• 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!

Big News! CUBCRAFTERS DEBUTS NEW FLAGSHIP: XCub

On another note, as an instructor that gets asked to check folks out in their planes, (often with the - teach me how to achieve these numbers on landing), you do a disservice to the flying community publishing numbers without first qualifying them by weight.

I am fine with folks saying it will land in 170', but at least say at X weight.
Or at least add in an additional line for landing at Gross Weight.
You're right, let me see what I can do about that. Of course this is an industry problem, it's called "specsmanship".
 
Last edited:
Harley Davidson also went a totally different direction with the V-rod. Down here they can't give that bike away.

I thought cubs were built for the common man. The 2% got G5s.

But the common man enjoyed flying. He didn't have to be anywhere fast when it was play time.

Slowing down while entering the pattern is not for me. Today's society is fast enough, I need my past-time to be slooooooooooooooow.


P.S. The wheel pants are really cute:Gwoohoo:
 
Randy,

I am not in the correct tax bracket right now either, but I do know a couple of construction companies that might figure out that the speed of this plane will make it more reasonable for them to use than their current aircraft. There are times around here that speed equates to total miles traveled on a tank of fuel, which means safety!

I hope to see one of these and fly it. Still not been in a Carbon Cub either. If Uncle Kirby had purchased one I was going to get my adopted father to steal it for a day... (then watch the shooting:p).

If you want me to fly one in Valdez for you next spring let me know, I would be glad to take it up and competes.


On another note, as an instructor that gets asked to check folks out in their planes, (often with the - teach me how to achieve these numbers on landing), you do a disservice to the flying community publishing numbers without first qualifying them by weight.

I am fine with folks saying it will land in 170', but at least say at X weight.

Or at least add in an additional line for landing at Gross Weight.

Thank you
CC develops a plane like this and you say "you do a disservice?" Nice one.
Most looking at the spec #s know that you "figure out" the real #s after you've flown the thing for a bit.
Splitting hairs. Who in they're right mind buys this aircraft and expects to land in 170'? As if this is the deciding pt. on purchasing this plane. Imagine saying "sorry I can't land you're plane at such and such a weight in 170' so I'll take my $460,000.00 Canadian $s elsewhere?"
Roddy
 
You're right, let me see what I can do about that. Of course this is an industry problem, it's called "specsmanship".

Thanks Randy!

Changes in any large group or industry start with one!

I look forward to seeing these flying.

And Bayou, for your flying check out some of the other options out there designed for just slow fun with 100 hp engines. Hence why we have different models ob bikes and everything else, even people!
 
.......But I think it is important to note that if you see a number published on XCub it is a real world number that has been proven and/or demonstrated. CC has made it a point to state clearly that they want to put out spec data that is actual performance that the buyer can look to see for themselves.

I have seen two different stall speeds published.
Here they say 145 cruise and 39 stall.
http://xcub.com/specs
However, a screen snapshot a buddy sent me cited the same 145 cruise but 30mph stall.
Typo, or hype?
 
Thanks Randy!

Changes in any large group or industry start with one!

I look forward to seeing these flying.

And Bayou, for your flying check out some of the other options out there designed for just slow fun with 100 hp engines. Hence why we have different models ob bikes and everything else, even people!

In that case I'm going to wait for the nose gear turbine cub or NXTcub.
 
I have seen two different stall speeds published.
Here they say 145 cruise and 39 stall.
http://xcub.com/specs
However, a screen snapshot a buddy sent me cited the same 145 cruise but 30mph stall.
Typo, or hype?

Would have to see the source, but it is suspect.

xcub.com/specs is the factory published numbers. Note the asterisk though, they are qualified as being at gross weight.
 
Give Cubcrafters credit if the third class medical reform goes they will be perfectly positioned. The UK is doing away with their third class medical equivalent so I think it will happen here. In spite of bureaucratic resistance.
 
I have seen two different stall speeds published.
Here they say 145 cruise and 39 stall.
http://xcub.com/specs
However, a screen snapshot a buddy sent me cited the same 145 cruise but 30mph stall.
Typo, or hype?
That's the only data I have seen published by CC
 
I have seen two different stall speeds published.
Here they say 145 cruise and 39 stall.
However, a screen snapshot a buddy sent me cited the same 145 cruise but 30mph stall.
Typo, or hype?

30 mph was a typo on the website. It has been corrected. 39 mph stall is correct.
 
Screen Shot 2016-06-06 at 10.59.12 PM.png
.....a screen snapshot a buddy sent me cited the same 145 cruise but 30mph stall. Typo, or hype?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-06-06 at 10.59.12 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-06-06 at 10.59.12 PM.png
    108.9 KB · Views: 186
Randy
why did CC not use the Titan 180 hp engine in the XCub? I thought it was substantially lighter.

Jim
 
I believe in this case that would be "ASTM compliant" vs. "FAA Certified."
Sooo that brings up the next question. Will there be a kit version, similar to what Dakota cub does with the Super 18 inquiring minds want to know.
 
Let's see..... 1200lb +, O-360 (180hp) Cub with a 39 mph stall speed, cruises at 145 mph on small tires / spring gear, with a constant speed prop. $300,000.00 dollars U.S.

Real world, put it on standard gear with AOSS so it doesn't bounce like a rubber ball upon landing (i.e. Cessna) and 31" Bushwheels so you can land where a Cub lands, and maybe you'll see 120 mph.

I already own a Piper Super Cub with an O-360 that will stall @ 39 mph, weighs 1204 lbs, and cruises at 107 mph (31" Bushwheels) at 2400 rpm for $200,000.00 less and could most likely pick up a few mph with a Sutton constant speed prop, (not that I'd EVER want a CS on a Cub).

Don't see the value in spending that kind of difference for a few mph when I could own two really nice Cubs, one on wheels and one on floats, and bank $50K - $100K.

Just my take on it.

Take care,

Crash
 
Last edited:
Let's see..... 1200lb +, O-360 (180hp) Cub with a 39 mph stall speed, cruises at 145 mph on small tires / spring gear, with a constant speed prop. $300,000.00 dollars U.S.

Real world, put it on standard gear with AOSS so it doesn't bounce like a rubber ball upon landing (i.e. Cessna) and 31" Bushwheels so you can land where a Cub lands, and maybe you'll see 120 mph.

I already own a Piper Super Cub with an O-360 that will stall @ 39 mph, weighs 1204 lbs, and cruises at 107 mph (31" Bushwheels) at 2400 rpm for $200,000.00 less and could most likely pick up a few mph with a Sutton constant speed prop, (not that I'd EVER want a CS on a Cub).

Don't see the value in spending that kind of difference for a few mph when I could own two really nice Cubs, one on wheels and one on floats, and bank $50K - $100K.

Just my take on it.

Take care,

Crash

Yeah, but you still don't have cupholders
 
I have to agree with Crash on this one. I think CC just built a high wing RV in a way. There is no secret to why it goes faster and you could pretty much take a cub and bolt on spring gear and a constant speed propeller, make some fairing for the wing struts and gear and do the same on small tires... I also hate cowlings that have no access, that is the beautiful thing about a Cub. They went the wrong direction for me.
 
I'm very interested in the X Cub's gear. Simple. No moving parts. I know it isn't new but this installation may propel development and evolution. I'm looking forward to some field reports.
 
Cub Crafters is doing today what Piper did in its day......push the envelope. I applaude Cub Crafters. It's dissapointing how quickly people who haven't flown this aircraft are willing to trash it because it doesn't fit thier needs or budget.....seems there's always someone willing to pee in someone else's Cheerios!
 
Last edited:
If they sell a bunch of these in the next ten years, the used stock should become more affordable. (mods will no doubt follow) New Husky's are 350-400K but 12-15 yr old low time ones are 110-125K. The reason I'm building CC EX was I couldn't see spending 110K+ for a 50yr old PA18 that I can't do the maintenance on. (and I wasn't skilled enough to build a cub from scratch before dad gets too old or dies)

If it were not for STC'd fuselages and wings, there would be a lot fewer "old cubs" to fly. New airplanes in the GA pipeline is always a good thing.

Jake
 
I, too, like the idea of spring gear. It's strong, simple, and much more aerodynamic than hydrosorbs and bungees.

I never bounced my 140 after the first few flights. Just like toe brakes and riding a bike, once you learn how to use them it's easy. How many 180/185 pilots wished they had hydrosorbs instead of spring gear?
 
And I have read, but don't know first hand, that the aluminum spring gear is substantially less "springy" than steel spring gear.
 
Cub Crafters is doing today what Piper did in its day......push the envelope. I applaude Cub Crafters. It's dissapointing how quickly people who haven't flown this aircraft are willing to trash it because it doesn't fit thier needs or budget.....seems there's always someone willing to pee in someone else's Cheerios!

Not dissing their work. Only doing a value equation. Maybe I've been around these planes too long (since 1962), when they were $3,000.00, NEW!

$300K Really????? Give me a break! They're still a two place, rag wing, powered by 60 year old technology.

Crash
 
Back
Top