I read an article, which I think was in Plane & Pilot, about the CubCrafters Carbon Cub SS with the CC340 engine. It talks about how the full 180 hp is available for takeoff and for climb up to five minutes of operation, but then you are limited to 80 hp thereafter. I think the article mentioned that there was no mechanical or electrical restriction, just that you were not supposed to use more than 80 hp after five minutes.

Is this because of engine life issues or is it because of LSA rules about engines and their power? Is the "limit" just that you are supposed to pull the power back yourself, but it is there if you need it? I know that when I was flying T-34Cs we used full power for take offs, touch and gos, and any emergency climb, but otherwise we were limited on the power to increase lifespan of the PT-6 turbine.

CubCrafters has their Carbon Cub EX kit where you can get either the CC340, but they also sell the O-360. The O-360 gives you full 180 hp whenever you want (altitude factors aside). So why would anyone get the CC340?

How could the 0-360 weigh that much less when the CC340 is based off of the 0-360? Claimed fuel burn is only 5gph at 80hp. I wonder what the fuel consumption would be with a standard 0-360 throttled back to 80hp would be...

The O-360 does not weigh less. The CC340 is 250 lbs. "edited to correct the weight of the engine."

I imagine the fuel burn on the O-360 at 80 hp would be pretty low since that is only about 44% power. It is probably comparable.

Cooperd0g wrote:The CC340 is 250 lbs less than the O-360.

Is the 340 made from styrofoam or balsa wood?

I think what you are saying is that the 340 weighs 250 lbs? Which is about 15 lbs less than an O-360.

Yes, sorry. I misread it. It weighs 250. I edited that part out of the previous posts.

I think a lot of certifications are achieved by simply placarding an operational restriction, in this case the CC340. I've read that the turbocharged Rotax 914 has a similar full power duration restriction, but theoretically you can run it WFO for as long as you want. It just might get really hot.

That CC340 looks really cool though. I'd never read in depth enough prior to now, but it sounds like it loses some weigh by dumping the mags for electronic ignition modules, and some lightweight exhaust. It has a cooling plenum, which I guess enhances air flow over the cylinders better than less aerodynamic baffling.

I'm sure Tadpole will be able to better answer your questions in a day or 6.

Zane wrote:I think a lot of certifications are achieved by simply placarding an operational restriction, in this case the CC340. I've read that the turbocharged Rotax 914 has a similar full power duration restriction, but theoretically you can run it WFO for as long as you want. It just might get really hot.

That CC340 looks really cool though. I'd never read in depth enough prior to now, but it sounds like it loses some weigh by dumping the mags for electronic ignition modules, and some lightweight exhaust. It has a cooling plenum, which I guess enhances air flow over the cylinders better than less aerodynamic baffling.

I'm sure Tadpole will be able to better answer your questions in a day or 6.

That is kind of what I figured. I like the idea of a Husky or Cub Crafters Top Cub, but the Carbon Cub EX looks to have even better performance because of the reduced weight. Then again, do I want to build it and would I add stuff like heat and other things that would increase the base weight and make it perform similarly to a Husky or Top Cub.

It ts made with ECI parts be afraid be verry afraid! The carbon cub is awsome I plan on building one someday but it wont have that engine unless someone else makes the parts!

I'm curious about the electronic ignition. That's an unheard of leap forward in certified engine technology in what is generally a fairly stagnant area of development.

I'm taking a demo ride tomorrow - will report back.

Best,
O-2

Have fun on the ride and be sure to ask the original posters question regarding the 80 HP. I suspect it is because of LSA rules but I wouldn't bet my job on it.

The CC 340 is a stroked O-320. As noted, it has electronic ignition-which is NOT certified. This is an SLSA, remember, so things don't have to be "certified".

The 80 hp limitation is a continuous limitation, based on the formula that is used to approve an SLSA airplane, which involves weight of passengers and CONTINUOUS RATED engine hp. The 340 COULD be run at higher hp for a long time, but to meet the SLSA guidelines, it's limited to 80 hp to get under the maximum empty weight requirement of the SLSA category.

MTV

porterjet wrote:Have fun on the ride and be sure to ask the original posters question regarding the 80 HP. I suspect it is because of LSA rules but I wouldn't bet my job on it.

That's at the top of my list - although I suspect they may be somewhat cagy with the answer.

Best,
O-2

mtv wrote:

The 80 hp limitation is a continuous limitation, based on the formula that is used to approve an SLSA airplane, which involves weight of passengers and CONTINUOUS RATED engine hp. The 340 COULD be run at higher hp for a long time, but to meet the SLSA guidelines, it's limited to 80 hp to get under the maximum empty weight requirement of the SLSA category.

MTV

The formula is actually..ASTM F2245
Useful Load = # of seats x 190 lbs plus 1/2 the max continuous horsepower

Convert to ElSA and it only has to comply with Max Weight 1,1 not ASTM F2245

Thanks O-2! I just wonder that if you want to put it in the kit version then is the engine capable of running at full power all the time without blowing up.

Cooperd0g wrote:

Zane wrote:I think a lot of certifications are achieved by simply placarding an operational restriction, in this case the CC340. I've read that the turbocharged Rotax 914 has a similar full power duration restriction, but theoretically you can run it WFO for as long as you want. It just might get really hot.

That CC340 looks really cool though. I'd never read in depth enough prior to now, but it sounds like it loses some weigh by dumping the mags for electronic ignition modules, and some lightweight exhaust. It has a cooling plenum, which I guess enhances air flow over the cylinders better than less aerodynamic baffling.

I'm sure Tadpole will be able to better answer your questions in a day or 6.

That is kind of what I figured. I like the idea of a Husky or Cub Crafters Top Cub, but they Carbon Cub EX looks to have even better performance because of the reduced weight. Then again, do I want to build it and would I add stuff like heat and other things that would increase the base weight and make it perform similarly to a Husky or Top Cub.

I fly a carbon cub. I have flown it a lot with Ladd who until a few weeks ago had a top cub. He sold it and now has a carbon cub ( actually the proto type carbon cub with an IO-360 it won the valdize stol comp a few years ago) He will be happy to tell you that the carbon cub out preforms a top cub by a mile. Thats why he sold it. He got sick of needing twice the take off distance and crusing 15 mph slower while burning more fuel. Not to mention climbing 60% as fast.
The 340 will run as long as you want at high power the rule is just to comply with the lsa limits.
On a side note don't be to quick to opt for a 360. Ladd's new plane has a IO-360 rated at 220 hp but its weighs more to. I took off behind him we both did a full power climb at 70 mph i was able to climb above him while slowly passing. I was suprised and so was he ( although not pleasantly) The moral of the story, light weight is more important than either of us thought. Ohh and a husky is a great plane with a lot of good all around uses but we have flown with them a lot and they can't hang with a top cub let alone a carbon cub when it comes to STOL. ( they do leave both of them behind in cruise though)
I have 275 hours on the 340 and so far so good but i really don't know if ECI part are any good. (i really hope they are time will tell)

Cool. Thanks for sharing. So it seems like the CC340 is capable of running at full power without detriment to the engine and that it is just an LSA limitation. Hopefully O-2 gets the same answer during his demo flight because that would pertain more towards the EX kit.

Not to stray too much away from the engine topic, but it seems to me that the Carbon Cub SS and the Carbon Cub EX (if built without modifying the kit) are pretty much the exact aircraft. To use the CC340 engine they had to make the SS an LSA and thus limit the use of the motor and limit the gross weight whereas the EX legally can use full engine performance and the full 1865 gross weight. Are there any real differences between the SS and the EX? If not, it seems like you could operate the SS up to 1865 lbs and with full use of the engine. You just aren't being legal by doing so.

PS: by the way I actually just found on CubCrafters' own website saying that it up to the pilot to limit the engine per POH as there is no governor.

Cooperd0g wrote:Cool. Thanks for sharing. So it seems like the CC340 is capable of running at full power without detriment to the engine and that it is just an LSA limitation. Hopefully O-2 gets the same answer during his demo flight because that would pertain more towards the EX kit.

Not to stray too much away from the engine topic, but it seems to me that the Carbon Cub SS and the Carbon Cub EX (if built without modifying the kit) are pretty much the exact aircraft. To use the CC340 engine they had to make the SS an LSA and thus limit the use of the motor and limit the gross weight whereas the EX legally can use full engine performance and the full 1865 gross weight. Are there any real differences between the SS and the EX? If not, it seems like you could operate the SS up to 1865 lbs and with full use of the engine. You just aren't being legal by doing so.

PS: by the way I actually just found on CubCrafters' own website saying that it up to the pilot to limit the engine per POH as there is no governor.

Cooperdog, if you'll give me a few days I can get you the answers. I have most of your answers, but since I'm just starting here at CubCrafters, I need to do some research to make sure I have them correct before I say what is in my head.

Cooper Dog,
If you can dig up a March 2010 AOPA Pilot magazine somewhere, they did a pretty good write up on the Carbon Cub SS. It explained quite a bit on Cub Crafters goals, plans, and successes on the plane.
I didn't pay too much attention to the article until about 5 months later when a guy moved into the area here with a SS and let me fly it for about 5 hrs. last summer. Then I went digging in my magazine box to find the article and re-read it.
It is a WAY COOL airplane. Fun and easy to fly, with increadible attention to detail in the workmanship.
If you want a cub, you won't be dissapointed with this one.
Good Luck
Tom

Got my demo ride today. As others have weighed in, it probably comes as no surprise that the engine can run continuously at higher power settings. At 2500 RPM at 2,500 feet it indicates about 115 mph. Uses way more gas though - from 6 gph to 9-10 gph. Turns out there's only so fast you can push a cub through the air!

Best,
O-2