Blu - so your buddy bought that plane off Shaun Musselman then, right? Shaun loved that plane and said it would do just about anything but was afraid of scratching it! If the carbon cub outperforms that, man....that must be a ride.

Shaun also has 2 S-7's - my old one, and an S-7S.

O-2 - Yeah, no doubt, especially if it has tundra tires from what I read (I have no experience with this yet). I wonder if it would be worth having two sets of wheels. One set for back country and a regular set for if you knew you were just cross country flying.

TomW - I read the AOPA article. Thanks for reminding me of it. I had read it a while ago, but re-reading it was good. I have also read articles in P&P and Flying as well.

I eagerly await Tadpole's reply now. I'm basically of the opinion that the Carbon Cub SS and EX are the same plane if you don't alter the kit and use the CC340 engine and the SS is only limited on GW because of the LSA restriction since we now have our answer on the engine being fully capable to run normally. If that is the case it seems like buying the SS is just like having someone build your EX for you, but you have to live with the "limitations" of the LSA certification. However, building the kit lets you put an IFR cockpit in there which they don't currently make available for the SS.

Another interesting data point about the engine is that, according to the demo pilot (I haven't checked with Cub Crafters) the engine is designed to run on 100LL. With the potential for avgas to become both scarce and hideously expensive (heck, even 6 gph is $60/he whn it hits $10/gallon), I'd really like to be able to burn auto fuel.

Although not directly engine related, one difference between the LSA and experimental versions is that unlike some SLAs, the CC is not certified for night flight, even when flown by a licensed pilot. Apparently Cub Crafters chose not to certify the LSA for night flight as the certification requirements were in a state of flux at the time. Presumably, this obsticle could be overcome with an experimental version, although the one I flew is however, very nicely equipped for nigh flight and probably doesn't know it isn't certified (not that I or any of the fine folks on this board would ever knowingly violate the FARs...)

Anyway, it's an amazing machine that climbs at approximately the same deck angle as the space shuttle, if only slightly slower.

Best,
O-2

The CC-18-180 is not approved for Night flight either.

Apparently, the sun always shines in Yakima..

MTV

Cooperd0g wrote:I eagerly await Tadpole's reply now. I'm basically of the opinion that the Carbon Cub SS and EX are the same plane if you don't alter the kit and use the CC340 engine and the SS is only limited on GW because of the LSA restriction since we now have our answer on the engine being fully capable to run normally. If that is the case it seems like buying the SS is just like having someone build your EX for you, but you have to live with the "limitations" of the LSA certification. However, building the kit lets you put an IFR cockpit in there which they don't currently make available for the SS.

Okay, you're right on with your thoughts. The Carbon Cub SS is our production S-LSA. The reason we placard the operating limitation is due to the LSA restrictions. As you've heard, the engine is fine running like any other normal engine. It's basically a tricked out O-320. It's up the PIC to adhere to the rules, therefore reducing power for continuous use. The EX is simple the kit version, Experimental-Amateur Built version. You can do whatever you want there, just like any other Experimental-AB plane. If you put the CC340 in an EX build, then you don't have the operating limitation at all. We couldn't put a different engine option on the SS due to the LSA weight restrictions. You can build an EX exactly how we build an SS, but have all that power legally available at all times.

OscarDeuce wrote:Another interesting data point about the engine is that, according to the demo pilot (I haven't checked with Cub Crafters) the engine is designed to run on 100LL. With the potential for avgas to become both scarce and hideously expensive (heck, even 6 gph is $60/he whn it hits $10/gallon), I'd really like to be able to burn auto fuel.

The engine is certified to run on 100LL. While I have the same concern, we're not pursuing a certification for that on the CC340. I can discuss with you some of our thoughts on this if you'd like to contact me on the phone, or at a fly-in (I'll be at the Super Cub fly-in at JC next month). I'm not in the office until next week, so for now my cell is 719-640-4675.

mtv wrote:Apparently, the sun always shines in Yakima..

Almost seems that way so far. I always heard WA was gloomy, been great the past few days I've been here so far.

Tadpole,

You are in Eastern Washington, very very different from Western Washington where the gloomy rain/drizzle lives. And even that is not very accurate. It is only rainy/gloomy in the late fall/winter/early spring. The rest of the time is usually gorgeous, sunny and dry. Seattle has water rationing most summers.

The east side is still better though. Glad you made the trip safely. Thunderstorms in Kandahar right now.

Jughead

jugheadF15 wrote:Thunderstorms in Kandahar right now.

Jughead

Always fun. Tell Seymour with the 74th I said hey. He presided my retirement right before he went over there.

Tadpole wrote:

Cooperd0g wrote:I eagerly await Tadpole's reply now. I'm basically of the opinion that the Carbon Cub SS and EX are the same plane if you don't alter the kit and use the CC340 engine and the SS is only limited on GW because of the LSA restriction since we now have our answer on the engine being fully capable to run normally. If that is the case it seems like buying the SS is just like having someone build your EX for you, but you have to live with the "limitations" of the LSA certification. However, building the kit lets you put an IFR cockpit in there which they don't currently make available for the SS.

Okay, you're right on with your thoughts. The Carbon Cub SS is our production S-LSA. The reason we placard the operating limitation is due to the LSA restrictions. As you've heard, the engine is fine running like any other normal engine. It's basically a tricked out O-320. It's up the PIC to adhere to the rules, therefore reducing power for continuous use. The EX is simple the kit version, Experimental-Amateur Built version. You can do whatever you want there, just like any other Experimental-AB plane. If you put the CC340 in an EX build, then you don't have the operating limitation at all. We couldn't put a different engine option on the SS due to the LSA weight restrictions. You can build an EX exactly how we build an SS, but have all that power legally available at all times.

If your have a PPL do you have to maintiane the same eng limitations. I was told one of the resons the is a neg, flap setting on some LSA is because of the diff in speed restrictions in country's LSA limitation, and having a PPL I could raise the flaps to neg fly at faster speed.

If the aircraft is certified as an LSA, you cannot operate it out of those requirements - regardless of what ratings the pilot holds. Legally, that is.

MTV nailed it.... the CC 340 is a 0-320 put on a diet. It is slightly stroked and has higher compression than the certificated 0-320. It has redundant electronic ignition systems (saving weight and increasing efficiency at any altitude) and has had just about everything removed which is not being used ( like the accessory case gears ). For example, the cast sump on an 0-320 weighs more than 8 lbs and its only job is to hold 5 quarts of unpressurized oil. CubCrafters machines a sump for replacement and saves #'s. The engine is assembled in Canada by Bart (Aerosport Power) who has been building dependable, balanced engines for the experimental world for years...he just has no unsatisfied customers. Stick a light-weight Catto prop on the front of one of these things then mount in a 900# aircraft and the grin factor goes exponential.

While many folks unknowingly smile at the pilot-imposed 80 hp. LSA limits, most folks that actually own CarbonCubs run their engines somewhere around this mark. As you quickly learn, you can manage to burn more fuel by pushing the throttle forward, but a cub is so dirty that it is really difficult to get much more speed for your increased RPM's. There is a "sweet spot" in these things around 6 gph where you are traveling ca. 100-110 mph (dependent on tires and prop pitch). Needless to say, I love mine and can't wait for summer in the mountains. Ralph

emflys wrote:If the aircraft is certified as an LSA, you cannot operate it out of those requirements - regardless of what ratings the pilot holds. Legally, that is.

Right, ratings and certs have nothing to do with following the operating limitations of an aircraft's certification. The barefoot bandit is required to follow this stuff, even though he's not a certificated pilot of any sort!

Mostly I just had concerns about being able to use the full power if needed for waveoffs, altitude changes, etc. I know all about the law of diminishing returns where more thrust does not necessarily equal more speed. The canted pylons on the Super Hornet are brutal for that.

I really like the idea of a Cub type aircraft. It can go back country and carry me and my dogs plus some gear. It can also go cross country, albeit slower than an RV. However because the Carbon Cub SS is LSA it limits the gross weight. It also doesn't come in IFR. While I would never use a plane such as this for constant IFR flying, I do want the ability to shoot an approach through a marine layer like at Monterey or somewhere similar. That is why I was looking at the EX kit and wanted some clarification on the CC340 as an engine choice. I'm probably a few years away from owning anything. And the situation would have to be just right to allow time to build a plane anyway.

emflys wrote:Blu - so your buddy bought that plane off Shaun Musselman then, right? Shaun loved that plane and said it would do just about anything but was afraid of scratching it! If the carbon cub outperforms that, man....that must be a ride.

Shaun also has 2 S-7's - my old one, and an S-7S.

I'm not certain who he bought it from. I thought he said it was a guy in wyoming. They actually traded for the top cub the guy up there was going to start doing some for hire stuff i believe.

I can see why you would be afraid to scratch it. Its got the best paint job i've ever seen with the flames and gloss black.

Blu

Yeah, that's Shaun.

Or like a Rotax 912S

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:The electronic ignition to me is one of the most intriguing aspects of the CC340. The very first thing I noticed when watching one start up for the factory demo was how automotive the motor sounded. It just lights off and idles without any of the usual blubbery gurgling and snorting that we are used to. For an airplane motor it's the equivalent of taking a car motor from a points type ignition to a modern electronic ignition.

I really like the electronic ignition. The best part seems to be when running at lower power setting because the timing can change you seem to get better economy. I don't think it helps much if any at high power compared to the mags mine still burns over 10 gallons per hour wide open.

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:The electronic ignition to me is one of the most intriguing aspects of the CC340. The very first thing I noticed when watching one start up for the factory demo was how automotive the motor sounded. It just lights off and idles without any of the usual blubbery gurgling and snorting that we are used to. For an airplane motor it's the equivalent of taking a car motor from a points type ignition to a modern electronic ignition.

Yeah, the ignition curve can be tuned to achieve optimal timing for that low rpm or high rpm. I have always wondered what a big radial would sound like at low rpm with a perfectly mapped ignition timing curve.