fairly cool in the mornings, probably low 30's. We had park on the strip at the lodge and as I was walking up to Bushwacker to go out for another day of flying I looked over at the Carbon Cub and the fabric was all slack on the side I could see. I walked around to the other side and it look normal. I think Doug pushed the tail around so it was sitting differently then the way he had swung the tail around from the day before and it helped take the sags out of the fabric. What we noticed was the tail just did not seem as sturdy as a stock super cub tail. I know they changed the design of the carbon cub upper longeron and spread them apart farther then a super cub. Maybe the fabric was just not tight enough to begin with or maybe they have increased the strength back in the tail since that first Carbon Cub but it seemed a little weak to me. I also notice the small tubing they used for the Vee brace up front. Cubs are 3/4" and I think the Carbon Cub back then was 1/2". I am all for saving weight but I don't want to loose anything in the fuselage for strength. I learned from an engineer that I do work for that the diameter of the tube is much more important then the wall thickness when I was building the experimental landing gear for my Maule.
I have flown the carbon cub and it is a great airplane but I do not think it would hold up one season as a working cub for hire in Alaska without a serious make over needed at the end.
I have flown the carbon cub and it is a great airplane but I do not think it would hold up one season as a working cub for hire in Alaska without a serious make over needed at the end.
40m
SPONSOR
Shoreham, VT
Eddie Foy
MEMBER
South Florida
wireweinie
FOUNDER
Palmer, AK
Joseph206
Registered User
Liberty, NY
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
Some People are Posers !!!!! lmao !!!
That describes you doesn't it Joe? 8)
cubdriver2
FRIEND
upstate NY
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
I have had the loose fabric issue on med weight Poly fiber installed on a Super Cub as well. Seems to be a dry to cold wet climate thing.
Joseph206
Registered User
Liberty, NY
Nice
RaisedByWolves
FRIEND
Tx
Yeah Joe doesn't use his cub to get in and out of short places or fly on days others wouldn't dare open there hangar door.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
I recall a discussion some years back after the CC won Valdez with a well known pilot (PC) at the helm. That pilot, an owner of many planes, posted that they loaded the CC up with a 'normal' cub load one time.
The lower longerons showed sag with the load he said, and he had a few other comments that were describing the CC as a great plane, but not built for the abuse put to cubs up here working.
I did look that same CC over, and I was not impressed with the light weight attach points for the ailerons or the flimsy panels inside. I have offered many times for CC owners to join me for a week moose hunt, tossing in camp gear and moose quarters-sharp bones and all- but no takers.
Trust me, there is a difference between landing in a 200' field, and working of a 500' field of softball size and larger rock hauling 200 lb bags of meat and bone, plastic boxes with sharp corners, dirty rafts and people. Just loading and unloading causes it's own share of abuse.
Not that the CC won't land everywhere and do most, but for longevity bigger stronger is better. Might not be as fun, but it all has tradeoffs.
The lower longerons showed sag with the load he said, and he had a few other comments that were describing the CC as a great plane, but not built for the abuse put to cubs up here working.
I did look that same CC over, and I was not impressed with the light weight attach points for the ailerons or the flimsy panels inside. I have offered many times for CC owners to join me for a week moose hunt, tossing in camp gear and moose quarters-sharp bones and all- but no takers.
Trust me, there is a difference between landing in a 200' field, and working of a 500' field of softball size and larger rock hauling 200 lb bags of meat and bone, plastic boxes with sharp corners, dirty rafts and people. Just loading and unloading causes it's own share of abuse.
Not that the CC won't land everywhere and do most, but for longevity bigger stronger is better. Might not be as fun, but it all has tradeoffs.
WWhunter
FRIEND
Near the Headwaters of the Mighty Mississippi Rive
First off, I am not a cub type owner but have been looking at them for many years. I have been looking at the CC and Legend since they were introduced. I always felt the CC in particular was built to the lightest possible materials whereas I felt the Legend might be built slightly heavier constructed. Not many Legend guys on this site but I am curious if anyone has an opinion as to whether or not this is correct.
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
The Legend is built right off the Piper blue prints except a little wider and the left hand door.
Having flown a new Legend with the Titan 180 HP for a few hours, I can easily say that it's a very nice plane to fly and a seriously good performer. What I can't tell you personally, is how closely the Legend compares to an original PA-18-150 HP construction wise, however, it is supposed to be a virtual copy.
The Legend's fusalage is 3" wider, it has some carbon fibre in places, it's gross wt is 1750 lbs. and for all intents and purposes, it looks exactly like the original; struts are the same and the bare fuselage looks the same for example. We've heard more then once that the Legend 180 will out perform the CC in everything except top speed. (CC has a shorter wing verses the Legend's 35' plus some).
Please note that I have no way to verify, in fact you'd need the two performing at the same show to get any idea on this matter of performance. A trip to Sun N Fun would shed some light on which of the two aircraft most closely resembles the original Super Cub. (if indeed the ultimate end result is to be as close to the original so that you've got something tough enough to haul moose quarters, old greasy Elans, sled dogs, busted outboards, diving equipment, cannons, squalling grandkids, trout and dead bears).
I like the post that says he "works" his CC by hauling around his lunch and the crew's paycheques, or words to that effect. Has this thread descended into "no guts no glory"? Who is going to put a partially butchered big ol moose in a Carbon Cub?
Roddy
CubCruiser
SPONSOR
Ormond Beach, Florida
I now have a little over a hundred hours of student instruction in my Super Legend HP. Lots of landings on back country strips in the Cascades as well as some off-airport landings. Took it through its first 100 hour/Annual in February and no maintenance issues so far.
There re are a number of conveniences over my 150hp 18A:
The wider cockpit is nice since I spend most of my time in the backseat;
I like having a carb heat control back there as well;
The second door is nice, especially on those (rare) hot days in the Pacific Northwest;
And it climbs like the proverbial scalded dog runs.
All the students who've flown it, love it.
Daryl
There re are a number of conveniences over my 150hp 18A:
The wider cockpit is nice since I spend most of my time in the backseat;
I like having a carb heat control back there as well;
The second door is nice, especially on those (rare) hot days in the Pacific Northwest;
And it climbs like the proverbial scalded dog runs.
All the students who've flown it, love it.
Daryl
ATXCubDriver
PARTNER
Austin, TX
Y'all do realize the CC was designed and certified as a LSA aircraft right? 1320lbGW versus what, the lightest of the SC's at 1,750lb gw and going up to 2300lb gw.
Just saying not really an Apple to Apple comparison when we are talking about loading up a working airplane to GW's Was never designed to be a working Cub at 1,750-2,300lbs
Just saying not really an Apple to Apple comparison when we are talking about loading up a working airplane to GW's Was never designed to be a working Cub at 1,750-2,300lbs
That's my ol cub...1951. Rock solid and rough....
cubdriver2
FRIEND
upstate NY
Some SC are 1500 GW and some CC are at 1800? GW depending on how they are certified but I think all CC are almost the same plane at either weight?
Glenn
The EX kit can be penciled in at 1800+ or 1320 according to owners preference. With two growing boys in the seats you can't put in much fuel at 1320, but its strictly a legal consideration. Same plane. I think the factory built can be delivered with either number on the certificate.
The factory built version is S-LSA. An owner can move/reclassify that version into the E-LSA class for maintenance reasons but never to a higher gross than 1320. The EX is a E-AB airplane. Different rules apply.
I'm surprised anyone would go with the 1320# gross now that 3rd class medical reform is here.
I'm surprised anyone would go with the 1320# gross now that 3rd class medical reform is here.
ATXCubDriver
PARTNER
Austin, TX
EX-2 is a different animal than the SS. Different wall thickness on tubing in several areas. Totally different tail feathers. Heavier gear. G Series Wing.
To my knowledge no Carbon Cub SS has left the factory at anything other than 1320lb GW unless it was on floats. The original EX kit is different than the current EX-2 kit. This is why I said lets stick to apples to apples when comparing.
Top Cub to SuperCub would be an apples to apples comparison. I know the OP wasn't asking that question but this thread drifted away from that quickly.
Anyone know how Piper tested the SC wing for strength? I keep hearing comments about strength just curious how that strength number is being derived.
To my knowledge no Carbon Cub SS has left the factory at anything other than 1320lb GW unless it was on floats. The original EX kit is different than the current EX-2 kit. This is why I said lets stick to apples to apples when comparing.
Top Cub to SuperCub would be an apples to apples comparison. I know the OP wasn't asking that question but this thread drifted away from that quickly.
Anyone know how Piper tested the SC wing for strength? I keep hearing comments about strength just curious how that strength number is being derived.
Last edited:
ATXCubDriver
PARTNER
Austin, TX
The Carbon Cub FX that you will find on the website is a Factory Assist program that takes the EX-2 kit and builds it at the factory. Totally different bird than the Carbon Cub SS as stated in my other post.
ATXCubDriver
PARTNER
Austin, TX
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
That is true, but representatives of the company have regularly stated that, even thought the LS version is set at 1320, the "design" has been tested at over 1800. That "implies" that: a. The LS version is identical to the EX version, and b. It's probably okay to operate them all at the higher weight.
MTV
He saw my copy of the new ACS and is not sure he'll ever go Private. We're just backwoods types, no cross country, no ATC. Basic Med spurred me to get my medical back last year so I'm lobbying for 1865.
During the two years I waffled over which kit to buy the CC reps I spoke with made it clear that the EX kit built light and certified at 1320 would not be as light as the factory S-LSA because the EX kit was stronger. Since I never figured to respect the 1320# limit I saw that as an advantage. The factory S-LSA airplanes are probably fine for "working" under the 1320# limit. From what I've seen the EX airplanes are holding up at the 1835# limit as well. A properly built EX is a very nice airplane.
