Ran across this cubcrafters review on another site.....

[scott c]

What models have you had and own now?

First was EX-2 built by CC in 2014. Now have the EX-3 again built by CC.
I think they so impeccable work. They do push limits of design to increase performance. Every machine has its issues. I just spent a small fortune repairing a 185 that shouldnt have needed any work.
I think its the best mix of performance and compromise. That wing has never presented any surprises.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

[scott c]

First was EX-2 built by CC in 2014. Now have the EX-3 again built by CC.
I think they so impeccable work. They do push limits of design to increase performance. Every machine has its issues. I just spent a small fortune repairing a 185 that shouldnt have needed any work.
I think its the best mix of performance and compromise. That wing has never presented any surprises.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

Thank you with help pointing out potential maintenance items.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

[mvivion]

I think Mtns2skies flew the CC11-100, and he was involved to some level in production at CC, so I can't say what he flew beyond the SC2, maybe he will tell us.

I'm just a guy that has a clapped out 182B but is working hard to save money for something better in 1-2 years. Hangar at Merrill. I read POA sometimes but I read here more. I reckon i can budget a quarter to 1/3 million for something close to my dream aircraft when the time comes so I'm just researching the purchase. Carbon Cub FX3, maule, scout, husky, even a 180 or regular PA18 or R44 are on the table. Some other experimentals beside the FX3 sounds nice but I'm not interested in building. Really the FX3 is what I'm leaning towards on paper because it seems to check the right boxes but I can't know until I fly it, and even then you don't find out about things like leaks until you already have it. Most of my coworkers gravitate to the backcountry cub series SQ2/rev2/3 etc, only know of one with a CC, but again they have the resources to build the kits.

I've not been real happy about the constant barrage of 60 year old airplane maintenance problems on the present bird, plus it is not the best for Alaska adventuring, despite having sportsman STOL, 850x6 all around, and a binder full of other STCs. Thoughts of corrosion enter my mind anytime I get into moderate turb. I have taken it a bit off airport, but only to mud flats and the usual spots on Kinik gravel and am starting to understand its limitations for that. I even crunched a main on some big rocks, but luckily rejected the landing and limped home uneventfully on a sheared bolt. Yes, airline type and I know that's bad on here but I came from GA a few decades ago. Haven't had the money until now. Trying to learn. I maintain my CFI and earned my Commercial Helicopter rating at Merrill this year on top of the usual airline certs.

My plan is to fly everything in person at a dealer before making a decision and really get a lot of instruction in type before flying on my own. I flew a Maule M5-235 a few weeks ago, but the limited payload on Maules bothers me (considering size of the airplane and fuel burn) and I have to follow the rules. It was a lot of fun though. I'm not going to travel the country for airplane demos until covid hopefully goes away, so in the meantime I try to learn on the internet while I sit in international hotel jails at work for days at a time, trying to avoid 14 day quarantines. Thankful to still have a good job unlike so many friends.

This is probably more than anyone ever wanted to know, but since you asked, you know how airline pilots are! We never miss an opportunity to talk about ourselves (and are cheap)! Thanks for the help. I'm not a real "airline pilot" to most people either, but close enough for discussion's sake I guess.

To summarize, just the usual "more money than sense / skill" new airplane shopper!

Think very carefully, and do some research before considering a helicopter for recreational use in Alaska. Helicopters are prohibited except for special use permitted commercial ops on federal lands in Alaska, of which there is a lot. On the other hand, there are very few restrictions on where you can land a fixed wing aircraft on federal lands in Alaska.

MTV

[Narwhal]

Thanks MTV! Yeah, helos, while fun, are just too expensive in addition to having the downsides you mention. I am leaning toward a Super Cub (or a newer build super cub copy). I don't think I could stomach the 2200 hour Robinson airframe TBO depreciation. Plus my hangar neighbors would hate me. I really want an FX3 and have the money, I'm very close to ordering one; I'm going to do my damndest not to be the stereotypical idiot that balls up the overpriced new hotrod though. A week of tacero, personal instruction, and limited off airport ops while I learn to fly the thing for the first 100 hours.

[G44]

Thanks MTV! Yeah, helos, while fun, are just too expensive in addition to having the downsides you mention. I am leaning toward a Super Cub (or a newer build super cub copy). I don't think I could stomach the 2200 hour Robinson airframe TBO depreciation. Plus my hangar neighbors would hate me. I really want an FX3 and have the money, I'm very close to ordering one; I'm going to do my damndest not to be the stereotypical idiot that balls up the overpriced new hotrod though. A week of tacero, personal instruction, and limited off airport ops while I learn to fly the thing for the first 100 hours.

Are you going to order a flying one or kit?

Kurt

[Narwhal]

Are you going to order a flying one or kit?

Kurt

I'd be getting an FX3, which is the experimental builder-assist constructed at their factory.

[JohnnyR]

And, quite a few aviation communities ban helicopters, as does ours near Kenai.

Thanks MTV! Yeah, helos, while fun, are just too expensive in addition to having the downsides you mention. I am leaning toward a Super Cub (or a newer build super cub copy). I don't think I could stomach the 2200 hour Robinson airframe TBO depreciation. Plus my hangar neighbors would hate me. I really want an FX3 and have the money, I'm very close to ordering one; I'm going to do my damndest not to be the stereotypical idiot that balls up the overpriced new hotrod though. A week of tacero, personal instruction, and limited off airport ops while I learn to fly the thing for the first 100 hours.

[wyatterup]

I’m glad I have friends with helicopters.

[GreggB]

And, quite a few aviation communities ban helicopters, as does ours near Kenai.

I didn't know that, that is funny. No one likes the helicopters unless it is their helicopter.

[StuBob]

I didn't know that, that is funny. No one likes the helicopters unless it is their helicopter.

They’re like lawyers. You hate them till you need one, then you want a really good one.

And even when you need one, they still have obnoxious personalities and make a lot of noise!

[skywagon8a]

They’re like lawyers. You hate them till you need one, then you want a really good one.

And even when you need one, they still have obnoxious personalities and make a lot of noise!

And throw dirt and stones all over the place.

[JohnnyR]

And throw dirt and stones all over the place.

Just get an old Vampire - it won’t be banned for rotor slap, and you can have just as much fun throwing stuff at your neighbors.

>

[G44]

Narwhal,

Have you considered a Husky? Scout? If not, why not?

Kurt

[skywagon8a]

Looks like an old oil & Stone surface. Not really designed for a low mounted blow torch. Looks like the Vampire's liability insurance premium will be going up.

[Narwhal]

Narwhal,

Have you considered a Husky? Scout? If not, why not?

Kurt

Yes, definitely considered them and would probably be happy with one of those two too, however:

1) I have a friend with an FX2 who persuaded me, and seeing their airplane planted the seed all along.

2) CC FX3 = approximately half the published takeoff and landing distances (90/155ft) of the Husky A1C (200/350ft) and Denali Scout (300/300) but the same (within 5 mph) cruise speed (135 vs. 136 vs. 140 mph). Again, published numbers, I have no doubt that a good Husky or Scout pilot will put me to shame being the unskilled hack that I am. Again, I know these are all "published specs" and not necessarily apples to apples. I've flown enough 172's where the POH said to expect 110 knot cruise when 95 knots was the reality to know how that goes. The Scout/husky numbers didn't seem like a big enough improvement over my C182B, which can doo about 500ft/500ft/135 mph even in my unskilled hands.

3) Useful load. ~750 lbs for Scout and Husky, close to 900 lbs for the FX3 (and less of that weight needs to be fuel due to fuel injection, electronic ignition, potential LOP operations). Add to that 10% lighter empty weights for an FX3, which is helpful in off-airport (and I would eventually like to setup for skis).

4) CC FX3 = experimental. Maintenance and modification flexibility. What if I want a new piece of avionics or change something about the airframe? What if some kind of new engine tech emerges and I want to try it out? Probably a lot easier to address that in an experimental. Suspension options are also a big factor here, I wasn't thrilled about the prospect of spring gear on the Scout and the Husky has a proprietary system.

5) CC FX3 = Resale. I feel like it would be very easy to sell the machine if I needed to, and not lose too much money, as long as it is well taken care of. I could be mistaken, but I feel like the CC products hold a stronger market position than the Aviat and AC.

6) It was relatively easy for me to find PA-18's to rent and try out and not possible for Huskys or Scouts. I know a CC doesn't fly the same as a PA18, but odds are if you see a hot 45 year old, you're also going to like her 20 year old daughter.

7) Training availability. I like the fact that TacAero has a dedicated training program for the airplane. I realize it's probably possible to get great training in the other two birds, but it doesn't seem as easy to come by.

Did CC marketing play a part? Yes, probably, I'm just as susceptible too that form of persuasion as everyone else. It just doesn't seem like Aviat and American Champion are making a big effort at that.

[G44]

My Husky, full IFR has almost 900 pounds useful load, cruises pretty darn fast, gets incredible miles per gallon which means less fuel required for the mission and has enough structure around the cockpit to actually give the occupants a better chance of survival than some of the other “lightweight” airplanes in the event of a crash, has a very solid feel and is very well built. Resale market is very strong. All in all I am very happy with it. There are many good choices of various makes of airplanes available and that is a great thing. I encourage you to try to find someone with a Husky and go fly one, you may be pleasantly surprised or you may not but at least you will be able to make a better informed decision. Do the same with the Scout if possible.

Kurt

[DJ]

Cubcrafters publishes a lot of numbers at "ideal" weight. Might get a better idea by verifying performance with similar loads across the board.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using SuperCub.Org mobile app

[8GCBC]

Luckily helicopters are welcomed in my AOR. In fact, the authorities and land owners like to go for a ride now and then. I was featured in the local digital newspaper very favorably. Generally, it’s a paradise.

Note: I’m also completely happy and amazed at the level of RHC support I have received. The Robinson family and employees are super nice. When I go to the factory (or call, email) they treat me like an old friend!

"To fly is heavenly, to hover is divine..."

[mam90]

If I could only keep one rating, it would be helo. More fun for me than any of the others, and you don’t have to argue about the best wing/slat/flap/prop/engine/gear/tire/brake/technique for taking off and landing short.

[G44]

If I could only keep one rating, it would be helo. More fun for me than any of the others, and you don’t have to argue about the best wing/slat/flap/prop/engine/gear/tire/brake/technique for taking off and landing short.

Too bad Mikey sold all his toy’s, eh Mark?

Kurt

[mam90]

Too bad Mikey sold all his toy’s, eh Mark?

Kurt

I know, right?? Having a Long Ranger to use every time I passed through was kinda nice! I’ve got one to use down here but the fishing’s not as good!

[Narwhal]

If I could only keep one rating, it would be helo. More fun for me than any of the others, and you don’t have to argue about the best wing/slat/flap/prop/engine/gear/tire/brake/technique for taking off and landing short.

True, and if I were actually wealthy (or was qualified to do my own maintenance) I would get one, but alas I am not. Maintenance bills on a cessna are bad enough. I don't think I was particularly good at flying helos when I got my rating, although I did have a lot of fun doing it and managed to go straight to the commercial add-on after about 9 months and 60 hours (the helo would be unavailable for a month periodically when they wanted to use it for tours). My instructors kept saying that I "fly like a fixed wing pilot" and I don't think they meant that as a compliment!

[mam90]

True, and if I were actually wealthy I would get one, but alas I am not. Maintenance bills on a cessna are bad enough. I don't think I was particularly good at flying helos when I got my rating, although I did have a lot of fun doing it and managed to go straight to the commercial add-on after about 9 months and 60 hours (the helo would be unavailable for a month periodically when they wanted to use it for tours). My instructors kept saying that I "fly like a fixed wing pilot" and I don't think they meant that as a compliment!

Ha ha! The modesty you’ve exhibited throughout this thread is refreshing, but likely a set up! My experience has been that guys like you are usually pretty good sticks!. I’ll look you up when I get up there this summer.....