SuperSport Cub Pilot Report

[Fencer]

It's about a 79" prop.

78" x 54". We're still experimenting to get the exact pitch correct. Blu, we'll talk, if we need to swap props we will but we first need to get one we're happy with here. We'll have yet another iteration here for testing next week.

Be interested in how the new prop does. So far i like this prop pretty well its giving me a little over 2600 rpm on take-off at 5000' and 45-50 degrees. Cruise seems ok.
Whats the new one's pitch going to be?

 

[centmont]

I have a sport cub with 26" Airstreaks (by Ak Bushwheel). Can't be happier. 29" tires would increase drag proportionately....and while you have the power to push through that drag...you would just burn more gas for little improvement on the ground. R

 

[randylervold]

Be interested in how the new prop does. So far i like this prop pretty well its giving me a little over 2600 rpm on take-off at 5000' and 45-50 degrees. Cruise seems ok.
Whats the new one's pitch going to be?

You have a 54" and the next one we're trying is a 55", but pitch is not the only variable, even slight changes in blade area make a big difference. Then of course tires are a big variable too, are you sticking with the 6.00? I thought the prop on your plane might work well given the altitude you operate at. Give some thought to your mission profile, would you rather optimize cruise, or takeoff/climb?

 

[Nathan K. Hammond]

Took a Super Sport down to Tampa for AOPA and recorded the numbers while climbing out. Take-off is Unbelievable! I'll try to get a video next time we fly.

Here's a video of the cruise-climb.
62*F OAT, 900-910 lbs empty, 500 lbs of pax, 144 lbs of fuel, 30 lbs of gear. = 1,584 lbs
Operated in the Experimental Cat. do to empty weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ovZ8-epw3M

nkh

 

[Tim]

Nate, what were the CHTs in that climb, just curious.

Tim

 

[Nathan K. Hammond]

Tim, there's no EGT/CHT instrumentation on the airplane, but the oil temp was steady at 190*F. In cruise the oil temp drops to 180*F.

nkh

 

[Crash]

Took a Super Sport down to Tampa for AOPA and recorded the numbers while climbing out. Take-off is Unbelievable! I'll try to get a video next time we fly.

Here's a video of the cruise-climb.
62*F OAT, 900-910 lbs empty, 500 lbs of pax, 144 lbs of fuel, 30 lbs of gear. = 1,584 lbs
Operated in the Experimental Cat. do to empty weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ovZ8-epw3M

nkh

What is the wing span of the Super Sport? I've heard it's about 2' narrower then a Super Cub. Is that true?

Crash

 

[Clay Hammond]

Nope. I think its about a six inch shorter span if I remember right, but never the less very little.

That airplane with the big engine is a real kick in the pants!

 

[Crash]

Nope. I think its about a six inch shorter span if I remember right, but never the less very little.

That airplane with the big engine is a real kick in the pants!

The reason I asked is the red Super Sport that was brought up for the 2009 Alaskan Airman's show was sold to a guy who keeps it at Birchwood airport in Chugiak Alaska.

A friend looked at it and said it looked narrower then a standard Super cub so they pulled a tape across the wings and it was two feet narrower.

Cub Crafters does not list any specs for it on their site. Anyone have the exact measurement?

The local one has an O-320-150 in it but still performs very well from all accounts.

Thanks,

Crash

 

[randylervold]

34' 2" for both the Sport Cub S2 and the Super Sport Cub.

 

[OLDCROWE]

I'm just one power-ball ticket away from ordering one...

 

[Crash]

34' 2" for both the Sport Cub S2 and the Super Sport Cub.

Thanks Randy

I had a chance to fly the Sport Cub S2 in '08. What a sweet flying Cub, I can only imagine it with 80 more horsepower.

Talked with Jim about the 24 gallon fuel capacity. Just not enough for remote Alaska ops in my opinion. Any further development to get more fuel onboard?

Take care,

Crash

 

[Fencer]

34' 2" for both the Sport Cub S2 and the Super Sport Cub.

Talked with Jim about the 24 gallon fuel capacity. Just not enough for remote Alaska ops in my opinion. Any further development to get more fuel onboard?

Take care,

Crash

I second that though. The plane could handle another 20 gallons easily.

 

[randylervold]

Talked with Jim about the 24 gallon fuel capacity. Just not enough for remote Alaska ops in my opinion. Any further development to get more fuel onboard?

Take care,

Crash

I understand the need, but with the LSA weight limits there just isn't room, even the weight of the empty tanks would be too large of a penalty. We cannot exceed 900 lbs empty weight and certify it as an SLSA. Any owner however can convert an SLSA to ELSA and then the empty weight limit goes away. You might see a belly pod tank option at some point in the future for those interested in extended fuel capacity. The 1320 LSA gross remains though so technically you couldn't exceed that.

Our development queue is quite full, you can count on new and interesting things continuing to come from CubCrafters as the years wear on. You just never know what the future might hold... <g>

 

[Bob Breeden]

Randy,

Know that some of us are looking this Sport Cub, and any new inventions that Cub Crafters comes up with.

Like Crash, I had the privilege to fly the 100 HP version the same pretty morning at Valdez, 2008. Since you are new to Cub Crafters, here is the thread on that flight:

http://www.supercub.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=16001&highlight=

I have to hand it to Jim for his development of this new Cub, few have done that.

But like Crash, more fuel is essential, and looking at the long view of ownership over time has to be considered. I have already figured that to get a Cub that significantly outperforms the one I currently fly it will be experimental, and I am curious if larger tanks could fit in the wings of your experimental version. I'll send you a PM with some more questions.

Bob Breeden

www.AlaskaAirpark.com

 

[RobS]

I have to agree the Super Sport Cub/ carbon cub has to have more fuel to be fully functional in Alaska. Any more talk on developing a bladder tank? A belly pod may be a great ticket if it had cross options of fuel and storage. Experimental of course!

 

[Clay Hammond]

At roughly ~23.5gals useable fuel, the 100hp SPORT CUB S2 can easily do 3.5-4 hours and land with a thirty minute to an hour reserve. I see them burning down to 4.5-5 gph when leaned out at altitude. And this will be at a speed of approximately 90-95mph on a set of 8:50's or 26" Airstreaks. So thats 315-380 statute miles average in still air.

Now I ask this because I simply don't know, not having any experience up there. How much do you folks up in AK need to be comfortable? 80% of the time how much endurance capability do you need? Keeping in mind that this is purely for sport use. By its design as an LSA it is by definition not a working plane under the current certification standard.

 

[gbflyer]

At roughly ~23.5gals useable fuel, the 100hp SPORT CUB S2 can easily do 3.5-4 hours and land with a thirty minute to an hour reserve. I see them burning down to 4.5-5 gph when leaned out at altitude. And this will be at a speed of approximately 90-95mph on a set of 8:50's or 26" Airstreaks. So thats 315-380 statute miles average in still air.

Now I ask this because I simply don't know, not having any experience up there. How much do you folks up in AK need to be comfortable? 80% of the time how much endurance capability do you need? Keeping in mind that this is purely for sport use. By its design as an LSA it is by definition not a working plane under the current certification standard.

I think what folks are wondering about is the Super Sport model.

In the part of AK where I live, we spend very little time "leaned out at altitude". Many, many days, "altitude" is no more than 500 feet. The fuel burns up pretty quick. Start feeding 180 ponies flying around at 100 mph. and...well you get the picture.

In the interior of the state, fuel stops can be few and far between. Even the big 65 gallon Atlee tanks are by no means overkill in many instances if one is going to be out in the weeds for a few days.

As far as working a cub is concerned, like you say...it isn't a concern with this one. I'd say the lion's share of the cubs up here are not working machines.

Just my take on the subject.

gb

 

[Crash]

At roughly ~23.5gals useable fuel, the 100hp SPORT CUB S2 can easily do 3.5-4 hours and land with a thirty minute to an hour reserve. I see them burning down to 4.5-5 gph when leaned out at altitude. And this will be at a speed of approximately 90-95mph on a set of 8:50's or 26" Airstreaks. So thats 315-380 statute miles average in still air.

Now I ask this because I simply don't know, not having any experience up there. How much do you folks up in AK need to be comfortable? 80% of the time how much endurance capability do you need? Keeping in mind that this is purely for sport use. By its design as an LSA it is by definition not a working plane under the current certification standard.

It seems that "4.5 to 5 gallons per hour" is pretty optimistic for an O-340

The O-340 is basically an O-320 with a 1/4" longer stroke and I've never seen an O-320 down in the 4.5 gallon per hour range.

Still... I'd be petty nervous flying around the bush with only a 12 gallon tank in each wing. Going for a burger or around the patch it would be OK, but working the plane out in the bush it just needs bigger tanks (IMHO).

Sometimes it's even hard to find a place to land to dump in the extra fuel cans you're carrying in the baggage. I've had that happen a time or two....

Take care,

Crash

 

[ndill]

I'm just one power-ball ticket away from ordering one...

+1, If you don't need to haul a moose or baar out of the bush, but you
just need an airplane to fly around by yourself maybe take someone
up once in a while this would seem like the perfect airplane. If your
flying it single pilot it should anywhere a supercub will go.

 

[Charliebrown]

Here's a video of the cruise-climb.
62*F OAT, 900-910 lbs empty, 500 lbs of pax, 144 lbs of fuel, 30 lbs of gear. = 1,584 lbs
Operated in the Experimental Cat. do to empty weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ovZ8-epw3M

nkh

Pardon the first time post, but I've been visiting this website for several years and finally got around to registering. I was originally rated back in the mid 80's while in college, but finances dictated that my flight experience was to be limited and I only accrued about 75 hours.

I am not knowledgeable with SLSA, ELSA rules and the like, but I was under the impression that the LSA limit of 1320lbs was applicable under either the Standard rules or Experimental rules. What did you do to the aircraft to operate under the Experimental rules rules rather than Standard?

 

[Richgj3]

It was not E-LSA. It was/is Experimental, probably "Market Research" or an experimental category like that. Could even have been Experimental Amateur Built.

You are correct that E-LSA and S-LSA both have the 1320 GW limit. E-LSA does not have the useful load requirement that S-LSA has.


Most manufacturers introduce the prototypes as "regular" experimental. Saves a lot of headaches when trying to get an example flying even though the plan is to sell an S-LSA.

(I think) One could buy this airplane as a "Carbon Cub" kit and certify it E-LSA if the owner wishes to fly it as a Sport Pilot or as an Experimental Amateur built at a higher gross weight if Sport Pilot is not in their future.

CC guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but I know that scenario is how the Texas Sport is sold by Legend.

 

[randylervold]

At the risk of contributing to thread creep here, any Light Sport aircraft that is certified as an SLSA may then be converted to an ELSA. In doing so there are several benefits:
1) the empty weight restriction goes away as others have pointed out
2) the owner may then modify the airplane without any paperwork or approval from the manufacturer (different panel instruments, addition of belly pods, etc.)
3) the owner can take the 16 hr FAA-approved maintenance course and get his/her Repairman Certificate and do their own annual condition inspections

The 1320 lb gross weight does not change of course. Again, the aircraft must first have been certified as an SLSA. The conversion can be done at any point down the road and by any subsequent owner, just contact your local friendly DAR and pay his/her fee.

 

[psisemore]

Lots of interest in the Super Sport Cub at the AOPA Summit

Mrs okmike

Randy Lervold

 

[Richgj3]

Randy

I had heard that FAA was about to fix a "glitch" in the S-LSA to E-LSA conversion rule which previously (currently?) requires maintenance to be done to certified AC standards. They admit this was an oversight from what I've read and are changing it. Do you know the status of this?

I had previously thought the conversion could only be done if the OEM was unable to provide support any longer, but I guess that was the reason, but is not a requirement.

Completely off topic now, but I have an RV builder friend who is also a DAR who speaks highly of you. His name is Jon Ross.

Rich

 

[randylervold]

...I have an RV builder friend who is also a DAR who speaks highly of you. His name is Jon Ross.

Rich

Please say hi to Jon for me and tell him we're due for a catch up. I didn't know he was a DAR am not surprised.

 

[Charliebrown]

It was not E-LSA. It was/is Experimental, probably "Market Research" or an experimental category like that. Could even have been Experimental Amateur Built.

Ok, I understand now, thanks. I am confusing the ESLA with Experimental and they are not the same.

 

[alaskadrifter]

At roughly ~23.5gals useable fuel, the 100hp SPORT CUB S2 can easily do 3.5-4 hours and land with a thirty minute to an hour reserve. I see them burning down to 4.5-5 gph when leaned out at altitude. And this will be at a speed of approximately 90-95mph on a set of 8:50's or 26" Airstreaks. So thats 315-380 statute miles average in still air.

Now I ask this because I simply don't know, not having any experience up there. How much do you folks up in AK need to be comfortable? 80% of the time how much endurance capability do you need? Keeping in mind that this is purely for sport use. By its design as an LSA it is by definition not a working plane under the current certification standard.

In our 65hp tcart we burn around 4 gph (sometimes less). At 24gals thats 6hrs of gas. On a number of occasions I have flown nonstop from Dillingham to Anchorage. I usually stop in Port Alsworth to stretch my legs, relieve the bladder, and maybe visit friends. Often I will grab an extra hour or so of fuel (4-6gals), because for a plane that goes less than 100mph it doesn't take much wind before that extra gas comes in handy. It is usually a 4.5 hr trip at least without wind.
I'd say in an airplane I wouldn't want less than 4hrs of endurance, and 6hrs is closer to ideal. All it takes is one brain fart/miscalculation and one bad head wind before your wishing you had more gas.

 

[dave]

Fencer, Word has it you put some ABW 29's on this ship. It would be nice to see a new photo.

DK

 

[Fencer]

Just thought I'd post an update now that I have 85 hours on the SSC.

I do have the 29" tires on it. I won't belabor the point they are way better, everyone that has ABW's knows this. Wish I had the 31"s now, well live and learn.

The engine is fully broken in now and oil consumption is very low ( execpt temporarly when a few of the rocker cover bolts worked loose)

I was pretty worried initially about the small fuel tanks. I would still like bigger ones but I am consitantly suprised by the low fuel burn.
It will do about 85 mph tas on 4 or less gal/hour. 5-5.5 gal/hour seems to get about 95-100 mph it will still drag itself up 125 mph or a little more with the 29" tires but thats really working it. I havent flown a trip at those speeds to test, (probably won't) but I would guess its might be as high as 10+ gallons per hour.
The fastest trip i have flown was at about 110-115 mph and that burned 7.5-8 gal/per hour.
I would point out that I live at 5000' so all these numbers are cruising in the 5-6.5K range except the one 110-115 mph trip that was at 10k on a very cold day.

Speaking of cold the heater just sucks, on a cold day the guy in front needs a good coat, decently warm boots and long johns to be comfortable and the guy in back pretty much needs artic exploration gear.

On the plus side the handling and fun factor just gets better everytime I fly it. I really understand now why you guys rip on everything noncub. Nothing i've ever flown comes even close to giving the feed back and just general confidece in flight.

Speaking of ripping on other planes I let Ladd a retired crop duster fly it. He has been wanting a cub for a while. Anyway his friend Steve who owns a 3 year old husky was there as well they both took a turn. Ladd ordered one about a week later. I havent talked to Steve but Ladd told me he has his husky up for sale and that he plans to order a SSC after he sells it. I did try to get Steve to take the husky out (I've never flown in one) but after some short field take off demos in the SSC he just grumbled it wasn't even close and refused.

I not sure how to post them in the forum but I did download a few pics with the bigger tires in a few off airport places to my profile.

One other comment its not really a complaint since I understand the reason why but the battery is just bearly powerful enough (its a little one like you put in a four wheeler) if it is cold it can't really crank the engine to any effect without being pretty thurly preheated.

I've been reading some of the old posts about Johnson Creek. I've got to say it looks like a great time. With any luck i'll be there this summer. I'm looking foward to meeting some of you and checking out all the planes expecially some of the experimentals you guys have.

Blu