• 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

Real Cub, LSA, kit, so on

Tadpole

FRIEND
Franklin, IN
All the FAR chat throws me for a loop...

So basically, what is the difference? If I'm a Private Pilot, how does going for an LSA or kit Cub differ from just buying a used Piper Cub? From my reading, I wouldn't be restricted as far as flying at night or XC, but maybe I'd suffer a bit on useful load or having a bigger engine for better short field performance and so on.

I'm not in the market, but plan to be in about 3 to 4 years, I'm still planning on a good ole Super Cub, but my curiosity has me looking into the other options and I was wondering what the basic difference is.

Thanks!
 
Some of the new PA11/J3 clones weigh about 890 pounds empty. The original PA11 weighed about 740 empty. A difference of 150 pounds in the empty weight. So, the new ones are similar to flying an old one with an extra passenger on board. The new ones do have substantial improvements in other respects -- they're just heavy.
JimC
 
Ya, that's pretty much the only thing I saw different.

It seems to me after reading the LSA weight threads that if I bought an LSA type and not a old Piper type, that I'd have to watch the weight of the modifications and such in order to keep it in under weight. So far it just sounds like a headache and I'll just keep planning on buying an old Piper.
 
As long as you can hold a medical I wouldn't bother with LSA. Just my opinion. The restriction are just enough to be irritating. At least for now, you can't fly in Canada with just an LSA endorsement. Most of the LSA birds out there are really one person and a good load which is not that big of a deal because lots of guys fly by themselves anyways.
The better Bush type planes, SC, Scout, Husky are a much better solution.
 
The T41's are great airplanes. I've got a T41B which has the IO-360 and a constant speed prop.

If I remember correctly the C model is the IO-360 with a fixed pitch?

Image021.jpg
 
T-41B

Prop 2600, throttle 20", clearing turns....That is the first thing those Army flight instructors taught us. The T41B is a great plane, and makes the best barrier approaches of any plane I have ever flown, including the L-19. I have often wondered what the difference is between the T41B and Hawk XP?

Mike
 
Mike,

The T41B is 210 HP at 2800 rpm and the XP's are 195 hp at, I think, 2600 rpm. But there is an STC to change the governor on the XP allowing 2800 rpm and 210 HP.

The XP's are also on the newer and wider airframe whereas the T41s are on the older airframe. The XP's are heavier too as a result, more like a 182.

My T41B empty weight is right at 1500 pounds with a 2500 pound gross. With just me and half fuel or less it'll takeoff in 300-400' at a 2500-3000' density altitude.

I also have a PA-18 but for any cross-country travel the T41B is the clear choice.
 
Back to the original question: you have to be a little careful to compare apples to apples between SLSA and older airplanes.

For example, both the CC Sport Cub and the Legend Cub have electrical systems, the J-3 and PA-11 didn't as standard, and I don't believe any J-3's were built with electrical systems. While that doesn't sound like much, consider an alternator, a starter, a battery, wiring, switches, etc, and you are probably looking at 50 pounds at a bare minimum.

Consider that the J-3 and PA-11 were covered in cotton, with dope finish. Aviat estimates that a dope finish on a Husky is 20 pounds lighter than a polyurethane coated airplane. I don't know if the synthetic fabrics are lighter than cotton as well, but there's a few more pounds.

The J-3 and PA-11 didn't come with any avionics, and bare minimum of instrumentation. The LSA airplanes all seem to have a radio or two.

The J-3 at least had a wood spar, not sure about the PA-11. Wood spars are lighter in the American Champion aircraft, so maybe they are in these aircraft as well--don't know.

Upholstery??

And, so on. Add all these little items up, and you'll probably come really close to 150 pounds or so of "excess" weight. Nevertheless, these are all amenities that folks want and/or the manufacturers just really have to provide.

Would you want cotton and butyrate on your sport cub? Most wouldn't after they see the finish that can be had with modern materials.

Just some thoughts.

And, I thought the T-41C had an O-470, like an L-19. No??

MTV
 
>J-3 at least had a wood spar, not sure about the PA-11<

J3's had wood spars prior to 46 and went to metal spars in 46. PA-11's had metal spars. A typical PA-11 metal spar, cotton, empty weight is 734 pounds.

Grade A cotton is heavier than the synthetics, lighter than Razorback.
JimC
 
T-41C is the IO360 with fixed pitch...we in the USAF bought them from Cessna, then the XP came out..heh.

Thanks for redirecting the thread back on track MTV.

Here's why this question popped into my head. Okay, I love Cubs, period. I don't know as much about them as I want to know. All the different PA-xx numbers throw me off.

I've got a few years to save and prepare. I plan to get moved back to Alaska (where my love for the Cub started), or at least stay up in the Northwestern US and I want to go play in the dirt, mountains, lakes, snow, and so on for some fun and camping and such. I want a Cub that I can carry me and a passenger and some gear, on big tires, floats, or skiis....or just myself and lots of gear!

I started wondering about the CubCrafters and so on since it would be nice to have a NEW plane built the way I order it. I was wondering what the down sides are compared to an actual Piper Cub or Super Cub.

Of course, as I learn more and more about the different Cubs, and the LSA and kits my decision may change.
 
As a comparison. There is LSA Cub in the hanger next to mine. It's weight on wheels is the same as my Cub on floats.
 
Crash said:
http://www.txsport.aero/default.asp

Crash

Crash-

That looks like a great kit. Most of these kits are missing stuff like brakes, etc. You really need to inventory before you commit to buying any of these kits so you know what the extra parts needed are.

Tim
 
Basically a 3" wider PA-11 with the wing spars attached like a PA-18.

I did some research on the 120 hp Jabiru engine. A great little engine by all accounts except that it is not supposed to run a metal prop. I gets it's light weight by having a lighter duty crank shaft. The manufacturer only recommends a wood or composite prop.

It also has to be spun over fast to get it started, so hand propping is out. They're also hard starting in cold weather unless you heat them up a lot.

These issues take the Jabiru off the list for me.

Continental is coming out with an O-200 "D" that is design built for the LSA market. It is a modern version of the O-200 at 25 lbs lighter. That would be my choice.

Take care.

Crash
 
I spoke to those people about the Texas Sport, apparently you can put whatever you want on the front including an O-360.
 
Crash, They say she really performs with the Jabiru. To bad about the limitations.

Cathy wants to build one of the Texas Sport Cubs. The builder's manual is awesome and the parts are laid out per assembly. Now all I need is the cash, give her a kitchen pass and she will build herself one. :wink:
 
Steve Pierce said:
Crash, They say she really performs with the Jabiru. To bad about the limitations.

Cathy wants to build one of the Texas Sport Cubs. The builder's manual is awesome and the parts are laid out per assembly. Now all I need is the cash, give her a kitchen pass and she will build herself one. :wink:

I was also thinking about one with a stroked O-320 (O-340) and 10.5:1 compression NSF pistons, O-360 sump w/ equal length 1 3/4" risers, Precision Air carb., mounted to a Turbine Cubs zero thrustline conical mount. One Light Speed L.H. digital ignition and one RH Bendix impulse coupled mag. for hand starting.

If available use Wayne Mackey's wings with Hendrix elevators and rudder. Use Ti for the fire wall and cowl channels. Keep it REAL light.

Been thinking about the "next project" lately.....A lot of options this day and age.

Anyone have any additional ideas???

Crash
 
How about one of the Continental IO 240's that were built in Europe a few years ago for some of their light planes? They were, I think, a 120 hp engine, virtually identical in size and weight to the O-200.

I've never heard anything much about them, probably because there are so few, if any, in this country. Don't know if they're still in production or not.

Seems to me that could offer the best of both worlds..

MTV
 
The IO-240 is still in production. Don't know about the O-240. It is a lot heavier than the O-200 and the cylinders are very different. Would be OK for a PA-11, but not for a J3. If I remember correctly, the new IO-200 induction is different too, and I'm not sure that the finless steel cylinders will stay circular over time. I do like the reduced weight though.
JimC
 
So if you build and certify as experimental, what can't you do with the aircraft then compared to a regular certified aircraft?
 
Can't sue the manufacturer for building a piece of junk. Well, I guess you could sue yourself..... :x .

As to what you can do with a Homebuilt Experimental airplane--basically anything you like, with the exception of operating it for compensation or hire. There is a limited ability to flight instruct in one, but that's it.

IFR approved? They can be, depending on equipment. You may or many not be able to operate them in other countries, depending on that country's rules.

Generally, the rules are VERY UNrestrictive on homebuilt Experimental aircraft.

MTV
 
Thanks MTV. That doesn't sound to bad. I guess if I built a Cub about the only thing I could see myself doing in it is maybe some instruction.

Not to bad of a deal.
 
Let me see if I got this right...

There's the J-3 which is the original Cub, the PA-11 which is a newer version of the J-3, the PA-12 which is the 3 seat (okay 2.5 seat) Cub, the PA-14 is something I've not figured out yet, and the PA-18 is the Super Cub.

I need a book on Cubs....LOL.
 
Thanks Craig, I've never seen that book, I'll have to get my wife to buy that for my birthday!
 
And, the flight instructing you can do in an experimental is ONLY that which is required for checkouts of people who've never flown that type of aircraft. Or words to that effect.

In other words, you could give instruction to folks who are building exp cubs, but not just someone who wants a tailwheel endorsement.

It's a little more complex than that, but not much. The hangup the FAA got into was that insurance companies were requiring 10 hours (for example) time in type to insure Joe Blow in his new homemade Belchfire XP 240. Problem is, ALL Belchfire XP 240's are homebuilt experimental class, and are therefore not applicable for use for compensation or hire. So the FAA says, "Okay, you can do type specific training in a homebuilt Experimental aircraft for checkout purposes".

SInce there are a gazillion Cubs out there, which are certificated, it might be hard to buy the notion that someone has to train in a "Cub" clone.

MTV
 
Back
Top