Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 137

Thread: Cubcrafters Unveils New Carbon Cubs: EX-3 and FX-3

  1. #41
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,733
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubdriver2 View Post
    Marky, whats the wait if ordered today?

    Glenn
    Feb 2018 for the kit, 2019 for factory built


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #42
    CamTom12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubdriver2 View Post
    Does it get anywhere near redline, can you go fatter then 54?
    If you had a Catto traveling prop that gave you 130+ and a performance prop and both are light and a transport case, a 1500 mile trip would be close in time to either a Xcub or FX3 ? And when you got to the playground a half hour later you got your hotrod back.

    Glenn
    A ground adjustable might give you the same without the extra weight to carry around.

  3. #43
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RaisedByWolves View Post
    Feb 2018 for the kit, 2019 for factory built


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Agrees with what I was told by the Southeast dealer rep.
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God!"

  4. #44
    C130jake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubdriver2 View Post
    I still would rather have a 940lb Carbon Cub on 31s. Has anyone ever stuck a cruise Catto on one to see how fast it would cruise? Might just need 2 props for all missions?

    Glenn
    I have a 80x54 Catto. It goes 135mph at 2700. (14gal/hr @ 4500msl) I usually cruise around 95 at 5gal/hr when leaned out. With the Earth X my Gwt is 950#. (G3x 10”, extended baggage and fuel, lights, 8.5s, stock seats, 3” 18 gear,18 tail feathers. Takeoffs solo are around 60’ at 80F & 1000msl with full fuel (44gal)

    104mph 6gal/hr 2200rpm @2000msl in the photo.



    Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    Likes pzinck liked this post

  5. #45
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    I flew it. Had to remember how to use toe brakes and a constant speed. Leaps off the ground with two people and 1/2 fuel. Much more nimble on the roll rate. Stick is quite a bit longer. Just mushes a bit at 40 mph indicated. Like the overhead flap handle.

    Can’t quite wrap my head around the price though.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	35F04374-989D-4C5C-910D-8AF1964FAF24.jpeg 
Views:	304 
Size:	276.1 KB 
ID:	33838
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God!"

  6. #46
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God!"
    Likes OLDCROWE, Chicken Hawk liked this post

  7. #47
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,733
    Post Thanks / Like
    Do you fit in it better than a cub? more headroom for ya?

  8. #48
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RaisedByWolves View Post
    Do you fit in it better than a cub? more headroom for ya?
    Mucho mo betta!
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God!"
    Likes RaisedByWolves liked this post

  9. #49
    lvgbr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    91
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PIPER J5.5 View Post
    Patent infringement!
    Which Randolph colour is?
    Cruiser orange??

    Sent from my SM-G800H using SuperCub.Org mobile app

  10. #50
    AdirondackCub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Ballston Spa, NY
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like
    FX3 will be in Saratoga, NY. 5B2. Sat/Sun 12/2. & 12/3. Join us! Demo Flights gone WILD!


    Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org
    Mark Keneston
    Cub Crafters
    Northeast Reagion Sales
    Ballston Spa, NY
    Likes Joseph206 liked this post

  11. #51

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Homer, Alaska
    Posts
    559
    Post Thanks / Like
    I flew the FX3 a few weeks ago — the performance is amazing.
    Likes SJ liked this post

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    92
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeMandes View Post
    I flew the FX3 a few weeks ago — the performance is amazing.
    So George, do you think your Husky(s) will have a long term place in your fleet? Or, will the FX3 replace them?

    Joe

  13. #53
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,421
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jpwhitish View Post
    N363EX is a nicely loaded airplane (glass panel, Oregon Aero seats front & rear, suspension, tires, urethane paint). It is fairly typical for our buyers in terms of options.

    The Despicables are happy to provide real data whenever you like.
    Did you ever find out where the 1023 lb empty weight came from?
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Homer, Alaska
    Posts
    559
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by joemcd View Post
    So George, do you think your Husky(s) will have a long term place in your fleet? Or, will the FX3 replace them?

    Joe
    TBD. The FX3 is crazy fun to fly, goes faster and slower than a Husky, has amazing avionics, and is 200 pounds lighter than a light Husky. Did I say it was really fun to fly.

  15. #55

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    93
    Post Thanks / Like
    A lot of money to go a little faster than my Tcraft F21. 115 mph on wheels and 95 on floats. All at 6.5 gph. I will just wait for the lottery.

    Jim

  16. #56

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,403
    Post Thanks / Like
    The economics of Cubs sure is changing. This new Carbon Cub will add very expensive Cubs to the fleet. 15 years ago nobody would have believed the market could support Cubs in the $250-$300K price range. Now they're common. The question is how many can the market support. Apparently the answer is more.
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  17. #57
    jpwhitish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    Did you ever find out where the 1023 lb empty weight came from?
    Sorry, got distracted.

    We’ve finished four of the new airplanes so far, and the base weights range from 1,023 to 1,038 lbs. depending on paint and a handful of other choices. N363EX is wearing our Signature Plus paint scheme, which is heavier. Here is how the additional equipment on N363EX adds up:

    Extended range fuel tanks, +23.6 lb
    Extended Baggage Compartment, +8.5 lb
    Garmin G3X Glass Panel, +14.4 lb
    LED Lighting & Strobe, RH Landing Light & LEMO Headset Jacks, +1.9 lb
    Elevator Trim rear seat, +1.0
    26" Goodyear tires, +11.2 lb
    83" Hartzell prop upgrade (80" standard), +0.2 lb
    Seaplane Panel, +1.0 lb.
    Garmin Autopilot, +3.4 lb
    Oregon Aero Seats (F&R), +5.1 lb
    Odyssey Battery upgrade, +6.0 lb
    Halon Fire Extinguisher, +2.3 lb
    Optional vacuum pump drive on CC363i, +0.8 lb
    Headset Hooks, +0.1 lb

    The economics of Cubs sure is changing. This new Carbon Cub will add very expensive Cubs to the fleet. 15 years ago nobody would have believed the market could support Cubs in the $250-$300K price range. Now they're common. The question is how many can the market support. Apparently the answer is more.
    Unfortunately the economics of GA has changed. Cubs are not the only aircraft that have higher prices. We're proud of our continuing development and our workmanship, but we are always looking for ways improve efficiency and reduce costs. Today we track at 60ish airplanes each year, and in most industries, that's a custom shop.
    Last edited by jpwhitish; 12-01-2017 at 01:26 PM.
    Thanks Oz., OLDCROWE, Bill Rusk thanked for this post
    Likes mike mcs repair, Oz., 40m, SJ liked this post

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,403
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wasn't being critical. I admire you business model. I hope the V.3 knocks it outta the park!
    Likes 40m liked this post

  19. #59
    jpwhitish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    I wasn't being critical. I admire you business model. I hope the V.3 knocks it outta the park!
    No offense taken! We want to grow this community. Maybe we can attract more flyers with cool new airplanes.
    Likes stewartb liked this post

  20. #60

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    6,626
    Post Thanks / Like
    I only have three times around the patch (solo) in the CC. It is a real performer. If I had $300 grand and absolutely no other use for it I would buy one.

    But it is for fun, not work - and I promise you I have just as much fun in J-3s as I did that fine day with the CC. With my new stroker, I feel like I am going straight up!

    All Cubs are fun - lighter ones are more fun.
    Thanks yellowbird69 thanked for this post

  21. #61
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,421
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jpwhitish View Post
    Sorry,got distracted.
    Quote Originally Posted by jpwhitish View Post

    We’vefinished four of the new airplanes so far, and the base weights rangefrom 1,023 to 1,038 lbs. depending on paint and a handful of otherchoices. N363EX is wearing our Signature Plus paint scheme, which isheavier. Here is how the additional equipment on N363EX addsup:

    Extendedrange fuel tanks, +23.6 lb
    ExtendedBaggage Compartment, +8.5 lb
    GarminG3X Glass Panel, +14.4 lb
    LEDLighting & Strobe, RH Landing Light & LEMO Headset Jacks,+1.9 lb
    ElevatorTrim rear seat, +1.0
    26"Goodyear tires, +11.2 lb
    83"Hartzell prop upgrade (80" standard), +0.2 lb
    SeaplanePanel, +1.0 lb.
    GarminAutopilot, +3.4 lb
    OregonAero Seats (F&R), +5.1 lb
    OdysseyBattery upgrade, +6.0 lb
    HalonFire Extinguisher, +2.3 lb
    Optionalvacuum pump drive on CC363i, +0.8 lb
    HeadsetHooks, +0.1 lb

    I see on theFX-3 Configuration page that two 22 gallon wing tanks are standard.So are there also extended range tanks?


    It also states extended baggage is standard. Is there another option that adds the 8.5 lbs?


    I am surprisedthat the Garmin G3X Glass Panel adds 14.4 lbs over the World VFRpanel with the Garminaera™ 796, Trig TY91 VHF Radio - 2¼”, Trig TT21 Mode S XPDR -2¼”, Electronics Int’l CGR-30P Engine Monitor, PM3000R Intercom,Digital Tachometer, Digital Oil Pressure/Temp, Airspeed Indicator,Altimeter, Vertical Speed Indicator.I would think the glass would be lighter.


    I see this is standard: Light Weight LED Lighting & Strobe Packagew/ wig wag.
    Ididn't see an option but I take it the standard landing light is justin the left wing?


    Says electric elevator trim is standard in front and rear.


    What performance differences do you see between the 83” Trailblazer prop and the standard 80” prop?


    I couldn't find anything on the Seaplane panel, what is it?


    Does the Odyssey SBS-J16 battery mount under the seat like the smaller battery I see in the earlier Carbon Cubs? Were there issues with the standard battery starting the CC363i engine?


    Thanksfor answering my questions. Looks like Mike Sasser will have his RedFX-3 in Texas in a week or so and he has promised me a demo. Can'twait to check it out in person.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes ATXCubDriver liked this post

  22. #62
    Bill Rusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Spokane Felts Field, WA/Poplar Grove, (Chicago) IL
    Posts
    5,172
    Post Thanks / Like

    Extended range fuel tanks, +23.6 lb
    Extended Baggage Compartment, +8.5 lb
    Garmin G3X Glass Panel, +14.4 lb
    LED Lighting & Strobe, RH Landing Light & LEMO Headset Jacks, +1.9 lb
    Elevator Trim rear seat, +1.0
    26" Goodyear tires, +11.2 lb
    83" Hartzell prop upgrade (80" standard), +0.2 lb
    Seaplane Panel, +1.0 lb.
    Garmin Autopilot, +3.4 lb
    Oregon Aero Seats (F&R), +5.1 lb
    Odyssey Battery upgrade, +6.0 lb
    Halon Fire Extinguisher, +2.3 lb
    Optional vacuum pump drive on CC363i, +0.8 lb
    Headset Hooks, +0.1 lb


    This type of attention to exact weights just gives me the chills. I love it! Very nice!! Thanks for sharing the weight info. It is amazing how quickly it can add up and it is great to see folks starting to see how much it affects performance and feel. You guys are the tip of the spear, leading the way, and are doing a great job.

    Bill
    Very Blessed.

  23. #63
    Bearhawk Builder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In the woods
    Posts
    621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Configure page shows two 12 gallon tanks under standard features , 22 is under the upgrade line
    Extended baggage is also under upgrade line

  24. #64
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,421
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bearhawk Builder View Post
    Configure page shows two 12 gallon tanks under standard features , 22 is under the upgrade line
    Extended baggage is also under upgrade line
    Not according to the Configure Your Carbon Cub FX-3 page I found. http://cubcrafters.com/carboncub/fx3/configure
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  25. #65
    Bearhawk Builder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In the woods
    Posts
    621
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's the EX-3 configure page I was looking at. Not sure why they'd be different.

  26. #66
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    14,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------
    Likes Tim, ATXCubDriver liked this post

  27. #67

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska Carefree, AZ
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Finishing a light Husky for spring in Alaska, will be under 1200 lbs, will see how much under but hoping to hit 1175lbs with 29" Bushwheels, so only about 100 lbs more than the new FX3. Extended Cub gear/AOSS.

  28. #68
    springloaded's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    I got to spend a hr or so in the FX3 yesterday. Probably have about 2000hrs in CC last 4 years so I'm pretty proficient in one. This is a real nice bird. It is completely tricked out except for small brakes and little 29s�� Took me a little to get in tune with it,has a longer stick G series flaps and 150lbs heavier then my SS so muscle memory and feeling the plane was a little off on take off. Got take offs down to 100'+/- and landing under 150' with vertually no brakes. It's one of those things you just have to go fly to appreciate. What it lacks in STOL over the light SS i think it made up for in its speed,smooth and quiet performance for 95% of the cub drivers. It basically will T/O and land Short,fly slow,fly fast, burn 4gals hr goofing off locally or push it up to 9galshr and cruise 125+ listening to XM radio getting some where. Pretty Damn Nice Cub!! IMHO
    Chuck

  29. #69

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Homer, Alaska
    Posts
    559
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by john schwamm View Post
    Finishing a light Husky for spring in Alaska, will be under 1200 lbs, will see how much under but hoping to hit 1175lbs with 29" Bushwheels, so only about 100 lbs more than the new FX3. Extended Cub gear/AOSS.
    I just came in from flying a lightweight (1,315 or so pounds) Husky for a few hours around Moab in clear, cold conditions, with just me and 25 gallons of fuel. John, you may recall that five or ten years ago (gosh time flies) I worked on that lightweight 200 horsepower Husky project. I applaud your efforts, and it certainly will make a nice Husky, but it will never come close to the performance of the FX3. Weight is a big part of the equation for sure, but there are many design differences that just put the FX3 (and SS Carbon Cub) in a different performance class. Pains me to say that after 22 years of flying a Husky, but it is true.

    As to price, the FX3 like most all new planes is crazy expensive. Compared to a SS though, it kind of seems like a bargain for how much more there is (injected engine, Hartzell composite prop and other mods) for a pretty modest increase in price.

  30. #70
    spinner2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,720
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by springloaded View Post
    I got to spend a hr or so in the FX3 yesterday. Probably have about 2000hrs in CC last 4 years so I'm pretty proficient in one. This is a real nice bird. It is completely tricked out except for small brakes and little 29s�� Took me a little to get in tune with it,has a longer stick G series flaps and 150lbs heavier then my SS so muscle memory and feeling the plane was a little off on take off. Got take offs down to 100'+/- and landing under 150' with vertually no brakes. It's one of those things you just have to go fly to appreciate. What it lacks in STOL over the light SS i think it made up for in its speed,smooth and quiet performance for 95% of the cub drivers. It basically will T/O and land Short,fly slow,fly fast, burn 4gals hr goofing off locally or push it up to 9galshr and cruise 125+ listening to XM radio getting some where. Pretty Damn Nice Cub!! IMHO
    Chuck
    Chuck, that was a great video and review. The FX3 looks like a real winner. It looks to me like this version is going to be the XCub's biggest competitor.

    A couple of questions about flying the FX3 as compared to my EX, if you don't mind. At sealevel, in a no wind condition, what GPS ground speed are you seeing at touchdown in MPH?

    In my EX and the FX2 I flew, I use full nose-down trim for both landing and takeoff. For me that results in the shortest runs for both. Have you tried that? At one point it looked like I was see full up trim in the video.

    I also put in two notches of flaps before the take-off roll starts. That, along with the nose-down trim, pops the tail up once the roll starts and in a few seconds it is in the air.

    When I'm really wanting to get in and out quickly I start a count with 4-5 seconds being about as good as I can get for both. I also count when I'm watching a video to see how quickly things do or don't happen.
    "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." Wyatt Earp

  31. #71
    springloaded's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well I'm sure this will start a mess. I use almost full nose up trim TO and landing. I compete in a lot of STOL contest and Ive done ok. I've spent a ton hours trying everything .So here my theory and what works best for me. First why would you put nose down trim then force the plane to do completely opposite of what it's trimmed to do. You want it to go up and have it trimmed to go down so your forcing it off not letting it off. Now you put 2 notches of flaps in to take off so your inducing drag before you even get rolling. We're trying to get air speed to take off and you already have the brakes out. If the tail comes up easy you obviously are producing drag on the tail for it to come up easy. I want zero drag till I get going. On approach its a unnatural feeling to put flaps in and have to push the stick forward on approach and believe me your pushing on it. But as you get there your releasing pressure letting the plane go were you have it trimmed for then adding back pressure at the end then plane stands on it nose and you dissipate a lot of energy. I haven't found anyone to go out and try this that hasn't come back with considerable smaller TO and Landing distances. Throttle is altitude ,stick is airspeed I think people forget that a lot. It's all energy Management.
    I have never looked at airspeed or ground speed sorry it's strictly seat of the pants.
    My way for what ever it worth.
    chuck
    Last edited by springloaded; 12-01-2017 at 02:05 PM.
    Thanks Jonnyo thanked for this post
    Likes ATXCubDriver liked this post

  32. #72
    ATXCubDriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Steve Pierce;702168]


    I see on theFX-3 Configuration page that two 22 gallon wing tanks are standard.So are there also extended range tanks?

    EX-3 and FX-3 Don't have same order form so the options on a EX-3 are different than what is standard on the FX-3. We offer more configuration flexibility to the kit EX-3 builder than we do on the FX-3. This is due to production efficiencies needed on the FX-3

    It also states extended baggage is standard. Is there another option that adds the 8.5 lbs?
    Same as above. Extended is Standard on FX-3 but can be deleted on EX-3

    I am surprisedthat the Garmin G3X Glass Panel adds 14.4 lbs over the World VFRpanel with the Garminaera™ 796, Trig TY91 VHF Radio - 2¼”, Trig TT21 Mode S XPDR -2¼”, Electronics Int’l CGR-30P Engine Monitor, PM3000R Intercom,Digital Tachometer, Digital Oil Pressure/Temp, Airspeed Indicator,Altimeter, Vertical Speed Indicator.I would think the glass would be lighter. G3x Suite has several remote boxes when you add GTX345R, and all the other sensors, etc.

    I see this is standard: Light Weight LED Lighting & Strobe Packagew/ wig wag.
    Ididn't see an option but I take it the standard landing light is justin the left wing.
    Again a difference of Standard on FX-3 versus Option on EX-3

    Says electric elevator trim is standard in front and rear.
    Same as above.

    What performance differences do you see between the 83” Trailblazer prop and the standard 80” prop.
    Hard Data forthcoming on this. They are doing thrust test as we speak on my Red Demo with both props.

    I couldn't find anything on the Seaplane panel, what is it.
    It is the panel you see in the marketing material currently. Has a blank on the left side for float controller and has mechanical A/S and VSI indicators. A/P function is ran through G3x faceplate.

    Does the Odyssey SBS-J16 battery mount under the seat like the smaller battery I see in the earlier Carbon Cubs? Were there issues with the standard battery starting the CC363i engine?
    It mounts in same location. We haven't had one leaf the factory with anything other than the SBS-J16 in quite some time. With the Lightspeed ignition this thing starts immediately hot or cold.

    Thanksfor answering my questions. Looks like Mike Sasser will have his RedFX-3 in Texas in a week or so and he has promised me a demo. Can'twait to check it out in person.[/QUOTE
    With any luck I will be in your hood with it on the way home
    Mike Sasser/Boomerang Air
    mike@boomerangair.net

    OK,AR,TX,LA
    Thanks Bill Rusk thanked for this post
    Likes Steve Pierce liked this post

  33. #73
    ATXCubDriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like
    So here is my experience with Chuck's method. I was a middle of the trim indicator guy and was doing ok with my landings. Chuck and I visit about his technique so I go out and try it. At first very uncomfortable but what I did notice was that the AOA system agreed with it 100%. Chuck says he never looks at A/S and I believe that. If you are flying a G3x equipped Carbon Cub the AOA is in your ear telling you everything you need to know about what is happening with the airspeed. Chuck doesn't have AOA in his STOL CC bird but I would bet you $100 that if you were in the back seat of the FX-3 with him that the AOA was alive and chirping and was teetering on full tone at the bottom of his decent and touchdown. Perfect 3 point full stall landing out of energy and lift timed to touchdown equals the shortest rollout distant. It takes time to get used to this method but go out and climb up to a safe altitude and trim it like he is saying and let the airplane settle into a coordinated decent with power off and see what it does without you touching the stick. You will find it is a perfect decent non stalled profile.


    Quote Originally Posted by springloaded View Post
    Well I'm sure this will start a mess. I use almost full nose up trim TO and landing. I compete in a lot of STOL contest and Ive done ok. I've spent a ton hours trying everything .So here my theory and what works best for me. First why would you put nose down trim then force the plane to do completely opposite of what it's trimmed to do. You want it to go up and have it trimmed to go down so your forcing it off not letting it off. Now you put 2 notches of flaps in to take off so your inducing drag before you even get rolling. We're trying to get air speed to take off and you already have the brakes out. If the tail comes up easy you obviously are producing drag on the tail for it to come up easy. I want zero drag till I get going. On approach its a unnatural feeling to put flaps in and have to push the stick forward on approach and believe me your pushing on it. But as you get there your releasing pressure letting the plane go were you have it trimmed for then adding back pressure at the end then plane stands on it nose and you dissipate a lot of energy. I haven't found anyone to go out and try this that hasn't come back with considerable smaller TO and Landing distances. Throttle is altitude ,stick is airspeed I think people forget that a lot. It's all energy Management.
    I have never looked at airspeed or ground speed sorry it's strictly seat of the pants.
    My way for what ever it worth.
    chuck
    Mike Sasser/Boomerang Air
    mike@boomerangair.net

    OK,AR,TX,LA
    Thanks Jonnyo thanked for this post

  34. #74

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Canyon, tx
    Posts
    363
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by springloaded View Post
    Well I'm sure this will start a mess. I use almost full nose up trim TO and landing. I compete in a lot of STOL contest and Ive done ok. I've spent a ton hours trying everything .So here my theory and what works best for me. First why would you put nose down trim then force the plane to do completely opposite of what it's trimmed to do. You want it to go up and have it trimmed to go down so your forcing it off not letting it off. Now you put 2 notches of flaps in to take off so your inducing drag before you even get rolling. We're trying to get air speed to take off and you already have the brakes out. If the tail comes up easy you obviously are producing drag on the tail for it to come up easy. I want zero drag till I get going. On approach its a unnatural feeling to put flaps in and have to push the stick forward on approach and believe me your pushing on it. But as you get there your releasing pressure letting the plane go were you have it trimmed for then adding back pressure at the end then plane stands on it nose and you dissipate a lot of energy. I haven't found anyone to go out and try this that hasn't come back with considerable smaller TO and Landing distances. Throttle is altitude ,stick is airspeed I think people forget that a lot. It's all energy Management.
    I have never looked at airspeed or ground speed sorry it's strictly seat of the pants.
    My way for what ever it worth.
    chuck
    Chucks post is what’s great about this forum. Different techniques and theory’s then the thought process behind it. I’m ever curious and curiosity is what brings me back every day.......I skin the same cat a bit different. I almost always use a bunch of nose down trim for T/O and not as much for landing. I’m mostly concerned about protecting the tailwheel and the faster it’s flying the safer it is. It’s also easier for me stay in ground effect after mushing it off with nose down trim because that’s naturally the direction it’s wanting to go. Back to the original premise however, it’s always seemed plenty short for me in this configuration. I’m pretty hard headed (think round peg, square hole) but can’t wait to experiment a little more doing it the opposite way.
    Back to the FX.....neat plane and I’d take one in a second if I had Monopoly money but is it 200k better when you configure it like a lot of us do? 35s, belly pod and a bunch of heavy junk where the backseat use to live
    Likes ATXCubDriver, Eddie Foy liked this post

  35. #75

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska Carefree, AZ
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    George, I realize it will never be what the new FX3 is, Husky is just built a bit heavier than the CC airplanes. Will not perform like one, but to me is much more comfortable for longer trips. Did 3 in the last year back and forth from AZ to Anchorage, would not be as comfortable in a CC, maybe the new FX would be better as it is faster so less time. I have a supercub and the two Husky's, one that weighs 1309 and the lightweight that will be over 100 lbs less. Know the weight does make a big difference. Flying with guys with 200HP ones, they are about 150lbs heavier and just do not perform like a lightweight.
    The new FX sounds pretty cool and performs, most areas I go the extra 100' or so would not justify the added cost of the FX, but sure nice to have that performance. Wonder if CC changed the airfoil design to gain the speed?

    I like the projects and trying to reduce the weight is a fun challenge. HP on the Husky is well over 200 from the 0360, so HP is not all of it. Has to be some new wing design to gain the speed in FX, just not sure how they did it, but they did. Good for them. Aviat is behind the curve and has really not changed much in the past few years other than added weight rather than take it off. And no aerodynamic changes for added speed either, they are truly asleep in regard to improvements I feel are needed to stay up with the competition.
    John

  36. #76
    spinner2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,720
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by springloaded View Post
    Well I'm sure this will start a mess. I use almost full nose up trim TO and landing. I compete in a lot of STOL contest and Ive done ok. I've spent a ton hours trying everything .So here my theory and what works best for me. First why would you put nose down trim then force the plane to do completely opposite of what it's trimmed to do. You want it to go up and have it trimmed to go down so your forcing it off not letting it off. Now you put 2 notches of flaps in to take off so your inducing drag before you even get rolling. We're trying to get air speed to take off and you already have the brakes out. If the tail comes up easy you obviously are producing drag on the tail for it to come up easy. I want zero drag till I get going. On approach its a unnatural feeling to put flaps in and have to push the stick forward on approach and believe me your pushing on it. But as you get there your releasing pressure letting the plane go were you have it trimmed for then adding back pressure at the end then plane stands on it nose and you dissipate a lot of energy. I haven't found anyone to go out and try this that hasn't come back with considerable smaller TO and Landing distances. Throttle is altitude ,stick is airspeed I think people forget that a lot. It's all energy Management.
    I have never looked at airspeed or ground speed sorry it's strictly seat of the pants.
    My way for what ever it worth.
    chuck
    Interesting that we use a complete opposite trim position and each feel it works the best for short ops. I’ve experimented too with different techniques and full nose down trim is my choice. You’re right that adding flaps before starting the TO run adds drag. But it also helps raise the tail quicker. At least in my plane and usual CG. And when the tail is up the plane is ready to fly. Once in the air I’m quickly trimming for the neutral position. But I get in the air quicker this way.

    On landing I’m probably not pulling flaps as soon as you are because I’m not pushing forward stick much at first. And you’re right, as the plane slows and falls behind the curve, it requires back stick to keep the nose from pointing too far down. To me this seems very natural and once the mains touch I release stick pressure and stick it on for a wheel landing. Here’s a link to a real world landing of about 6 seconds last summer. https://youtu.be/XqA5kzzDXIc

    As I get close to the ground I’m always comparing GPS ground speed to airspeed. That tells me what the wind is doing and if I’m on target for touching when and where I want as well as how quickly I should stop with braking. I don’t like surprises. Especially where it really matters.
    "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." Wyatt Earp
    Likes KevinJ liked this post

  37. #77
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    I use the “Trust But Verify” method. I want a very slightly heavy to neutral stick. I crosscheck a/s to make the seat of my pants more comfortable. Old habits die hard.
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God!"
    Likes Bill Rusk liked this post

  38. #78
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    9,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    I only use seat of the pants but my hemorrhoids screw me up sometimes

    Glenn
    "Optimism is going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with you!"

  39. #79

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like
    K just had my demo flight in the FX3 very nice. Solid performance behaves well even for a novice like me. Only bummer is waiting a year + to get it.


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

  40. #80

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Homer, Alaska
    Posts
    559
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are a number of differences between the Carbon Cub SS, FX, and FX3, including the amount of flap travel and “big tail” vs standard. While many might not notice these differences, they do effect the plane’s behavior at min speed on approach.

    I only have one flight in the FX3, but here are some thoughts on the SS vs FX. By use of flaps and throttle, the SS and FX can be flown with almost no changes to trim during flight, for most of how we fly them. The SS with 31’s has trim set “neutral,” but even with 35’s, the FX requires some nose down trim. With standard FX flap travel, which is less than the SS, it is more work to fly the FX as slow as the SS, as the FX has less flap travel. We are thinking the big tail is requiring more nose down trim in the FX, but that is speculation.

    One obvious thing about the SS and FX compared to a Husky, is how little fuel the SS/FX use out just messing around.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-08-2013, 07:38 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-30-2009, 01:10 PM

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
  •