• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

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

You're new here. There are many more current and retired "airline types" here than you have imagined. They just don't wear their stripes on their sleeves.


I only wear my stripes when I need money.......even then I’m pretty good at hiding. Once that shutdown check is done I'm gone!LOL
 
Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of us, I just realize we don't have the best reputation when it comes to small airplane/backcountry stuff. I don't normally advertise it, I probably should've picked a different username.

It is what it is. We all bring something to the table. I bet you know more about cross country navigation and IFR flying than some.

Web
 
Here’s a Carbon Cub story, as told to me by the owner. He bought an SS from the factory. Loved it. Then his mechanic found corrosion in the frame. Lots of back and forth, during which time CC said it was the fault of the owner who, they alleged, got in the airplane with salty boots. Mechanics here said they believed water got into the frame through the screw holes that hold the floorboards. CC drills holes through the tubes where most others use welded tabs. After a lot of talking, CubCrafters did help him make it right. I don’t know if there was money involved or, if so, which way it went, but he has an airplane he’s satisfied with.

For Steve P and other experienced mechanics: are holes a source of problems, as compared to tabs?
 
For Steve P and other experienced mechanics: are holes a source of problems, as compared to tabs?

I see where they can be. There are a few holes holding the back floorboard in that usually do not come out. The ones that concern me are the ones on the bottom of the fuselage that hold the V shaped access panel on under the cockpit. The tube has basically a nut friction spun into the bottom tubes to hold the panel on. I have been squirting LPS3 into the holes every time I remove one. It is the V tubes between the longerons, under the cockpit.
 
I see where they can be. There are a few holes holding the back floorboard in that usually do not come out. The ones that concern me are the ones on the bottom of the fuselage that hold the V shaped access panel on under the cockpit. The tube has basically a nut friction spun into the bottom tubes to hold the panel on. I have been squirting LPS3 into the holes every time I remove one. It is the V tubes between the longerons, under the cockpit.

And the 12v plug is drilled through a tube under the panel too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
On my second CC. First one took my Wife and I from Alaska to Colorado, Yukon, Idaho, Utah etc. Landing in places that most will never see. We haven’t had to walk out yet. They build the best Cub.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
On my second CC. First one took my Wife and I from Alaska to Colorado, Yukon, Idaho, Utah etc. Landing in places that most will never see. We haven’t had to walk out yet. They build the best Cub.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

What models have you had and own now?
 
On my second CC. First one took my Wife and I from Alaska to Colorado, Yukon, Idaho, Utah etc. Landing in places that most will never see. We haven’t had to walk out yet. They build the best Cub.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
Well that settles it- can’t argue with that logic. Glad this issue has finally been put to rest...
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Narwhal,

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

Kurt
 
Last edited:
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,

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.
 
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
 
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
 
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..."
 
Last edited:
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. :)
 
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
 
Back
Top