Carbon Cub Compared...

[Snowbirdxx]

Last week I was DPE on a Mountain licence checkride and the candidate used his ows Carbon Cub. Certified 210+ Lycoming IO-3??, Trailblazer, and Garmin whatever with GFC Autopilot.
The airplane had good ramp appeal and looked well build. Entry to the backseat was a pain, visibility from there is just terrible.
I know the Huskys performance pretty well and on takeoff in Bolzano I wonderd why it did not takoff when I was expecting it. Ground roll was substantially longer than the Husky. We had half tanks.

Levelling off at 4000ft with 24/2300 gave us 94 KTS IAS. The Husky is faster.

Trim speed of the electric trim is way too slow, when flaps are retracted / deployed. First landing was on a 1200ft long strip with 20% slope , no GA options at 2700 ft with a 20 KTS headwind. I regulary fly the PC12 into there. Elevator authority was better than a standard Husky, due to the jackscrew trim system and the stabilizer flying at lower AOA on final. Roll control with the pushrods in the rear strut was good, comparable to a Delta spade Husky.

On takeoff the roll was again substantially longer than the Huskys at same payload. Husky operated at 2400 RPM for less noise, the CC at 2700. Climb rate at 70 KTS was less than the Husky.

Engine was running wery smooth, like the Huskys A1P with dynamic balanced MTV15. Other strips we went ino showed longer ground roll than the Husky as well. Big dissapointment.

After finishing the checkride, I was happy to own a Husky, not a CCub. Allthough the airplane is nice made and has a nice interieur. But to me its performance what counts.

 

[joemcd]

Thomas, was this a certified X-Cub or a Carbon Cub FX3?

 

[Snowbirdxx]

Certified x-Cub

 

[Brad20j]

Interesting, Thomas. I would have expected the X-Cub to use less runway. Do you recall the empty weight?

 

[dogday]

I would supect an engine performance issue. Fuel Metering? Exhaust Back Pressure? Air Filter Restriction? Etc.

 

[Snowbirdxx]

Interesting, Thomas. I would have expected the X-Cub to use less runway. Do you recall the empty weight?

Empty weight 1390 lbs

 

[Brad20j]

Wow! So is it the experimental ones that are lighter? I’m surprised that that’s so much heavier than my A1-B.

 

[airplanebrad]

The husky is much better built than the carbon cubs. I owned an SS. The TO&L performance was much shorter than the husky. But, cruise, endurance and structural strength is not. The carbon cub was more comfortable in room and the larger baggage area was impressive. Yet it was also much slower. Overall I fell a husky is more rugged and has much better longevity with its simple design, proven engine with standard mags and value. However both are great, very fun airplanes that will take a pilot places that none will.

 

[groshel]

The husky is much better built than the carbon cubs. I owned an SS. The TO&L performance was much shorter than the husky. But, cruise, endurance and structural strength is not. The carbon cub was more comfortable in room and the larger baggage area was impressive. Yet it was also much slower. Overall I fell a husky is more rugged and has much better longevity with its simple design, proven engine with standard mags and value. However both are great, very fun airplanes that will take a pilot places that none will.

I viewed a damaged CC at a Mx shop in northern Indiana last summer. Shop owner said it had been severely dropped-in during landing.

Besides the wingtip being damaged, the greenhouse area was buckled and cracked and the lower portion of the rudder buckled.

Looked pretty awful for just a hard landing….didn’t get the impression they were very stout!

 

[belloypilot]

The husky is much better built than the carbon cubs. I owned an SS. The TO&L performance was much shorter than the husky. But, cruise, endurance and structural strength is not. The

The truly impressive thing about our Huskys are the combination of off airport capabilities and durability plus the economy cruise performance that enables some truly remarkable long distance adventures. If that’s the mission it’s darn tough to beat.

 

[jliltd]

I had Dana try on the back seat of the Carbon Cub FX-3 at KOSH 2021. She was so uncomfortable in the CC seat she stated if we changed over from the beloved Husky she would stop going flying with me. At that same instant I was feeling out the rudder pedals and they felt and looked like they were cut out of beer cans. The CC is a marvel of design but remember with light weight design comes issues. Same thing happened with the Boeing models designed during the oil crisis of the 1970s. Mean lean machines but no meat left on the bone. No reworking joints and parts. Only new replacement spares option.

 

[David]

I have 14 hrs in the CC. Delightful one person airplane. Back seat is for cargo or "emergency" passenger carry. When using the frame above the seat to pull my 200lb 6ft body in the plane, the frame flexes. That doesn't happen in the Husky. CC is not very fast either. Like the flap handle location. Lots of Kitfoxes here in Idaho, where I live. Light, good performers, but seeing lots of frame cracking and bent stuff, esp. landing gear when used a lot in the Owyhees. Huskys and Supercubs doing the exact same thing and no problems. Like Jim said above, "mean lean machines, but no meat left on the bones". Forgetting the advantages of experimental, for the same price of a CC or even a nice Kitfox, you can get a good Husky. Best choice for my $

 

[ChipBeck]

Gentlemen,

This is great information. I've never flown a Carbon Cub, just Super Cubs and Husky's. I've owned 3 Husky's because of how stout they are and I love the way they fly. But I was under the impression that the CC was a slightly better performer. It is if you just fly the brochures. Though the factory claims by both manufacturers are more than a tad optimistic. Thank you.

Chip

 

[Audette]

I learned to fly in my Grandfathers PA-18 30+ years ago. There is really no comparison between the strength of the original supercub verses the ones produced by CC today - The original is much stronger but neither can take the abuse the Husky can. With material sciences/engineering what they are today, the CC is a lot lighter and pretty durable but not near what a Husky is. When I started shopping for a new backcountry machine, I flew a couple of CC's and they are awesome performers - A couple dozen hours in them. When it came time to pull the trigger, I Bought Chris' Husky only having flown one a few hours 20 years ago and after a few phone conversations with Chris.

I'll say this: The CC has awesome fit and finish, is lighter on the controls and will outperform the Husky all day if it's just about short-field ops; if that's all you're going to use the plane for, you'll bend it. There is a reason why the remote operators don't fly the CC. Husky is a much better all around platform.

 

[belloypilot]

I guess it’s good that there’s choices in the market to fit different missions, but I don’t understand the mission profile that requires class-leading STOL performance but isn’t robust enough to live in the world of primarily off airport operations. Is there really that many 500’ grass strips out there where these things hang out? Clearly they are doing something right because they sell a lot of CCs.

 

[Audette]

I guess it’s good that there’s choices in the market to fit different missions, but I don’t understand the mission profile that requires class-leading STOL performance but isn’t robust enough to live in the world of primarily off airport operations. Is there really that many 500’ grass strips out there where these things hang out? Clearly they are doing something right because they sell a lot of CCs.

I think the CC are perfectly fine for relatively smooth short field ops. But if you consistently bang them into rough strips, you're gonna bend them. I'm just not a good enough pilot and my risk tolerance is such that I wouldn't be able to take advantage of the performance differential between the CC and Husky, so it was a pretty easy choice for me: Husky or a PA-18 with all the mods.

 

[Oryx]

I guess it’s good that there’s choices in the market to fit different missions, but I don’t understand the mission profile that requires class-leading STOL performance but isn’t robust enough to live in the world of primarily off airport operations. Is there really that many 500’ grass strips out there where these things hang out? Clearly they are doing something right because they sell a lot of CCs.

Yeah, like nearly 3 to 1. cc to husk.

I really like my old Husky and wouldn’t trade it but after touring CubCrafers factory in Yakima I was totally impressed with the build quality. They have taken the production parts and finishes way farther than any Husky I’ve ever seen. Lots of CNC aluminum parts, titanium sticks and firewalls, carbon fiber engine baffles, instrument panels, interior panels, and much more. Attention to every detail.

And they are aggressively developing and improving there existing models.
Reminds me of KTM motorcycles from the late 90’s forward. For the first time ever you could buy nearly race ready bikes in more than ONE configuration. In fact, buy 2005 you could buy an EXC, MXC, SMC, SMR, SX, and SXR in ranges from 50cc to 625cc. All of them dirt bikes!
I mention this because it truly is impressive to see what Cub Crafters is doing to the market. They are the ones leading the way. They may not have a product yet better than the Husky. But if they keep going like they are now, they certainly will someday.

 

[johnaz]

Yeah, like nearly 3 to 1. cc to husk.

I really like my old Husky and wouldn’t trade it but after touring CubCrafers factory in Yakima I was totally impressed with the build quality. They have taken the production parts and finishes way farther than any Husky I’ve ever seen. Lots of CNC aluminum parts, titanium sticks and firewalls, carbon fiber engine baffles, instrument panels, interior panels, and much more. Attention to every detail.

And they are aggressively developing and improving there existing models.
Reminds me of KTM motorcycles from the late 90’s forward. For the first time ever you could buy nearly race ready bikes in more than ONE configuration. In fact, buy 2005 you could buy an EXC, MXC, SMC, SMR, SX, and SXR in ranges from 50cc to 625cc. All of them dirt bikes!
I mention this because it truly is impressive to see what Cub Crafters is doing to the market. They are the ones leading the way. They may not have a product yet better than the Husky. But if they keep going like they are now, they certainly will someday.

Too bad Aviat does not use the technology to make some parts lighter like CC does. Weight is the key on performance. Can lose weight without losing the strength in many areas.
Husky would perform better if lighter weight and no structural changes.

 

[Flying Dave]

Sort of reminds me of Lancair and Cirrus 20 years ago when I was a Columbia instructor. I still feel the Columbia was a better built airplane but which one is still around these days??