Cubcrafters

seastar · Post by **seastar** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:21 am

Has anyone flown the new Cubcrafters Super Sport??
I hear it was at Oshkosh.
I would like a firsthand opinion.
It looks perfect for my 800 foot gravel strip in the North Woods.
I don't know of anything else that will operate out of my strip.

JRamos9920 · Post by **JRamos9920** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:41 pm

I have not heard anything about the Cubcrafter at Oshkosh but I can tell you our Remos gets up in 300 feet or 9 seconds from full stop to liftoff.

John

rfane · Post by **rfane** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:21 pm

JRamos9920 wrote:I have not heard anything about the Cubcrafter at Oshkosh but I can tell you our Remos gets up in 300 feet or 9 seconds from full stop to liftoff.

John

John,

Please take note that the forum name is Sport Pilot Tak, not LSA Dealer Talk. Quit the sales pitch in every post you make, especially when the person didn't ask anything about your product. Can an average pilot routinely put the Remos down and get it stopped on an 800 foot gravel strip? Not much flys slower than a Super Cub.

CharlieTango · Post by **CharlieTango** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:10 pm

JRamos9920 wrote:I have not heard anything about the Cubcrafter at Oshkosh but I can tell you our Remos gets up in 300 feet or 9 seconds from full stop to liftoff.

John

the cubCrafter super sport is a highly specialized aircraft that can get off the ground in 40'. neither the ct or the remos can touch that.

the price you pay is 180hp engine cost and tandom seating ( diminished frontal plate area )

all 3 designs can work in the 800' strip but it will be highly defendant on pilot skill

Doss79 · Post by **Doss79** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:16 pm

seastar, a 90hp J3 Cub can takeoff in shorter distance than most Supercubs. Something around 100ft or less. Hell, they launched B25s as a test on land (no carrier) less than 400ft back during WWII.

JRamos9920 · Post by **JRamos9920** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:08 am

Ok ok.. my cover is blown, darn. I also am still unsure of who the list moderators are on here. I believe the fellow had asked about a cub for his 800 ft gravel strip. The specs of the aircraft I'm "pushing" quote a landing distance of 590 ft.. Seastar mentioned he "knows of nothing else that will operate on his 800 ft gravel strip".. I was simply trying to provide him with another option, no harm or aggressiveness intended.

If my postings are a source of bitterness for anyone, I will try my best to accomodate.

I am very open minded to as much knowledge of other aircraft I can learn. Interesting information on the cub. Best regards.

John[/quote]

JRamos9920 · Post by **JRamos9920** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:21 am

rfane wrote:
John,

Please take note that the forum name is Sport Pilot Tak, not LSA Dealer Talk. Quit the sales pitch in every post you make, especially when the person didn't ask anything about your product. Can an average pilot routinely put the Remos down and get it stopped on an 800 foot gravel strip?

Yes, they can. Ok ok.. my cover is blown, I post 9-5. I also am still unsure of who the list moderators are on here and what the rules are. I believe the fellow had asked about a cub for his 800 ft gravel strip. The specs of the aircraft I mentioned :X quote a landing distance of 590 ft.. Seastar mentioned he "knows of nothing else that will operate on his 800 ft gravel strip".. SO my answer is yes, an average pilot can put down a Remos on an 800 ft gravel strip. I was simply trying to provide him with another option, no aggressiveness intended.

If my postings are a source of bitterness for anyone, I will try my best to accomodate.

I am very open minded to as much knowledge of other aircraft I can learn. Interesting information on the cub. Best regards.

John

CharlieTango · Post by **CharlieTango** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:44 am

Hi John,

These are good conversations, I don't think you are the source of any bitterness but you do make statements that invite responses.

For instance you say that an average pilot can routinely put the Remos down and get it stopped on an 800' gravel strip because the specs say it has a landing distance of 590'.

I live in California and my observation would be that the average pilot fails to demonstrate enough judgment to contact the runway in the 1st 500' and the average pilot lands to fast to come close to "spec" landing distance.

Then what about obstacles? What about take-offs? What about margin for error?

Are you an average pilot? Can you touch down _ON THE NUMBERS EVERY TIME?_ Can you routinely stop in 800'? On gravel?

I have thousands of light sport landings and I'm sure I can stop in 800' or less but that doesn't mean I would be able to do it routinely.

Realize that questions on forums like this one often or usually come from students, wannabees, pilots without light sport experience and low time pilots. With that in mind my answer would be that 800' is not typically reasonable in the United States.

European Microlight Pilots are a different matter, they operate in an environment where short rough fields are all that are available and they become far more proficient with short fields right from their primary training.

Perhaps you are using the spec to determine it is possible then answering yes that the average guy can routinely do it. Better to error on the side of caution.

CharlieTango · Post by **CharlieTango** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:52 am

seastar wrote: It looks perfect for my 800 foot gravel strip in the North Woods.
I don't know of anything else that will operate out of my strip.

john,

read seastar's quote above there are clues and a lack of specifics.

clue="north woods" woods have trees and indicate obstacles and makes 800' potentially extremely short.

seastar doesn't mention elevation or climate. high density altitude due to high elevation and or hot temperatures effectively shorten that 800'.

rfane · Post by **rfane** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:23 am

Also, a stated landing distance of 590" would basically be the best that the Remos test pilots saw in their testing. Doesn't say anything about wind conditions, field elevation, etc. We have already discussed the embellishment of Remos' specifications in other posts, so I'd tend to doubt that an average pilot would routinely see the same results.

If the Remos is anything like the CT, you do not want to get behind the power curve on landing. Otherwise you will find out how an airplane can drop like a rock when it runs out of energy, and test how rugged that landing gear is.

Also, I'm not a moderator on this forum, only a member. However, having a dealer of a specific aircraft putting a sales pitch on us, is not what this forum is about, and isn't what I come here to see. I'm sure Remos can pay the forum owner for an advertisement.

CharlieTango · Post by **CharlieTango** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:37 am

you bring up a good point roger, "behind the power curve" to routinely land in 800' i would likely get in the habit of dragging it in. works fine till the motor stops on approach. also only works if there is a lack of obstacles on approach.

the Cubcrafters' Super Sport does have the performance to operate on a short rough field with obstacles and stay in front of the power curve.

john,

i sounds as though you are green and work for a dealer. your recommendations could result in someone risking a lot of money or even their safety. it takes time and experience to know the right answers.

it is ok to be a strong supporter of the Remos design but because it is an airplane you have a responsibility to give honest, conservative and correct answers.

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:27 pm

Hmmm...I could put my Ercoupe down in 800 feet and maybe even get it stopped; but I'd be hard pressed to take off unless there was one heck of a headwind.

Seriously, from what I've read, that new CubCrafters is quite an airplane. I would love to have something like that for local flying, even though I base at a field with 2000 foot runways (both tarmac and grass). It sounds as though it would fit the mission of your 800 foot field quite well. As far as tandem seating goes - it may not be quite as passenger-friendly as side-by-side seating, but each seat would likely have more space and better legroom.

I would like to take a test flight in a Remos one day - but right now I am looking at an Allegro 2000. My 'Coupe is great but "new and shiny" is very appealing (nearly new, anyway). Plus I'd like a tad bit more useful load - and a shorter takeoff roll for these hot Maryland summer days.

Unfortunately, the pricing on the new CubCrafters makes that much less appealing. I don't have any payments on the "Coupe and would have to finance part of the (lightly) used Allegro. But with the C/C I'd have a payment book with a LOT of pages.

ka7eej · Post by **ka7eej** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:17 pm

Bill,
I have had an Allegro 2000 (2006) for 2 years ... I love it and the price that I paid. May not have quite the bells and whistles of a Ct or Remos but it will get you off the ground quickly, fly very comfortably( flew it from North Carolina to Arizona), all the while burning 3.5 gph at about 110mph.
PM me if you have any questions agout Allegro!
Brian

tadel001 · Post by **tadel001** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:52 am

No, the average pilot could not land the Remos in less than 800'. If you want a relatively low price S-LSA with outstanding takeoff and landing performance, check out the Savannah VG. It will literally take off within 100' from stop to wheels off at max gross. I did it about 20 times as a test at an airport in Texas on an 80 degree day (probably near sea level).

The average pilot can land it in less than 500' after 5-6 landings. AFter 20 landings, you could get than number to less than 250'.

rfane · Post by **rfane** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:13 am

I believe the Savannah is based on the Zenith CH-701, which has great STOL capabilities. Zenith recently brought out the CH-750, which is a slightly larger version of the 701, and are selling it as an S-LSA.

Sport Pilot Talk

Cubcrafters

Cubcrafters

Re: Cubcrafters