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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
What's a go-around?
You can't buy an EX version that's factory built unless you participate in the building of the parts and components. The 51% rule is in effect.
My aircraft partner and I are close to ordering an EX2 kit. He wants it at 1320, but it just occured to me that if you always park it with full fuel, its a single seat aircraft. damn
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.
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.
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.
Thanks you helped me see I have answered my own question. I don't have a CC yet, it's a sport cub and I use it for my work in our production season. Nope, I haven't put a cut up bear or a moose in back, but did take the seat out last fall and flew a turbocharger after cooler to a broken farm tractor, landed in the field and helped my guys fix it
before that I threw a new combine belt out the window that I flew 2 hours north to get so they could get it back moving same day
also threw a hyd hose out the window to get a sprayer moving again the next week
Dropped off a Frito Lay exec who was in town looking at potatoes at the big airport Dropped him right beside the company Challenger jet that was taking him back to Dallas he said he felt like a rock star
And yes, lunch and pay checks. I enjoy the cub much more than my pickup
My name is Jim and my CubCrafters works. Sometimes
Jim, back when he was farming my dad used to fly his Lark Commander in much the same way. When time was short there was no better option to get the job done.
I had somewhat forgotten about the impression if can leave on people, but I'm sure you haven't. That Frito Lay exec enjoyed his rock star status, and won't forget it.
There's an article in this months sport aviation magazine about an ex-feed producer who discovered if he could get potential customers to his farm, he could close 90% of them versus a normal 50% close ratio. His airplane made that happen.
Sent from my seriously subsonic flightphone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
"Optimism is going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with you!"
That's why I hang around Larry "Birddog" Grenier
........whats the aftermarket shock of choice for the Carbon Cub?
this isnt a smart ass question. I have friends looking to spend bucks on their Carbon Cubs and they dont know and I dont know. And I dont know if the planes are tough enough. Maybe they are.
thanks. Maybe I will begin a new thread to get the question out. D
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
Who makes the carbon fiber belly pod?
"Put out my hand and touched the face of God"
Last edited by ATXCubDriver; 03-17-2017 at 10:00 PM.
Last edited by Xargos; 03-18-2017 at 10:15 PM.
Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org mobile app