• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • There is no better time to show your support for SuperCub.Org than during our annual calendar campaign! All the details are HERE

Cubcrafters Unveils New Carbon Cubs: EX-3 and FX-3

Sorry,got distracted.
We’vefinished four of the new airplanes so far, and the base weights rangefrom 1,023 to 1,038 lbs. depending on paint and a handful of otherchoices. N363EX is wearing our Signature Plus paint scheme, which isheavier. Here is how the additional equipment on N363EX addsup:

Extendedrange fuel tanks, +23.6 lb
ExtendedBaggage Compartment, +8.5 lb
GarminG3X Glass Panel, +14.4 lb
LEDLighting & Strobe, RH Landing Light & LEMO Headset Jacks,+1.9 lb
ElevatorTrim rear seat, +1.0
26"Goodyear tires, +11.2 lb
83"Hartzell prop upgrade (80" standard), +0.2 lb
SeaplanePanel, +1.0 lb.
GarminAutopilot, +3.4 lb
OregonAero Seats (F&R), +5.1 lb
OdysseyBattery upgrade, +6.0 lb
HalonFire Extinguisher, +2.3 lb
Optionalvacuum pump drive on CC363i, +0.8 lb
HeadsetHooks, +0.1 lb


I see on theFX-3 Configuration page that two 22 gallon wing tanks are standard.So are there also extended range tanks?


It also states extended baggage is standard. Is there another option that adds the 8.5 lbs?


I am surprisedthat the Garmin G3X Glass Panel adds 14.4 lbs over the World VFRpanel with the Garminaera™ 796, Trig TY91 VHF Radio - 2¼”, Trig TT21 Mode S XPDR -2¼”, Electronics Int’l CGR-30P Engine Monitor, PM3000R Intercom,Digital Tachometer, Digital Oil Pressure/Temp, Airspeed Indicator,Altimeter, Vertical Speed Indicator.I would think the glass would be lighter.


I see this is standard: Light Weight LED Lighting & Strobe Packagew/ wig wag.
Ididn't see an option but I take it the standard landing light is justin the left wing?


Says electric elevator trim is standard in front and rear.


What performance differences do you see between the 83” Trailblazer prop and the standard 80” prop?


I couldn't find anything on the Seaplane panel, what is it?


Does the Odyssey SBS-J16 battery mount under the seat like the smaller battery I see in the earlier Carbon Cubs? Were there issues with the standard battery starting the CC363i engine?


Thanksfor answering my questions. Looks like Mike Sasser will have his RedFX-3 in Texas in a week or so and he has promised me a demo. Can'twait to check it out in person.
 

Extended range fuel tanks, +23.6 lb
Extended Baggage Compartment, +8.5 lb
Garmin G3X Glass Panel, +14.4 lb
LED Lighting & Strobe, RH Landing Light & LEMO Headset Jacks, +1.9 lb
Elevator Trim rear seat, +1.0
26" Goodyear tires, +11.2 lb
83" Hartzell prop upgrade (80" standard), +0.2 lb
Seaplane Panel, +1.0 lb.
Garmin Autopilot, +3.4 lb
Oregon Aero Seats (F&R), +5.1 lb
Odyssey Battery upgrade, +6.0 lb
Halon Fire Extinguisher, +2.3 lb
Optional vacuum pump drive on CC363i, +0.8 lb
Headset Hooks, +0.1 lb


This type of attention to exact weights just gives me the chills. I love it! Very nice!! Thanks for sharing the weight info. It is amazing how quickly it can add up and it is great to see folks starting to see how much it affects performance and feel. You guys are the tip of the spear, leading the way, and are doing a great job.

Bill
 
Configure page shows two 12 gallon tanks under standard features , 22 is under the upgrade line
Extended baggage is also under upgrade line
 
Finishing a light Husky for spring in Alaska, will be under 1200 lbs, will see how much under but hoping to hit 1175lbs with 29" Bushwheels, so only about 100 lbs more than the new FX3. Extended Cub gear/AOSS.
 
I got to spend a hr or so in the FX3 yesterday. Probably have about 2000hrs in CC last 4 years so I'm pretty proficient in one. This is a real nice bird. It is completely tricked out except for small brakes and little 29s�� Took me a little to get in tune with it,has a longer stick G series flaps and 150lbs heavier then my SS so muscle memory and feeling the plane was a little off on take off. Got take offs down to 100'+/- and landing under 150' with vertually no brakes. It's one of those things you just have to go fly to appreciate. What it lacks in STOL over the light SS i think it made up for in its speed,smooth and quiet performance for 95% of the cub drivers. It basically will T/O and land Short,fly slow,fly fast, burn 4gals hr goofing off locally or push it up to 9galshr and cruise 125+ listening to XM radio getting some where. Pretty Damn Nice Cub!! IMHO
Chuck
https://vimeo.com/245301355
 
Finishing a light Husky for spring in Alaska, will be under 1200 lbs, will see how much under but hoping to hit 1175lbs with 29" Bushwheels, so only about 100 lbs more than the new FX3. Extended Cub gear/AOSS.

I just came in from flying a lightweight (1,315 or so pounds) Husky for a few hours around Moab in clear, cold conditions, with just me and 25 gallons of fuel. John, you may recall that five or ten years ago (gosh time flies) I worked on that lightweight 200 horsepower Husky project. I applaud your efforts, and it certainly will make a nice Husky, but it will never come close to the performance of the FX3. Weight is a big part of the equation for sure, but there are many design differences that just put the FX3 (and SS Carbon Cub) in a different performance class. Pains me to say that after 22 years of flying a Husky, but it is true.

As to price, the FX3 like most all new planes is crazy expensive. Compared to a SS though, it kind of seems like a bargain for how much more there is (injected engine, Hartzell composite prop and other mods) for a pretty modest increase in price.
 
I got to spend a hr or so in the FX3 yesterday. Probably have about 2000hrs in CC last 4 years so I'm pretty proficient in one. This is a real nice bird. It is completely tricked out except for small brakes and little 29s�� Took me a little to get in tune with it,has a longer stick G series flaps and 150lbs heavier then my SS so muscle memory and feeling the plane was a little off on take off. Got take offs down to 100'+/- and landing under 150' with vertually no brakes. It's one of those things you just have to go fly to appreciate. What it lacks in STOL over the light SS i think it made up for in its speed,smooth and quiet performance for 95% of the cub drivers. It basically will T/O and land Short,fly slow,fly fast, burn 4gals hr goofing off locally or push it up to 9galshr and cruise 125+ listening to XM radio getting some where. Pretty Damn Nice Cub!! IMHO
Chuck
https://vimeo.com/245301355

Chuck, that was a great video and review. The FX3 looks like a real winner. It looks to me like this version is going to be the XCub's biggest competitor.

A couple of questions about flying the FX3 as compared to my EX, if you don't mind. At sealevel, in a no wind condition, what GPS ground speed are you seeing at touchdown in MPH?

In my EX and the FX2 I flew, I use full nose-down trim for both landing and takeoff. For me that results in the shortest runs for both. Have you tried that? At one point it looked like I was see full up trim in the video.

I also put in two notches of flaps before the take-off roll starts. That, along with the nose-down trim, pops the tail up once the roll starts and in a few seconds it is in the air.

When I'm really wanting to get in and out quickly I start a count with 4-5 seconds being about as good as I can get for both. I also count when I'm watching a video to see how quickly things do or don't happen.
 
Well I'm sure this will start a mess. I use almost full nose up trim TO and landing. I compete in a lot of STOL contest and Ive done ok. I've spent a ton hours trying everything .So here my theory and what works best for me. First why would you put nose down trim then force the plane to do completely opposite of what it's trimmed to do. You want it to go up and have it trimmed to go down so your forcing it off not letting it off. Now you put 2 notches of flaps in to take off so your inducing drag before you even get rolling. We're trying to get air speed to take off and you already have the brakes out. If the tail comes up easy you obviously are producing drag on the tail for it to come up easy. I want zero drag till I get going. On approach its a unnatural feeling to put flaps in and have to push the stick forward on approach and believe me your pushing on it. But as you get there your releasing pressure letting the plane go were you have it trimmed for then adding back pressure at the end then plane stands on it nose and you dissipate a lot of energy. I haven't found anyone to go out and try this that hasn't come back with considerable smaller TO and Landing distances. Throttle is altitude ,stick is airspeed I think people forget that a lot. It's all energy Management.
I have never looked at airspeed or ground speed sorry it's strictly seat of the pants.
My way for what ever it worth.
chuck
 
Last edited:
I see on theFX-3 Configuration page that two 22 gallon wing tanks are standard.So are there also extended range tanks?

EX-3 and FX-3 Don't have same order form so the options on a EX-3 are different than what is standard on the FX-3. We offer more configuration flexibility to the kit EX-3 builder than we do on the FX-3. This is due to production efficiencies needed on the FX-3

It also states extended baggage is standard. Is there another option that adds the 8.5 lbs?
Same as above. Extended is Standard on FX-3 but can be deleted on EX-3

I am surprisedthat the Garmin G3X Glass Panel adds 14.4 lbs over the World VFRpanel with the Garminaera™ 796, Trig TY91 VHF Radio - 2¼”, Trig TT21 Mode S XPDR -2¼”, Electronics Int’l CGR-30P Engine Monitor, PM3000R Intercom,Digital Tachometer, Digital Oil Pressure/Temp, Airspeed Indicator,Altimeter, Vertical Speed Indicator.I would think the glass would be lighter. G3x Suite has several remote boxes when you add GTX345R, and all the other sensors, etc.

I see this is standard: Light Weight LED Lighting & Strobe Packagew/ wig wag.
Ididn't see an option but I take it the standard landing light is justin the left wing.
Again a difference of Standard on FX-3 versus Option on EX-3

Says electric elevator trim is standard in front and rear.
Same as above.

What performance differences do you see between the 83” Trailblazer prop and the standard 80” prop.
Hard Data forthcoming on this. They are doing thrust test as we speak on my Red Demo with both props.

I couldn't find anything on the Seaplane panel, what is it.
It is the panel you see in the marketing material currently. Has a blank on the left side for float controller and has mechanical A/S and VSI indicators. A/P function is ran through G3x faceplate.

Does the Odyssey SBS-J16 battery mount under the seat like the smaller battery I see in the earlier Carbon Cubs? Were there issues with the standard battery starting the CC363i engine?
It mounts in same location. We haven't had one leaf the factory with anything other than the SBS-J16 in quite some time. With the Lightspeed ignition this thing starts immediately hot or cold.

Thanksfor answering my questions. Looks like Mike Sasser will have his RedFX-3 in Texas in a week or so and he has promised me a demo. Can'twait to check it out in person.[/QUOTE
With any luck I will be in your hood with it on the way home
 
So here is my experience with Chuck's method. I was a middle of the trim indicator guy and was doing ok with my landings. Chuck and I visit about his technique so I go out and try it. At first very uncomfortable but what I did notice was that the AOA system agreed with it 100%. Chuck says he never looks at A/S and I believe that. If you are flying a G3x equipped Carbon Cub the AOA is in your ear telling you everything you need to know about what is happening with the airspeed. Chuck doesn't have AOA in his STOL CC bird but I would bet you $100 that if you were in the back seat of the FX-3 with him that the AOA was alive and chirping and was teetering on full tone at the bottom of his decent and touchdown. Perfect 3 point full stall landing out of energy and lift timed to touchdown equals the shortest rollout distant. It takes time to get used to this method but go out and climb up to a safe altitude and trim it like he is saying and let the airplane settle into a coordinated decent with power off and see what it does without you touching the stick. You will find it is a perfect decent non stalled profile.


Well I'm sure this will start a mess. I use almost full nose up trim TO and landing. I compete in a lot of STOL contest and Ive done ok. I've spent a ton hours trying everything .So here my theory and what works best for me. First why would you put nose down trim then force the plane to do completely opposite of what it's trimmed to do. You want it to go up and have it trimmed to go down so your forcing it off not letting it off. Now you put 2 notches of flaps in to take off so your inducing drag before you even get rolling. We're trying to get air speed to take off and you already have the brakes out. If the tail comes up easy you obviously are producing drag on the tail for it to come up easy. I want zero drag till I get going. On approach its a unnatural feeling to put flaps in and have to push the stick forward on approach and believe me your pushing on it. But as you get there your releasing pressure letting the plane go were you have it trimmed for then adding back pressure at the end then plane stands on it nose and you dissipate a lot of energy. I haven't found anyone to go out and try this that hasn't come back with considerable smaller TO and Landing distances. Throttle is altitude ,stick is airspeed I think people forget that a lot. It's all energy Management.
I have never looked at airspeed or ground speed sorry it's strictly seat of the pants.
My way for what ever it worth.
chuck
 
Well I'm sure this will start a mess. I use almost full nose up trim TO and landing. I compete in a lot of STOL contest and Ive done ok. I've spent a ton hours trying everything .So here my theory and what works best for me. First why would you put nose down trim then force the plane to do completely opposite of what it's trimmed to do. You want it to go up and have it trimmed to go down so your forcing it off not letting it off. Now you put 2 notches of flaps in to take off so your inducing drag before you even get rolling. We're trying to get air speed to take off and you already have the brakes out. If the tail comes up easy you obviously are producing drag on the tail for it to come up easy. I want zero drag till I get going. On approach its a unnatural feeling to put flaps in and have to push the stick forward on approach and believe me your pushing on it. But as you get there your releasing pressure letting the plane go were you have it trimmed for then adding back pressure at the end then plane stands on it nose and you dissipate a lot of energy. I haven't found anyone to go out and try this that hasn't come back with considerable smaller TO and Landing distances. Throttle is altitude ,stick is airspeed I think people forget that a lot. It's all energy Management.
I have never looked at airspeed or ground speed sorry it's strictly seat of the pants.
My way for what ever it worth.
chuck
Chucks post is what’s great about this forum. Different techniques and theory’s then the thought process behind it. I’m ever curious and curiosity is what brings me back every day.......I skin the same cat a bit different. I almost always use a bunch of nose down trim for T/O and not as much for landing. I’m mostly concerned about protecting the tailwheel and the faster it’s flying the safer it is. It’s also easier for me stay in ground effect after mushing it off with nose down trim because that’s naturally the direction it’s wanting to go. Back to the original premise however, it’s always seemed plenty short for me in this configuration. I’m pretty hard headed (think round peg, square hole) but can’t wait to experiment a little more doing it the opposite way.
Back to the FX.....neat plane and I’d take one in a second if I had Monopoly money but is it 200k better when you configure it like a lot of us do? 35s, belly pod and a bunch of heavy junk where the backseat use to live
 
George, I realize it will never be what the new FX3 is, Husky is just built a bit heavier than the CC airplanes. Will not perform like one, but to me is much more comfortable for longer trips. Did 3 in the last year back and forth from AZ to Anchorage, would not be as comfortable in a CC, maybe the new FX would be better as it is faster so less time. I have a supercub and the two Husky's, one that weighs 1309 and the lightweight that will be over 100 lbs less. Know the weight does make a big difference. Flying with guys with 200HP ones, they are about 150lbs heavier and just do not perform like a lightweight.
The new FX sounds pretty cool and performs, most areas I go the extra 100' or so would not justify the added cost of the FX, but sure nice to have that performance. Wonder if CC changed the airfoil design to gain the speed?

I like the projects and trying to reduce the weight is a fun challenge. HP on the Husky is well over 200 from the 0360, so HP is not all of it. Has to be some new wing design to gain the speed in FX, just not sure how they did it, but they did. Good for them. Aviat is behind the curve and has really not changed much in the past few years other than added weight rather than take it off. And no aerodynamic changes for added speed either, they are truly asleep in regard to improvements I feel are needed to stay up with the competition.
John
 
Well I'm sure this will start a mess. I use almost full nose up trim TO and landing. I compete in a lot of STOL contest and Ive done ok. I've spent a ton hours trying everything .So here my theory and what works best for me. First why would you put nose down trim then force the plane to do completely opposite of what it's trimmed to do. You want it to go up and have it trimmed to go down so your forcing it off not letting it off. Now you put 2 notches of flaps in to take off so your inducing drag before you even get rolling. We're trying to get air speed to take off and you already have the brakes out. If the tail comes up easy you obviously are producing drag on the tail for it to come up easy. I want zero drag till I get going. On approach its a unnatural feeling to put flaps in and have to push the stick forward on approach and believe me your pushing on it. But as you get there your releasing pressure letting the plane go were you have it trimmed for then adding back pressure at the end then plane stands on it nose and you dissipate a lot of energy. I haven't found anyone to go out and try this that hasn't come back with considerable smaller TO and Landing distances. Throttle is altitude ,stick is airspeed I think people forget that a lot. It's all energy Management.
I have never looked at airspeed or ground speed sorry it's strictly seat of the pants.
My way for what ever it worth.
chuck

Interesting that we use a complete opposite trim position and each feel it works the best for short ops. I’ve experimented too with different techniques and full nose down trim is my choice. You’re right that adding flaps before starting the TO run adds drag. But it also helps raise the tail quicker. At least in my plane and usual CG. And when the tail is up the plane is ready to fly. Once in the air I’m quickly trimming for the neutral position. But I get in the air quicker this way.

On landing I’m probably not pulling flaps as soon as you are because I’m not pushing forward stick much at first. And you’re right, as the plane slows and falls behind the curve, it requires back stick to keep the nose from pointing too far down. To me this seems very natural and once the mains touch I release stick pressure and stick it on for a wheel landing. Here’s a link to a real world landing of about 6 seconds last summer. https://youtu.be/XqA5kzzDXIc

As I get close to the ground I’m always comparing GPS ground speed to airspeed. That tells me what the wind is doing and if I’m on target for touching when and where I want as well as how quickly I should stop with braking. I don’t like surprises. Especially where it really matters.
 
I use the “Trust But Verify” method. I want a very slightly heavy to neutral stick. I crosscheck a/s to make the seat of my pants more comfortable. Old habits die hard.
 
K just had my demo flight in the FX3 very nice. Solid performance behaves well even for a novice like me. Only bummer is waiting a year + to get it.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
There are a number of differences between the Carbon Cub SS, FX, and FX3, including the amount of flap travel and “big tail” vs standard. While many might not notice these differences, they do effect the plane’s behavior at min speed on approach.

I only have one flight in the FX3, but here are some thoughts on the SS vs FX. By use of flaps and throttle, the SS and FX can be flown with almost no changes to trim during flight, for most of how we fly them. The SS with 31’s has trim set “neutral,” but even with 35’s, the FX requires some nose down trim. With standard FX flap travel, which is less than the SS, it is more work to fly the FX as slow as the SS, as the FX has less flap travel. We are thinking the big tail is requiring more nose down trim in the FX, but that is speculation.

One obvious thing about the SS and FX compared to a Husky, is how little fuel the SS/FX use out just messing around.
 
Chucks post is what’s great about this forum. [/QUOTE
I enjoy reading the post as well and I'll try anything someone says to see if it's better. Just hard to disagree with out some how insulting the other person when you/I think there out of there mind😂
Yes I think it worth the extra $ as long as it's with in our means. If not then we get what's affordable and enjoy it.
I have a set of 35s and pod and just spent 2 weeks in my CC loaded where the back seat was ,annual hunting trip. All that really matters is we are out flying having fun.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0593.jpg
    IMG_0593.jpg
    47.8 KB · Views: 246
  • IMG_6110.JPG
    IMG_6110.JPG
    234.3 KB · Views: 333
Any chance the FX3 is passing thru SW Michigan? I sure would like to fly it.

Kurt
 
Any chance the FX3 is passing thru SW Michigan? I sure would like to fly it.

Kurt
I think it's already on the way back to Yakima. Brad hasn't been hanging out very long in any one place. He only let me have it for a day.
 
Hmmm, too bad. As a previous Super Cub owner and a multiple Husky owner I would have really liked to have been able to fly it.

Kurt
 
That is 600 miles away. I will just go to Yakima if it it not coming thru the area.
 
Do I get a shot at it?

Glenn

Glenn come to Saturday am. We are hopping demo rides. Dan G44, we will be making our way around territories with it over time. Please send me the town your in. Time is precious with just one plane out so far. More are on the way. Once you fly it, that multiple husky thing will be a memory. Mark


Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
Back
Top