Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 74

Thread: Carbon Cub EX VS Mackey / Backcountry SQ2

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Pole AK
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Carbon Cub EX VS Mackey / Backcountry SQ2

    There is already a thread with this exact topic, but it has been dead for some time and a lot has matured with both the SQ2 and the CC EX since that thread was started some years ago. Now that there are more of both out there I was wondering about the impressions/experiences people have had with each and how they stack up against each other.

    I'm I the market for a kit sometime in the next year or two. I currently own a PA-18 with 160hp and most mods. I do a lot of off airport and I'm looking for something that can do just as rough but get in and out of shorter places or the same places with greater margins of safety.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    269
    Post Thanks / Like
    Second. If not a comparison, at least first hand experience.
    The SQ-2's showing up here look tough.
    Likes firefighter2143 liked this post

  3. #3
    Bill Rusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    5,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Excellent question.

    The CC EX has matured and now has a large baggage option and also more fuel. Josh Peppard brought a new SQ12 to Valdez this year (SQ redesign of the PA12). The performance was amazing.

    Like most airplane stuff it depends on your mission.

    The CC will be a much easier build. It is a very well done kit with all components well packaged and labeled. It has an EXCELLENT builders manual. It is as close to cookie cutter assembly as you will find. Follow the instructions and you will have a wonderful flying Cub with excellent performance and resale value.
    If you are in the lower 48 and just want to do a little solo fly-ins and camping, tough to beat. It will weigh 1000 pounds with extended baggage, extended fuel, and bushwheels. CC recommends 1885 as the GW, thus you would have 885 useful, though you can obviously set the GW where ever you are comfortable. Cost will be in the 130 to 140K range.

    The SQ2 is strong heavy hauler Cub. You could probably get the empty weight down to 1150 or so and set the gross comfortably at 2300, giving you a useful of 1150 pounds. Build cost closer to 100K. CC has a hotrod 0-340 engine. SQ2 will have a hotrod 0-360 or one of the new lightweight Titan 409 engines. More power, more torque. Load it to the gills with a quartered moose, ton of salmon, camping gear, and it will haul it out. If your mission includes lots of heavy hauling, the SQ2 might be better. If your mission is light camping and exploring go with the CC. Define your mission carefully. Do you really only take one heavy hauling moose hunting trip a year? And the rest of your time is just playing and exploring? Build for the flying you will be doing 90% of the time.
    The SQ2 will offer more flexibility to customize the airplane to your preferences. If you want heel brakes or toe brakes you can do that, the CC is a pretty fixed kit and tough to make large mods, thus toe brakes are your only option. Want overhead flaps in the SQ2.... can do. Want standard flap handle on the CC, no can do. You can only get it with the overhead flaps. Not that the CC kit is bad just that it would be tough to customize very much, where as the SQ2 is only limited by your imagination and skills. The SQ2 will be a tougher build. What are your skills and can you handle that?
    CC is a reliable, large, well known company with an excellent reputation. You will get your kit on time and the quality will be excellent. Backcountry is a small company and in a little bit of a flux at the moment. Wayne Mackey is no longer there nor is Wayne Axelson. Is that good or bad? I don't know. I have no idea of the lead time to get a kit nor the quality. You would want to do some serious homework to assure yourself that you will be satisfied with your investment.

    Define your mission realistically. Build for what you will do 90% of the time.

    Hope this helps

    Bill (my opinion only, take it with a salt lick)
    Very Blessed.
    Likes StuBob liked this post

  4. #4
    RanchPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    367
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bill provides a good summary, with the most important takeaway being that these are two significantly different planes. I would add, though, that a stripped-down SQ can do pretty much everything a CC can do (watching someone like Goza or Mackey fly an SQ is truly a thing to behold), whereas the reverse isn't true--you won't ever be able to make the CC into the durable load hauler that the SQ is built to be. The SQ is slightly heavier by design because it's built like the proverbial brick outhouse for rugged backcountry use. The degree of customization available on the SQ, and the SLATS(!) are two other major selling points.

    I think the CC is a beautiful bird, kind of a backcountry Ferrari (and I mean that as a sincere compliment). However, the long-term functionality and durability of the SQ, and the unbelievable safety cushion that slats provide, make it the clear winner for my particular tastes.

    Full disclosure, I'm good friends with the guys at Backcountry, and I'm lucky enough to fly an SQ low and hard on a regular basis. I've never tried to build one, and I'm aware of the delay issues Backcountry struggled with in the past. I'm also aware of the impressive lengths the company has gone to in order to address those issues, both at the individual customer level and also structurally within the company itself. There have been some recent changes on the org chart, but those have all been for the good (and mostly by mutual agreement with the folks involved). They've always had a phenomenal product, and I think the company side of things is in a positive place and continuing to get even better. Just my two cents; take it for what it's worth.

    PS--Backcountry is also still actively working on a new light sport design, which has the potential to be incredible (I've sat in it, and can't wait to see it fly). To their credit, however, they're taking the "prove it before you sell it" approach--meaning it will be done when it's done, rather than rushing it to market.

  5. #5
    Crash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Nikiski Alaska
    Posts
    2,695
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think the break point will be if you believe in slats or not. The $$$ difference is made up in the fact that the Carbon Cub will sell for more at time of resale and may have a better following then an SQ2.

    Me personally, I don't trust Back Country Cubs to be around to support their product in the future. So far they have been Daytona Cub, Smith Cub, Turbine Cubs of Wyoming, and now Back Country Cubs. Even their models keep changing from SQ2 to outlaw I, II, III and IV then back SQ2, SQ3 etc. They can't seem to figure out what to call themselves or their products. They seem confused at best with no solid direction and even all the key players have changed. Not a company I'd drop $100K with.

    If I were looking at building up a Super Cub from a kit, it would either be from Cub Crafters or Dakota Cub. Both solid companies with consistent business histories.

    One other point..... hate the looks of the SQ2 front end. I has got to be one of the most un-attractive cowls ever developed. I know it's functional, but it's ugly!

    Just my opinion.

    Crash
    Likes ron, jaypratt liked this post

  6. #6
    RanchPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    367
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think the break point will be if you believe in slats or not.
    If you haven't had a chance to fly with slats, you should check them out. For me personally, I find them to be nothing short of amazing.

    The $$$ difference is made up in the fact that the Carbon Cub will sell for more at time of resale and may have a better following then an SQ2.
    I think you're right--CC may have a wider market share and better brand recognition at this point. That's part of what you're paying for in the higher price tag. However, I'm aware of a number of recent SQ resales where the owners definitely got their money back out of their planes. I also believe that the SQ will hold up better long-term in terms of durability, IMHO, and I think there are more and more happy SQ owners out there all the time. Both planes are very impressive when you see what they can really do.

    Me personally, I don't trust Back Country Cubs to be around to support their product in the future. So far they have been Daytona Cub, Smith Cub, Turbine Cubs of Wyoming, and now Back Country Cubs.
    I don't know anything about whether they were Daytona before Nick Smith had the company or not. What I do know is this--since it was acquired from Nick Smith in Canada, the company has had one primary owner. That primary owner remains the primary owner, and he is still very much involved. They were initially called Turbine Cubs because that owner was excited about the prospect of developing a small turbine motor and putting it on a Cub. He was very serious about it, and he put his money where his mouth was. When that didn't work out (they went so far as to hang one and flight test it but, unfortunately, the motor wasn't all it had been advertised to be by its developers), he renamed the company to focus on the company's primary purpose--building rugged backcountry airplanes.

    Even their models keep changing from SQ2 to outlaw I, II, III and IV then back SQ2, SQ3 etc. They can't seem to figure out what to call themselves or their products. They seem confused at best with no solid direction and even all the key players have changed.
    I don't know anything about the naming thing. As far as I know, the SQ designation came from Wayne Mackey's StolQuest design. Wayne is not officially with the company at this point but, from everything I know, they all remain on good terms (and they're still selling his design). However, saying "all the key players have changed" is just not true. The same guy that bought it from Nick Smith still owns and runs the company on a day-to-day basis, and he has all along. He was one of the guys sitting in the booth at OSH a couple weeks ago.

    Not a company I'd drop $100K with.
    I wouldn't tell anybody to drop $100K with an outfit they weren't comfortable with. I would, however, tell people to talk to others who have and find out what their experiences have been. By and large, I think most owners of these planes are very happy with them, but people should find out for themselves. I think the complaint used to be that they had a really good product, but poor customer service at times (with delay being the biggest complaint). Specific changes have been made to address those issues, and now I think their customer service is on par with the high quality of their product.

    One other point..... hate the looks of the SQ2 front end. I has got to be one of the most un-attractive cowls ever developed. I know it's functional, but it's ugly!
    Some like it, some don't. However, I can tell you that the visibility it allows is like not having an engine on the front at all. You can also get an old school PA-18 cowl on a Backcountry Cub, if you prefer form over function in the cowl department. As noted above, that's one of the cool things about the Backcountry kit--you can make it into whatever plane you want it to be.

    I'm not a shill for Backcountry, and I'd be the first to admit that they've had their ups and downs in terms of getting sorted out on the customer service side. However, I know they've worked hard to address those issues and, personally, I really do think they build the best, most durable, most versatile Super Cub kits on the market. As I said though, don't take it from me--I'm a nobody--ask the guys who are flying them and see whether they are happy with their planes or not. If the product doesn't speak for itself, I wouldn't buy one either. As for myself, though, the SQ I fly regularly (owned by a friend of mine who has no connection to Backcountry whatsoever) has more than convinced me of the merits of this bird.
    Last edited by RanchPilot; 08-18-2014 at 05:32 PM.
    Likes Jeff S liked this post

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    sioux lookout
    Posts
    546
    Post Thanks / Like
    i built a pa-12 from a TCOW kit, the fuse was done by Jay at javeron who was at the time contracted to do all the welding. I know things have changed a little at BBC but i think it will all be for the better. My plane went together great Jay did a great job, Wayne built very nice wings and i didn't talk with Bruce much but everything was positive. I know in the past they have gone through some growing pains but this is common with alot of companies trying to take the next BIG step. Over all the build was fun and not to stressful, the plane is everything i want it to be, tough, gets off the ground quick and will carry a huge load. I use my plane for work and a CC to me seems more like an expensive toy( not saying i wouldn't love to have one) I to am not a huge fan of the bbc cowl but like stated before you don't have to use it. i would not hesitate to build a BBC,CC or a Javeron cub all are great just pic the one that fits your mission. good luck to them all

  8. #8
    tedwaltman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    486
    Post Thanks / Like
    I just completed my SQ2, now referred to as the Backcountry Super Cub, in June. Flew it to Oshkosh. In looking at kits, I considered the Carbon Cub, the Dakota 18 and the SQ-2. I've built several metal kits but this was to be my first fabric plane.

    I eliminated the Dakota 18 after parking next to, by random chance, the owner of Dakota Cub at Oshkosh a couple of years ago. I told him that I was interested in building a cub type kit. He didn't give me a business card; in fact he didn't give me the time of day. Now as Steve aptly points out in another post, maybe I should have given him a second chance, but when I didn't get any attention prior to writing the check from him, I figured my chances of getting attention afterwards would be nil.

    The Carbon Cub, CC, is a great plane and it seems like they produce an outstanding kit. However, the CC seems like a "weekend jaunt" play type of plane for casual backcountry use. I looked very closely at the CC at Oshkosh. I found a number of small details that I thought were "interesting" in a show plane. Stuff such as stacks of washers on aileron & flap hinges, loose control stick assembly, et cetera. Certainly not show stoppers but nonetheless interesting.

    I studied the SQ-2 and talked to the folks at the factory during a visit to Wyoming. I learned that the SQ-2 was being upgraded with quite a few notable improvements. One previous post in this thread takes the SQ-2 company to task for changing the name of the kit. If they make significant improvements why shouldn't they upgrade the kit name to reflect a new generation in the kits evolution? Geesh. Anyway, I ultimately chose to build the SQ-2 for two primary reasons: 1) The kit seems to be FAR more robust, stout and built to take a beating (from me) for years to some without undue fatigue issues; 2) The factory's continued commitment to upgrade their kit with notable improvements.

    As also pointed out above, the same person has been the majority owner throughout the years. I can state through my experience that his integrity is fist-rate; his commitment to quality and making the kit "right" is outstanding. Case in point. As I started work on my kit I noticed a few issues with the welds on the throttle quadrant and the elevator trim bracket. The company owner loaded welding equipment and his best welder in his personal truck and drove 250 miles each way (!!) to personally fix my kit at my shop. If that doesn't illustrate the company and its owners commitment to the customer then nothing does.

    There is a new shop manager at Backcountry Super Cubs. He has well over 5,000 hours in Super Cubs spread over almost 30 years in Alaska. He is an A&P and IA. I worked with him as I closed in on completing my kit with a number of minor issues. To say I was--and remain--impressed with his knowledge is an understatement. Now I'm working with him and the company on further improving the SQ-2 (now known as the Backcountry Super Cub) through the further improvement of their flaps--conducting airflow video tests with various add-on items such as wing trailing edge VG's and such. Again, the shop manager is totally dedicated to making their kits the absolute best.

    Would I purchase and build another SQ-2/Cub from the company--absolutely! Will Backcountry Super Cubs be around next year and the year after that--I sure believe so...and if their current shop manager and long term company owner both have any influence on the marketplace I believe that their kits will be the new standard for robust, stout performance.

    All that being said, there is no doubt that Carbon Cubs have a huge marketing budget and have their advertisements spread all over the literature (and web). One can't ignore the fact that CC is a very well funded company with a large marketing budget. They have a great product, but again as pointed out in previous posts, it is a different product for a different mission. You have to look at what you intend to do trip-wise and where you intend to visit (true backcountry or local grass field) to make a good decision for what kit you purchase.

    I'd be happy to provide anyone details and pictures on my build and answer any and all questions regarding my experience with Backcountry Super Cubs. Thanks for this great website, outstanding forums and especially for the knowledgeable and friendly people who contribute to this site.

  9. #9
    574cub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Eagle River AK
    Posts
    149
    Post Thanks / Like
    Tedwaltman1 what did yours weigh in at? What all mods engine prop choices did you go with? What kind of performance are you getting compared to a 18?

  10. #10
    Rob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    AZ06
    Posts
    764
    Post Thanks / Like
    A couple of random thoughts...

    Support? these are both experimental, and as airplanes go, both relatively easy builds... once it's complete just how much support do you really need? If it's a lot, to me personally, that would say something about weather I'd choose this aircraft for a bush beater... Piper Supercub's thrive just fine with Zero support from Piper

    Are you the type of person, or do you engage in the type of flying that's likely to find you with a dinged wing or departed gear leg at some point in your flying career? and if so, are you then the type of person who will just call the insurance company and hand it over to them, or are you the type of person who might be inclined to do a ferry worthy field repair, and then fly it home for further correction. This is reasonably important, because a cub clone that is 90% interchangeable with a Piper is going to be a whole lot easier to repair than a cub clone that is completely incompatible with Piper parts.
    A further consideration on this same tangent is what I call the 'Aviat' Factor... Not to start a Husky debate, but anyone who has experienced trying to get a gimpy Husky out of the field will tell you that simply acquiring the parts to cobble it back together can be a nightmare in time constraints. Bend a wing strut in a Husky, and it Might be on the shelf and available... Bend one in a Supercub and it will be red labeled to you the next day from any of several vendors... Any spare EX CC struts on the shelf in Yakima? I honestly don't know, but these type of questions would be at the top of the stack for me...

    Are you a person who enjoys tinkering, or do you just want to build a 'known' project and go fly? As someone else pointed out, there is really, really little you can do to an EX CC to tailor it to your personality... That might be really good, or it might be really bad... Even if you're not a good tinkerer, the CC is going to go together just fine. But if you are a really good tinkerer, the other routes will provide you with less constraints.

    As far as spending a $100k on any of these goes.... return on your investment in an EX is going to be hugely determined by the quality of your build. Barnstormers routinely has RV's that are just cr@p and their prices reflect that, conversely its not too uncommon to see RV's of the same model commanding top dollar, and getting it. Nearest I can tell most of the Cub Clones seem to tell the same story.

    Incidentally, I was stuck on this same question a year or so ago. I think they both have ugly cowls, and really like most of what a stock supercub is. For me it made most sense to build more of a cub clone than either of these kits really offered yet still be able to take advantage of some of the freedoms the EX ticket offers.

    Take care, Rob

  11. #11
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    19,896
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ted, I find your experience with Mark Erickson, owner of Dakota Cub to be unfortunate. I have known Mark for many years and have always found him passionate about his products be it a part or complete airplane. You might give him a second chance as mentioned in the other thread. His kit is made up of parts certified and tested to Part 23 standards and will interchange with most any PA18 out there. He holds multiple STCs, PMAs and the Type Certificate for the Super 18. Great guy to talk to and learn from.
    I got a chance to look your SQ2 over at Oshkosh, wish I could have met you as well, looked like an awesome machine. I saw you had a pod and after some research I see you build them and was curious about features cost etc. http://www.eaerofab.com/ Anyway, hope to run into you somewhere and talk Cubs.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  12. #12
    tedwaltman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Regarding the cowl on the SQ-2, Backcountry Super Cubs is working on a new, more traditional, design. Nonetheless, that is the beauty of experimental--if you don't like it then get out your fiberglass supplies and make one you do like. But, if you just want a "put it together without thought kit," or certainly a kit without adding any personal touches, then maybe the CC kit is for you.

    Off topic a bit, but mine weighs in at 1300, Engine is O-375 at 205 Hp from Aero Sport Power, Prop is constant speed Whirlwind Aviation model 210 out of Ohio. Power off stall is 28 to 30 (still experimenting with this area). Cruise with 35" Bushwheels is 75 to 85 mph at a reasonable power setting permitting 8.2 or so gph. Gross is 2200 lbs; 68 gallons fuel capacity with two 10g aux tanks. More questions: email me ted@eaerofab.com or tedwaltman@gmail.com

    Thanks!
    Likes Jeff S liked this post

  13. #13
    tedwaltman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Indeed, perhaps the Dakota 18 and Mark are both great. But I had to make a decision at the time with the information I had. No offense to Mark. Everyone, as said, deserves a 2nd chance.

    I do have a new company working on a 94" cargo pod, 200 lb+ capacity, with a 41" side door. I will have more information on the company website and here in a new thread in a few weeks. We have been working on a removable fuel pod for this cargo pod whereby one can have their cake and eat it too. All cargo, or cargo + fuel--all without having to swap pods or even drop the pod off of the airframe. While initially designed for the Backcountry line of experimental cubs, our pod molds have been created in a manner which permits us to tailor both width and bottom profile to fit other cubs as well. Stay tuned please...

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    sioux lookout
    Posts
    546
    Post Thanks / Like
    my 12 is 1236, 0360 catto prop 31"BW 48gal tanks. no slats. if i wanted to lighten it up i could lose 30-35lbs pretty easy as it has a full alum int and full metal belly plus i insulated the boot cowl and fire wall

  15. #15
    tedwaltman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not sure where I'd lighten mine up. Maybe take out the heated seat elements <grin--yes...for the wife>. Maybe use zip-ties rather than Adel clamps <g>. Take off the slats--no. Put on small tires (not going to happen). Take out the aux tanks--no. Sigh...

  16. #16
    574cub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Eagle River AK
    Posts
    149
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sorry I wasn't trying to jump off topic. I'm a long ways off from building but I figured some real world numbers would help picking one kit from another. The company's give you there numbers but there trying to sell you there kit to. With real numbers with the mods on there gives me an idea of what I would be looking at when I build. Thanks for the information.
    Last edited by 574cub; 08-20-2014 at 06:28 AM.

  17. #17
    Barnstormer
    Guest
    My SQ-2 weighs 1,203 lbs. 205+ hp O-375. 35" Bushwheels. Slats. Roll Spoilers. Double Slotted Fowler Flaps. Whirlwind Aviation 200A STOL constant speed propellor. 48 gal tanks.

  18. #18
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    Phil, is your cruise speed about the same as ted's? His seems slow to me. But, perhaps it is the big tires, since mine is 20 mph faster on floats at the same fuel flow? Or, can the slats be that draggy?
    N1PA

  19. #19
    Barnstormer
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Phil, is your cruise speed about the same as ted's? His seems slow to me. But, perhaps it is the big tires, since mine is 20 mph faster on floats at the same fuel flow? Or, can the slats be that draggy?
    20.5/2320 gets me 90mph
    22/2400 gets me 93mph

    Flying locally I'm usually 19.5/2320 and going 87mph

    Being a mostly lower 48 pilot I've never felt the need to exact calculate fuel burn, there is almost always a fuel stop close enough before I run out (or need to pee). For multi-day Idaho backcountry adventures I carry three 5 gallon fuel bags (plus a nozzle).
    http://www.airframesalaska.com/product-p/fuelbag.htm
    http://www.airframesalaska.com/produ...elbagvalve.htm

    I was first introduced to them bringing the SQ-2 down from Alaska.

    For trips I plan for a 10 gph burn at 85mph. Always do better then that in both cases, but that gives me a decent safety margin with both time and fuel.

    Changing from Skip Stewart's old Whirlwind prop (used while my new one was being built) to the Whirlwind STOL prop brought the cylinder head temps down 10 degrees. I just completed a Conditional Inspection and found one mag timed to 28 and the other to 30. I brought the 30 to 28 and the CHT's have dropped an additional 4 degrees. Before this she cruised in the low 400's so I didn't feel good leaning the mixture (and she hates LOP), now it's in the high 370's to low 380's so I will be able to lean her just a bit while staying under 400.

    I've been told that 31's gain back a significant amount of speed, but I love the 35's and just am not in that big of a hurry when flying the SQ-2.

    BTW, the air intake is a custom design, that is not how they look from the factory. Speaking of cowls, I love the look of the SQ-2's, but more importantly the visibility in flight - or rather its invisibility - a major bonus for off-airport ops. It did, however, take me a little time to get comfortable pinning her on wheel landings since I have no cowl to reference.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2550.jpg 
Views:	303 
Size:	269.0 KB 
ID:	16798

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,429
    Post Thanks / Like
    I've looked carefully at both the Carbon Cub and Back Country Cubs SQ kits. I figure cost to complete will be equal. Utility of the airplanes is excellent for both. One may carry more stuff. That isn't important to many users. One may land shorter in contest conditions. That isn't very important to most users. To me the primary question comes down to two factors. Do you want a lightweight plane with a conventional wing or a heavier plane with slats? The more important thing in todays market is do you want light sport or not? The Carbon Cub is the clear winner for E-LSA pilots. In the standard E-AB category both planes have merit, as do the more accurate Cub clones.

  21. #21
    tedwaltman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    486
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are far more differences between the CC and the SQ-2 than simply slats. Fuselage tubing for one. Adjustable front seat; Fuselage side-load stiffener. Frankly, if you itemize the differences that are "under the covers" there is no comparison. Light sport might be a huge factor now, but if (when?) the FAA wakes up and changes the medical rules that will have a huge affect on the LSA market.
    Likes firefighter2143 liked this post

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,429
    Post Thanks / Like
    900# vs 1300#. I guess a guy has to decide what's important. No criticism intended. I struggle with it myself.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,102
    Post Thanks / Like
    I just returned from a hunt above the brooks range. I have a nice 160hp working cub and was able to fly in our camp and four people with just 5 loads. I was in the same camp several years ago with a pacer, could have done the same job as my cub with only one or two more loads. If you fly light and are a pilot that can hit your spot every time and roll it on with ease. Than a lighter plane is fine. If you are like me and don't always make the soft landing. You may need a plane that takes abuse. Add pulling gear in and out of the plane 4-8 times a day it is nice to have a big tough plane. You already have the best of all worlds!!!

    The margin of safety is in the stick controller not the plane.

    DENNY

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wanaka,NZ
    Posts
    366
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Crash View Post
    I think the break point will be if you believe in slats or not. The $$$ difference is made up in the fact that the Carbon Cub will sell for more at time of resale and may have a better following then an SQ2.

    Me personally, I don't trust Back Country Cubs to be around to support their product in the future. So far they have been Daytona Cub, Smith Cub, Turbine Cubs of Wyoming, and now Back Country Cubs. Even their models keep changing from SQ2 to outlaw I, II, III and IV then back SQ2, SQ3 etc. They can't seem to figure out what to call themselves or their products. They seem confused at best with no solid direction and even all the key players have changed. Not a company I'd drop $100K with.

    If I were looking at building up a Super Cub from a kit, it would either be from Cub Crafters or Dakota Cub. Both solid companies with consistent business histories.

    One other point..... hate the looks of the SQ2 front end. I has got to be one of the most un-attractive cowls ever developed. I know it's functional, but it's ugly!

    Just my opinion.

    Crash
    Very well summed up in my opinion.After my expensive disagreement with BCC I was supported very admirably by Jay at Javron cubs.I cannot say enough for Jay or his products.His new light wings are much lighter than BCC's wings were.The support and encouragement endless.Put any idea in Jays head and he will work on it.Have a chat to him,you will not be disappointed!

  25. #25
    5 Rivers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    162
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by supercub83a View Post
    There is already a thread with this exact topic, but it has been dead for some time and a lot has matured with both the SQ2 and the CC EX since that thread was started some years ago. Now that there are more of both out there I was wondering about the impressions/experiences people have had with each and how they stack up against each other.

    I'm I the market for a kit sometime in the next year or two. I currently own a PA-18 with 160hp and most mods. I do a lot of off airport and I'm looking for something that can do just as rough but get in and out of shorter places or the same places with greater margins of safety.
    I was not going to make a post on this thread but after re-reading it decided to.

    The number one thing I (as well as Wayne Mackey) tell people and stress is SAFETY. The SQ2 is simply one of the safest high performance experimental bush cub type aircraft on the market today. There has been NO lose of life to date in one of these aircraft. How about the CARBON CUB???? Lose of life....YES.

    As for as performance goes, there have been SQ aircraft built by some the most respected builders out there and also as a first build by the most novice builder. So yes there can be a varied degree of flat out performance.

    As for as Backcountry Suoercubs, there has been major changes in the organization this year. They have better product, service, and support. You are welcome to stop by Douglas, Wyoming, anytime.

    At the end of the day, get the airplane that will accomplish your personal needs the best.

    One last point, like MikeO has said before "just ask Crash, he knows".

    Cheers............
    Last edited by 5 Rivers; 08-22-2014 at 02:41 PM. Reason: typo

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,429
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Cub wing has been mighty popular for the past 75 years. To imply that it's dangerous is a bit of a stretch.

  27. #27
    RanchPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    367
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    The Cub wing has been mighty popular for the past 75 years. To imply that it's dangerous is a bit of a stretch.
    Any wing can be dangerous, depending on how it's used. I think it would be a bit of a stretch to imply that a safe wing can't be made safer (not that this is what you were saying but, frankly, I don't think that was what 5 Rivers was saying either).

    They've been saying for 75 years that the Cub is a plane that can just barely kill a guy. Based on my experience (which pales in comparison to people like Goza and Mackey), I firmly believe Wayne's slats help make that "just barely" a little smaller. Others' mileage may vary, but I know some good pilots who will swear that slats made the critical difference for them when the chips were down.

  28. #28
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    3,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    If I may, a slightly different perspective on "safe" wings. I think it's how close to the edge of the wing's capability that one flies, that determines safety, assuming the wing is predictable. I have the cuffed wing with VG's, and it is much more tolerant of sloppiness on my part than the stock wing is. If I fly it about the same as I would a stock wing, it definitely offers increased safety. But if I fly it on the edge of its performance envelope I'm asking for trouble - it may not stall abruptly, but it sure can run out of lift. In other words, both wings are safe, but one has a broader range of safe conditions.

    Kinda like as a "kid" when I bought my first 4WD pickup - promptly got it stuck, but in much softer terrain than the old 2WD would even have gotten close to.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,429
    Post Thanks / Like
    Serious questions.
    1) has anyone out there fitted slats to a Carbon Cub wing?
    2) has anyone out there fitted Keller flaps to a Carbon Cub wing?

    I know these applications aren't supported but this IS the experimental category.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why doesn't the Super 18, with slotted wing, ever come up in this type of conversation? Hardly ever a word spoken of that machine.

  31. #31
    brown bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    emporia ks
    Posts
    574
    Post Thanks / Like
    If there were more airplanes with slats there would be more old pilots!
    Doug

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    grand junction Colorado
    Posts
    235
    Post Thanks / Like
    Couple thought, I have been flying a CC for 5 years

    I think the slats are a great.
    I got to fly a plane with slates recently and I agree that they offer additional safety and margin on the edge.

    On the other side is the speed difference. The CC is noticeable faster, 110-115 mph on 7-8 gph with 29" tires. I know, i know none of us care about speed but there are days on a long trip with a 30 mph head wind that 80-90 Mph starts to seem mighty slow.

  33. #33
    RanchPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    367
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Misch View Post
    If I may, a slightly different perspective on "safe" wings. I think it's how close to the edge of the wing's capability that one flies, that determines safety, assuming the wing is predictable.
    I know what you mean, Gordon--I never got stuck until I got a 4 wheel drive, and the same is true with airplanes!

    I also think it makes sense to look at what happens after the stall occurs, and this is where the slats really shine, IMHO. We all know how gentle the break and stall is with a standard Cub wing but, at the same time, we've all heard too many stories of stall/spin fatalities in Cubs. Slats do make the stall even less severe on the front end (it's honestly hard to get an actual break with someone in the back seat--it's more like a perpetual mush, and you're also only going about 26 mph when it happens), but once the plane stalls I think they dramatically increase post-stall stability. In other words, with slats on, you're much more likely to be staring out the window at a mushing plane in a level attitude than watching the world go round in a sudden and unexpected spin.

    I aren't no engineer, and I'm not claiming that they make a Cub spin-proof. However, they do make the initial break much more gentle and, more importantly, they tend to make the plane mush straight ahead rather than letting a wing drop off into a spin. That's been my experience, anyway.

    I agree with Brown Bear--if there were more slats, I believe there would be more old pilots.

    Serious questions.
    1) has anyone out there fitted slats to a Carbon Cub wing?
    Stewart, I don't know if anybody has ever mounted them on a CC wing, but I've flown a Rans S-7 with slats and it's pretty darn impressive as long as you've got enough motor to pull them through the air at low speeds.

    On the other side is the speed difference. The CC is noticeable faster, 110-115 mph on 7-8 gph with 29" tires.
    The SQ I fly cruises between 95-100 with slats and 31" tires. It was 220 hp on the dyno (souped up O-360), and my fuel burn averages about 9 gph (I took on 35 gallons after my last 4 hours of flying).

  34. #34
    rtones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington/Alaska
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is a great thread. I've enjoyed reading all the comments and I think they both great airplanes. I've been lucky enough to fly more than one CubCrafter's Cub, an SQ-2, and Piper PA-18s. Personally I felt that the CC planes were the real showboats of the bunch, but I LOVED flying them. I think the CC Cubs are just wonderful flying machines. I've also put a CC cub through a decent amount of Idaho backcountry abuse, or at least as much as a pilot getting out and exploring could expect to encounter. I've landed it on gravel bars with big rocks, grassy slopes, and high ridges and it did the job admirably. I work in northwestern arctic in Alaska with a 206 part of the year landing on everything you can think of... Would a CC stand up to that kind of use and abuse every day?? I don't think so. But take a good look at how CC EX cubs are usually used... They are recreational planes. Yes they can take some abuse and rough conditions. You don't have to baby them, but then again they don't usually see those conditions every day.

    My experience with SQ-2 is much less, but I have been around one and flown PIC front and center. It's a wonderful machine too. Bringing it in at 28mph and dropping on marshmallow 35" bush wheels make the landing a non-event. Come land a 3600# C-206 with me on a 700ft gravel bar with 8" rocks in the rain and I'll show you what an eventful landing is...lol. The SQ-2 does have a pickup truck feel to it not like the CC. Using cars for comparison I had the impression I was driving a Land Rover with the CC EX... Extremely capable, comfortable and can hold it's own in the city and on rough roads, kind of the cadillac in the off airport environment. The SQ-2 felt like a rebuilt '70s Chevy or Ford (loyalists don't hate on me) with a lift, big tires, loud exhaust and that monster truck invincibility. You can just feel that it's capable of withstanding more abuse. Sure it was robust, sure it was fun to fly, but it wasn't exactly like the tight "finished" feel of the CC EX.

    I was very impressed with the slats. If you have a lot of time flying airplanes slow you WILL notice the difference.

    Honestly I wouldn't turn up my nose at either airplane. I'll drool over a nice CC EX just as much as an SQ-2 or some variation there-of. THEY ARE DIFFERENT AIRPLANES, both exceptional aircraft, one (CC EX) has a "finished" feel to it and the other (SQ-2) has more options and hence reflects the owners desires and ability and could be made to have that "finished" feel.

    Do I dare make the Apple vs Microsoft comparison?? Both computers/operating systems capable of outstanding things, but one has a closed loop of development hence a shinier (albeit less adjustable) product and better customer support?? Hope I didn't kick over a bee's nest...

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wanaka,NZ
    Posts
    366
    Post Thanks / Like
    My only suggestion,don't get bitten as I was,ask for the previous ten buyers name from each manufacturer and dis\cuss the pros and cons with them.Don't fall for the coloured brochures or the untried.My choice based on this would be javron or cubcrafters.

  36. #36
    spinner2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,772
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by rtones View Post
    I've landed it on gravel bars with big rocks, grassy slopes, and high ridges and it did the job admirably. I work in northwestern arctic in Alaska with a 206 part of the year landing on everything you can think of... Would a CC stand up to that kind of use and abuse every day?? I don't think so.
    thanks for the review. It is always interesting to read others experiences with different planes. I wonder though about the above comment. The CC EX has 3" extended PA18 gear and with tires like 31's there is no reason to think it won't hold up as well as a PA18 in the same circumstances. I have 31's on mine with a Baby Bushwheel and Pawnee tail spring. And in the last three years have a couple of thousand off airport landings with it and other than rock holes in the tail feathers it is none the worse for wear.

    I also have a C-T41B which came from Cessna with a 206 nose gear. Last summer I made one landing with it where a friend and I landed our Cubs on his ranch and got my teeth rattled. I wouldn't do that again in the Cessna. My point being that what seemed like a non-event in the Cub was terribly rough in the Cessna.

    The CC EX is as tough as any Cub. And in the opinion of those who've compared the fuselage of the CC to a PA18, stronger in that regard too. The big difference is that the top longerons on the CC replaces the turtle deck and puts bigger triangles between the upper and lower longerons.
    "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." Wyatt Earp

  37. #37
    Barnstormer
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rtones View Post
    ...Using cars for comparison I had the impression I was driving a Land Rover with the CC EX...
    I've only ridden in the back seat of a CC. Never flown one. But I can see where you might make this analogy. Although I'm not sure I'd want to sit in a fishing net 11 hours a day for six days. Might be fine, I just don't know. But I sat in my SQ-2 for 11 hours a day for six days. Zero pain or discomfort. Oregon Aero makes fantastic seats.

    Quote Originally Posted by rtones View Post
    The SQ-2 felt like a rebuilt '70s Chevy or Ford (loyalists don't hate on me) with a lift, big tires, loud exhaust and that monster truck invincibility
    I'll have to assume your knowledge of american trucks is stuck in the 1970's (Damn good time the 70's - at least until 1974, then things went to hell) You'd be correct to compare the SQ-2 to the Ford Raptor - a purpose built production desert racing truck born and breed in Baja. Every other 4x4 ever made would have parts flying off if they even attempted to keep up with a Raptor in a serious off-road environment. Oh yea, I drive a Raptor.

    Quote Originally Posted by rtones View Post
    Do I dare make the Apple vs Microsoft comparison??
    Nope. Like comparing Mercedes to Yugo. Although who knows what Yugo might have come up with if NATO hadn't bombed the factory.

  38. #38
    soyAnarchisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    579
    Post Thanks / Like
    Great thread, thanks guys!

  39. #39
    rtones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington/Alaska
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner2 View Post
    I also have a C-T41B which came from Cessna with a 206 nose gear. Last summer I made one landing with it where a friend and I landed our Cubs on his ranch and got my teeth rattled. I wouldn't do that again in the Cessna. My point being that what seemed like a non-event in the Cub was terribly rough in the Cessna.

    The CC EX is as tough as any Cub. And in the opinion of those who've compared the fuselage of the CC to a PA18, stronger in that regard too. The big difference is that the top longerons on the CC replaces the turtle deck and puts bigger triangles between the upper and lower longerons.
    That's great to hear that your plane has stood up to harsh operating conditions of the backcountry. I really do like the CubCrafters product. I've been seriously considering one for myself. They are really a joy to fly. I was kind of making a silly comparison of a supercub to one of the 206s I fly. But you hit the nail on the head that the weakpoint is the nose gear. We have oversized nose gear with an 8.50 up front with 29" tires on the mains. Makes for a nice setup, but we still baby that nose gear as much as possible. Where my head was going with my comparison was if a CC EX cub had to do the same work that we do side by side with a 206 I don't know that it would stand for it, but I can see that it's a silly comparison because they are very different airplanes. More than likely the cub could do the work with twice the trips and avoiding some of the rougher conditions that the extra weight of the 206 helps in.

    Strong airplanes can be bent, and less strong airplanes can do a lot of work by a talented pilot with wise judgement.

    At the end of the day it's usually the pilot that's the one responsible for bending an airplane. Know your limits and the airplane's limits and it will go far, do work, and last a long time.

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Pole AK
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks to everyone that replied. The wealth of opinions and information has been great. After this thread and after having talked to Jay at Javron I'm leaning towards his kit rather than the Carbon Cub or the SQ2.

    Reasons:
    I question the carbon cub's ability to withstand the abuse that my lack of good judgment and poor piloting skills inflict on an airplane! In all seriousness I haul some heavy loads out of short rough places too often and I'm not made of money so I need something durable.

    The SQ2 seems like a very strong plane, but stiffer/stronger doesn't always equate to better. Therefore, I think I want something closer to the original fuselage design with it's 60 years of improvements.

    This is what I'm thinking as of now:
    Javron regular width cub with all the strength modifications, extended baggage etc.
    Javron square wings with performance stol flaps and likely the backcountry cubs' leading edge slats.
    Oratex fabric
    Titan IOX-409
    IFR instruments (Garmin G3X or G500) and heated pitot tube. I know many would question this, but I've spent many nights sleeping in the baggage area of my cub due to bad weather. Those nights I dreamt of a Husky.... Sometimes a simple IFR capable airplane and pilot can get you home safely rather than another night out and about or scud running through mountains to try to get home.

    My goal is a plane that weighs in the same or less than my current cub, 1191 LBS, with much more horsepower and lift generation.

Similar Threads

  1. Mackey SQ2 for sale?
    By Scouter in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-01-2014, 10:21 PM
  2. Beware Goza & Mackey are loose in AK
    By mikeo in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-22-2010, 05:15 PM
  3. Mackey/SQ2 leading edge on a bowed tip?
    By av8ron in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-11-2008, 11:19 PM
  4. Mackey SQ2
    By PA18project in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 09:10 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •