Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 69 of 69

Thread: What makes a Carbon Cub so much lighter than a Supercub?

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Illinois & Wisconsin
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Kurt; what were the weights, CG, and gross? What model?

  2. #42
    DJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bolivia
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bill's Cub is awesome! Here is another data point.

    Spring 2018 I bumped into the prototype/demo FX3. We had just bought a 2011 Dan Dufault built Cub for Bolivia, for under 100K. The demo pilot said the first question is usually the price (answer $320K+), and bragged about 186 HP. I think it was 1133lbs ?? on 29s. I did a quick calculation for the Hartzell prop and 29s vs what we have and the final numbers were within 10 lbs. And with 9.5 pistons the O-360 makes about 186 HP as well. Its a fully equipped work Cub with basically no high dollar weight saving features....for 220K less. Thanks Dan!

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Psalms 19:1

  3. #43
    G44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    545
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Heinrich View Post
    Kurt; what were the weights, CG, and gross? What model?
    2015 A-1C, 1,371 WITH a pod and 26” Good years. Gross is 2,250, I forgot CG but remember when we ran some loading scenario’s we were always well within limits, no loading issues. 879 pound legal useful load isn't bad in my humble opinion.

    Kurt
    Likes Paul Heinrich liked this post

  4. #44
    algonquin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Seldovia,Ak
    Posts
    1,016
    Post Thanks / Like
    Denny, I wouldn’t recommend a Pacer to any new tailwheel pilot for flying in the bush in Alaska. First they aren’t all that strong of an airframe. Also they are very prone for ground handling accidents. The ones I’ve found the worse are the real high HP one’s. I’ve owned two and flew a few others, lost the engine at 300’ in BC on a 160hp one, landed on the tundra and it came apart. Seen many do the same thing. They are a good A to B airplane but tough bush plane not at all.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska Carefree, AZ
    Posts
    260
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by G44 View Post
    Ummmm, we just weighed my brothers Husky, it was 2 pounds lighter than what the equipment list showed. Thats pretty darn close if you ask me.

    Kurt
    Kurt,
    What I mean is look at the factory claimed empty weight specs on Husky empty weight from factory on their spec page. Not anywhere near what the empty weight of a real airplane is today. Most are at least 1350lbs or more if basically equipped. Go to 200 HP version and will be well over 1450lb range. Specs are like 1150lb range if I recall? That was back in A1 days.
    John

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    357
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by algonquin View Post
    Denny, I wouldn’t recommend a Pacer to any new tailwheel pilot for flying in the bush in Alaska. First they aren’t all that strong of an airframe. Also they are very prone for ground handling accidents. The ones I’ve found the worse are the real high HP one’s. I’ve owned two and flew a few others, lost the engine at 300’ in BC on a 160hp one, landed on the tundra and it came apart. Seen many do the same thing. They are a good A to B airplane but tough bush plane not at all.
    I don’t think that’s the Pacer’s fault, not sure many planes would survive that. We do plenty of off airport flying with Pacers here and they seem to be just as strong as cubs.

  7. #47
    Crash, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    56
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yeah, not the Pacer's fault they get ground looped a lot, just lazy feet. For a new bush pilot Denny's right, the Pacer is pretty great. They're cheap so you can bend one up and you're not out a ton of money, they are tricky to fly so if you can fly a Pacer you can fly just about anything, and payload per dollar they can't be beat.

  8. #48
    G44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    545
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by john schwamm View Post
    Kurt,
    What I mean is look at the factory claimed empty weight specs on Husky empty weight from factory on their spec page. Not anywhere near what the empty weight of a real airplane is today. Most are at least 1350lbs or more if basically equipped. Go to 200 HP version and will be well over 1450lb range. Specs are like 1150lb range if I recall? That was back in A1 days.
    John
    Ahhh, ok John, I understand your point now. I agree.

    Kurt

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    596
    Post Thanks / Like
    Kind of like car and truck commercials, showing “prices starting at_____”..... Then you find out they have one car with no options at that price.
    Likes G44, mike mcs repair liked this post

  10. #50
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    19,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by algonquin View Post
    Denny, I wouldn’t recommend a Pacer to any new tailwheel pilot for flying in the bush in Alaska. First they aren’t all that strong of an airframe. Also they are very prone for ground handling accidents. The ones I’ve found the worse are the real high HP one’s. I’ve owned two and flew a few others, lost the engine at 300’ in BC on a 160hp one, landed on the tundra and it came apart. Seen many do the same thing. They are a good A to B airplane but tough bush plane not at all.
    Why do you say they are aren't all that strong?
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  11. #51
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    19,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DJ View Post
    Bill's Cub is awesome! Here is another data point.

    Spring 2018 I bumped into the prototype/demo FX3. We had just bought a 2011 Dan Dufault built Cub for Bolivia, for under 100K. The demo pilot said the first question is usually the price (answer $320K+), and bragged about 186 HP. I think it was 1133lbs ?? on 29s. I did a quick calculation for the Hartzell prop and 29s vs what we have and the final numbers were within 10 lbs. And with 9.5 pistons the O-360 makes about 186 HP as well. Its a fully equipped work Cub with basically no high dollar weight saving features....for 220K less. Thanks Dan!

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    I can see the logic both ways. Had a customer buy a new Husky back in 1998. All the local airport bums laughed at him for what he spent. I told them it came in and only took general maintenance, no surprises. People with the money don't want to be bothered with down time when stuff breaks. I have flown lots of hot rod Super Cubs but I still like the way the FX2 and 3 handles and performs the best. It all depends on the mission and the budget. Like my welder says "only cost twice as much to go first class".
    Steve Pierce

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

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,023
    Post Thanks / Like
    The question I was replying to was why are many of the FX cub crashing. I learned to fly in a Pacer, and yes it can be a handful once the tires touch the ground. However that will make you a better tailwheel pilot which is what you want when you are flying a plane worth over 200,000 dollars. I flew all over Alaska with mine on wheels and skis. They won't take the beating a Super Cub will but few planes can. With a Borer prop, set of bushwheels, and some skill they are very capable off airport planes.
    DENNY
    Likes Just call me Al, mike mcs repair liked this post

  13. #53
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,920
    Post Thanks / Like
    New airplanes ground looping? Wow! That's news. Look at Barnstormers or any of the other planes for sale sites, and you'll find a number of "practically new" five to ten year old airplanes with just a couple hundred hours on them, and sometimes far less.

    My theory is this: To the best of my knowledge, none of the manufacturers has a formal training program for checkouts, complete with syllabus and instructors. So, you buy your $300,000 airplane, and off you go. Maybe you get a quick demo ride, maybe an hour or so in the plane with a sales guy/gal.

    On the way home with the brand new airplane, you scare the living bejeesus out of yourself in a little gusty crosswind. By the time you're home with it (assuming the above referenced ground loop doesn't occur enroute) you're about half scared of the thing.

    After all, you have thirty hours of tailwheel time, or??? That Parker P-51 time Pete noted in another thread comes to mind.

    Anyway, so now you're a little reluctant to fly the new toy, unless it's a perfectly calm, cool day, and so forth. The less current you become, the less willing you are to jump in the thing. Maybe you do go out and come close to getting sideways....

    Then the plane sits in its hangar. For a long time. Eventually, it's for sale.

    This has been true with Husky aircraft for years, and it's true for some Cubs I've seen as well.

    It's tough to find GOOD, thorough tailwheel instruction these days. Has been for years. Want to know why? Liability.

    MTV
    Thanks Low Lead thanked for this post
    Likes 40m, mike mcs repair, daedgerton, DENNY liked this post

  14. #54
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    19,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think Cub Crafters has a pretty good training program through Tac Aero.
    Steve Pierce

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

  15. #55
    G44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    545
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    New airplanes ground looping? Wow! That's news. Look at Barnstormers or any of the other planes for sale sites, and you'll find a number of "practically new" five to ten year old airplanes with just a couple hundred hours on them, and sometimes far less.

    My theory is this: To the best of my knowledge, none of the manufacturers has a formal training program for checkouts, complete with syllabus and instructors. So, you buy your $300,000 airplane, and off you go. Maybe you get a quick demo ride, maybe an hour or so in the plane with a sales guy/gal.

    On the way home with the brand new airplane, you scare the living bejeesus out of yourself in a little gusty crosswind. By the time you're home with it (assuming the above referenced ground loop doesn't occur enroute) you're about half scared of the thing.

    After all, you have thirty hours of tailwheel time, or??? That Parker P-51 time Pete noted in another thread comes to mind.

    Anyway, so now you're a little reluctant to fly the new toy, unless it's a perfectly calm, cool day, and so forth. The less current you become, the less willing you are to jump in the thing. Maybe you do go out and come close to getting sideways....

    Then the plane sits in its hangar. For a long time. Eventually, it's for sale.

    This has been true with Husky aircraft for years, and it's true for some Cubs I've seen as well.

    It's tough to find GOOD, thorough tailwheel instruction these days. Has been for years. Want to know why? Liability.

    MTV
    And when advertised for sale the claim is perfect condition with impeccable maintenance then when reviewing the logs, you discover a 4 year old airplane had the original break in oil in it for almost a year and in the following 3 years it has only had 2 more oil changes on a 115 hour total time airplane. So what do you think the cam and other internals of the engine look like? Most don't realize or just flat out ignore there is a calendar time interval as well as tach time for oil changes. Acidic oil sitting in the engine for such a long time with nothing more than short hops every other month, not good. I have seen many almost new airplanes like this for sale. Change the oil often and fly often enough and long enough to get the oil temp up to help cook residual moisture out. I realize most here know this but you would be amazed how many owners AND mechanics gloss right over this.

    Kurt

    PS, sorry for the thread creep but I just had to vent.
    Likes DENNY liked this post

  16. #56
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    19,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by G44 View Post
    And when advertised for sale the claim is perfect condition with impeccable maintenance then when reviewing the logs, you discover a 4 year old airplane had the original break in oil in it for almost a year and in the following 3 years it has only had 2 more oil changes on a 115 hour total time airplane. So what do you think the cam and other internals of the engine look like? Most don't realize or just flat out ignore there is a calendar time interval as well as tach time for oil changes. Acidic oil sitting in the engine for such a long time with nothing more than short hops every other month, not good. I have seen many almost new airplanes like this for sale. Change the oil often and fly often enough and long enough to get the oil temp up to help cook residual moisture out. I realize most here know this but you would be amazed how many owners AND mechanics gloss right over this.

    Kurt

    PS, sorry for the thread creep but I just had to vent.
    My favorite is "well we run it up once a month". Looked a few Huskys for a friend recently and all of them were low time but had been wreck several times. The ones that went to the factory didn't bother me but the one that I found the NTSB report on but nothing in the logs other than recover kinda bothered me and then when the guy didn't know who i was he told the perspective buyer he would bring it to my shop but then someone talked to him and he changed his tune real fast. Funny cause I had two customers look at the same one. It is always buyer beware I guess. Educate yourself as well.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  17. #57
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,920
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    I think Cub Crafters has a pretty good training program through Tac Aero.
    Then, why are we discussing all the ground looped Carbon Cubs and FX/EX??

    MTV
    Likes DENNY liked this post

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Illinois & Wisconsin
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    I always wonder why low time airplanes have lower time propellers.
    Likes skywagon8a, alaskadrifter, Utah-Jay, windy liked this post

  19. #59
    Farmboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Glens Falls, NY
    Posts
    2,390
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    Then, why are we discussing all the ground looped Carbon Cubs and FX/EX??

    MTV
    Well, someone brought it up. And, you can lead a horse to water but can’t always make them drink.


    Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingers...

  20. #60
    aeroaddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    KEUL (Boise ID area)
    Posts
    73
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just my opinion from a low time CC EX-2 builder/owner/mechanic (I guess I'm rich but didn't know it until this thread ). I have never owned a SuperCub and would be considered a low total time pilot.

    Why are CC lighter; I obviously used this website for A LOT of information when building the EX-2. Obvious differences are carbon floor boards not plywood. The cowling is all carbon and extremely light. Side panels are also carbon. I'm sure there are other things but these were the obvious. With modern materials and engineering analysis tools, lighter weight does not equal a weaker structure. Not sticking up for CC, obviously time will tell on longevity.

    Ground Looping CC's; having almost no TW time I hired a local, highly recommend cub CFI and flew 15 hours with him. Knowing that you need to fly in conditions that aren't perfect, I have pushed myself to do pattern work in windy conditions. I kept track of crosswinds and would know what I can do, then look for calculated opportunities to expand my skills. I now have 111 hrs on the hobbs since becoming airworthy in Oct. Not bragging here, but I think you guys are correct about people buying planes and then have a bad experience. Trust me, I've had my white knuckle experience but came out a better TW pilot. Maybe it comes down to desire and drive to do the right thing.

    For me, living in Idaho as a recreational pilot that's learning to fly the back country airstrips, the plane has work very well.

    In some regards, CC has done a tremendous job on marketing and with all the UTube stuff, it now seems popular to have a 'cub' type plane.
    Last edited by aeroaddict; 07-31-2020 at 06:13 PM.
    Likes brown bear, Brandsman, Low Lead liked this post

  21. #61
    DJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bolivia
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pretty hard to own an airplane and not be in the top 10% of wealth in the world. Supposedly takes less than $100K net worth. As humans we all have a funny tendency to be jealous of the one guy above us and forget the 8 people below. The Carbon Cub guys can rest assured that if they offered to trade, even the hard core naysayers would convert Kudos to CC for building an awesome product so light without sacrificing features.
    The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Psalms 19:1
    Likes Steve Pierce, DENNY, jprax liked this post

  22. #62
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    19,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    Then, why are we discussing all the ground looped Carbon Cubs and FX/EX??

    MTV
    You can lead a horse to water... Can't teach an old dog... Yada yada yada
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  23. #63
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    19,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rich is a relative term, $20k Pacer, $50k Super Cub, $150k Super Cub, $150k Carbon Cub SS, $250k Carbon Cub FX2, $350k Carbon Cub FX3, $900k Bonanza, $1.5mil Air Tractor. Use to be happy when I could go to Walmart and buy what I needed, now I am glad I have money in the bank when all the bills are paid and looking forward to a few years from now when the house and hangar are paid for. I should have studied harder and chosen a different profession but I doubt I would like it as much. The grass is always greener on the other side.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes G44, Farmboy, skywagon8a, alaskadrifter, windy and 1 others liked this post

  24. #64
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    19,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aeroaddict View Post
    Just my opinion from a low time CC EX-2 builder/owner/mechanic (I guess I'm rich but didn't know it until this thread ). I have never owned a SuperCub and would be considered a low total time pilot.

    Why are CC lighter; I obviously used this website for A LOT of information when building the EX-2. Obvious differences are carbon floor boards not plywood. The cowling is all carbon and extremely light. Side panels are also carbon. I'm sure there are other things but these were the obvious. With modern materials and engineering analysis tools, lighter weight does not equal a weaker structure. Not sticking up for CC, obviously time will tell on longevity.

    Ground Looping CC's; having almost no TW time I hired a local, highly recommend cub CFI and flew 15 hours with him. Knowing that you need to fly in conditions that aren't perfect, I have pushed myself to do pattern work in windy conditions. I kept track of crosswinds and would know what I can do, then look for calculated opportunities to expand my skills. I now have 111 hrs on the hobbs since becoming airworthy in Oct. Not bragging here, but I think you guys are correct about people buying planes and then have a bad experience. Trust me, I've had my white knuckle experience but came out a better TW pilot. Maybe it comes down to desire and drive to do the right thing.

    For me, living in Idaho as a recreational pilot that's learning to fly the back country airstrips, the plane has work very well.

    In some regards, CC has done a tremendous job on marketing and with all the UTube stuff, it now seems popular to have a 'cub' type plane.
    Sounds like you have taken the time to hone your skills. I think the number one problem I see is the people want to be able to fly tail wheel and off airport but not willing to spend the time to get good at it. Have also seen a few that no matter how hard they tried they just can not master the tail wheel.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes DENNY, skywagon8a, TurboBeaver liked this post

  25. #65
    courierguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,598
    Post Thanks / Like
    When asked how much my experimental RANS S-7S costs, by non pilots, I tell them, "about what a new pickup costs." I've been using that benchmark for over 20 years and it's still accurate. Both pickups and kitplanes getting (relatively) more expensive all the time.
    Likes skywagon8a, 40m liked this post

  26. #66
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    19,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have used that analogy as well. When my daughters were in school their friends thought we were rich cause we had 2 airplanes. They didn't know I bought them salvage and hauled them home on a trailer. My Super Cub is way cheaper than a new Suburban and way more fun.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes 40m, flybynite liked this post

  27. #67
    courierguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,598
    Post Thanks / Like
    And way better resale value/appreciation.
    I never thought, years ago, it would piss me off, to be referred to as rich!
    Likes Steve Pierce liked this post

  28. #68

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    596
    Post Thanks / Like
    Besides my Cub, I have a Stinson that we’re rebuilding (80% done with 80% left to do). When people ask me why I have 2 airplanes, I tell them because I can’t afford 3...... I could never get back anywhere near what I have in either airplane, but you can’t put a price on what having them has meant to me.

  29. #69

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like
    When asked why I had more than one airplane, I asked her..."why do you have more than one pair of shoes?"

    "Because I need to be prepared for more than one occasion".



    "Exactly", I replied.
    Thanks Farmboy thanked for this post

Similar Threads

  1. Cigarette Lighter Adapter
    By Beach Bum in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-10-2013, 10:21 AM
  2. garmin cigarette lighter adapter
    By supilot in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-25-2005, 07:21 AM

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
  •