• 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!

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

Why did Bonanzas kill doctors and Cirrus's fall out of the sky. I know of an X Cub that has been back to the factory 4 times with 4 different owners. I guess a lot of people can afford them but won't or can't take the time to learn to fly them. The NX Cubs are about to hit the market so we should see less carnage, maybe.
View attachment 50245
Like more nose gear damage with bent props when they get planted because the pilot didn't slow down to land?
 
I am sure they they can be landed at 100 on the last half of the runway just like the Cirrus they replaced their Bonanza with.
 
That prop is mighty close to the surface. Gonna be a LOT of prop damage if they actually take those things into the "back country", I'm guessing. Folks with one of these might want to consider strapping a spare prop on somewhere.....

MTV
 
I think Cubcrafters knows its market better than Boeing. They are doing a great job finding unique, boutique markets and filling them with quality products that have obvious appeal to its well-funded customers.

I say, “Well done. I wish I thought of doing that.”

I suspect some smart techie will set up a SC.org website for CC airplanes that is as robust and well-received as this one is, if it hasn’t already been done.
 
To each their own, but one thing to think about. When these rich guys bend these spendy toys, everyone else with a similar type plane gets to pay for their their play time with increased insurance premiums.
 
I think the insurance premiums are type specific. I have been fixing damaged Carbon Cubs for years and my premium on my Cub has been consistent but I might be wrong. I think it is all good, lots of trickle down engineering etc over the last 10 years.
 
And just think of all the American families that are directly funded or substantially supported by individuals and insurance companies that pay to fix or rebuild wrecked ragwing Ferraris.

As long as no one was injured, I imagine mechanics must smile whenever they hear of a CC, PA12, 14, or 18 ground-loop.

Steve, Mike, John; are your shops doing better business than before Cubcrafters started its own production line? How long is your current waiting list? Months or years?
 
I’ll just play devil’s advocate for a second.
I know of few names on social media that work their airplanes in the bush, such as Paul Claus. But as I live in the northeast, I probably can’t name more than 5 worldwide.

So of all you bushplane owners on SuperCub.org, how many of you are making a living working your bushplane? (A Cub, not beaver or otter). And working it like it’s been described, full of moose, supplies or similar on every trip in/out.

I love to fly and fly for the pleasure of it. I don’t own a carbon cub, Cirrus or a Bonanza. But I’d love to own any of them as they suit their missions well. I’m not in the 1%, 10%, or what ever financial segment is the percentage of the day. But neither are a large number of Carbon Cub owners. They may have worked very hard and been very successful in their careers, but most that I know are single plane owners. In comparison the husband and wife that had Piper fly a new 2020 M600 turboprop into the airport the other day because they want to upgrade from their Cirrus.... well, I’m sure their matching pants were advertised as “salmon” color, not a shade of pink.

And in terms of a sales market, I don’t see the Alaskan Bushpilot as being the segment for a builder to go after.

When I was young, I never understood why all these old guys drove around in hot rods. As I got older, I figured out that’s when they could finally afford to.

2.5 cents.
Pb


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
And just think of all the American families that are directly funded or substantially supported by individuals and insurance companies that pay to fix or rebuild wrecked ragwing Ferraris.

As long as no one was injured, I imagine mechanics must smile whenever they hear of a CC, PA12, 14, or 18 ground-loop.

Steve, Mike, John; are your shops doing better business than before Cubcrafters started its own production line? How long is your current waiting list? Months or years?

I have had more than I could do since I unloaded my tools in Graham Texas in February of 1997. Presently I would say 2 years before I could take on another project with my current project and the planes that I maintain. I have been pretty lucky.
 
Mike,
And Aviat on the Husky too, none weigh what they show in specs. Not even close.
John
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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".
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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 :p). 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:
Back
Top