How robust IS the CCSS

[Jim Harper]

Harper again. Sorry to be a pest, but as THE day gets closer, I am trying to do my due diligence. I got in an email discusson with a back country kind of pilot this weekend, and he said: "That (Carbon Cub SS) will NOT survive (structurally) a rugged area where you are going to be. My neighbor had some (Carbon Cub SS) experience and he said the fuselage is WAY TOO LIGHT and nearly impossible to fix. Wings are VERY expensive and you have to deal with CC to fix them." He went on to say that CubCrafters does make some rugged aircraft, but that the SS is not one of them. Needless to say, he is trying to sell me another airplane.

My "rugged area", as related, is New Mexico. I really have no intent to really pound rocks with an airplane, although we do plan on doing some exploring.

I am pretty sure that the guy was blowing a fair amount of smoke. Certainly, I am pretty doubtful of "I knew a guy who knew a guy who said..." sort of deals. However, my wife (she who must be obeyed ) insisted I ask this august group what their opinions are.

With all humility, and hoping and expecting a reassuring response, what say you?

Jim

[seastar]

First. you must realize that this is a CubCrafters forum.
The answers you get will be biased because most of us own a CCSS.
Having said that, I bought one because I was impressed by the design and testing effort that was employed in the development of the airplane.
http://www.cubcrafters.com/carboncub...y#!prettyPhoto[video4]/0/
I also believe that Jim Richmond has high integrity.

I have been disappointed by the robustness of the airplane in some small areas but not in the overall "strength" of the design.
CubCrafters has quickly fixed the important issues that have appeared in my airplane although not always for free.

I would suggest that you read all of the service bulletins on this website.
They will give you an idea of the service history of the airplane.

You should also read the NTSB accident reports for the type.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

This is a very light airplane that had to be designed to meet the almost impossible LSA specifications and some compromises were made.

I would buy another!
Bill
CC-SS SN124

[Springloaded]

Jim
Thats kinda like asking hey do you think your wifes ugly. I dont think asking anybody who spent over a $100,00 on a cub,is your plane a peice of junk will get a fair anwser no matter which one you have. I own a restored PA11 & 2009 S2
I have been in the Custom metal fabrication for 30 years were our clients demand perfect and havent seen any thing "almost impossible" to fix it is just metal and wings are probably very expensive you get what you pay for.I would be willing to bet the wings and fuselage are way stronger than your body,i looked at these cubs for a few years before buying one. The quality of the plane the fit and finish are the best I have seen out there. I am sure they had to lighten things up to be light sport so people could fly them as such. If you take a new airplane and run it into a tree or take the gear or prop out on the rocks it is the pilots fault not the planes and insurance company will worry about fix. Any time I hear somebody say something like that It usally comes from lack of knowledge or just jealous. I dont land on big rocks in Florida just cow pastures,dried lake beds,farmfields ,airboat trails, drive ways etc. and have never felt like it was coming apart or not structualy sound.Cub Crafters has been restoring cubs for many years so would take there knowledge way before somebody just trying to sell me a plane,he is selling one ,they want to sell couple thousand so they need to make sure they are all good. I have had a few issues with my plane and they have always made it right.I have a about 700 hours in Pa11 & Pa18 and have seen a lot of broken parts (Old Age) which was one of my reasons for buying a newer one.I am sure if you buy a CC you will be more then happy with there product. I can assure you im am a picky pain in the A$$ if you can make me happy you have done something.
Good Luck
Chuck
(Alaska search and rescue pilot told me use your superior judgment to avoid having to use your superior skills)

[Jim Harper]

Thanks, guys! Bill...I did indeed go to the NTSB accident reports. If memory serves, there were 5 CCSS accidents. One fatal...what appeared to be a stall/spin after an aggressive climb-out in Colorado...from 200 or so feet. That scenario is not unique to the Carbon Cub, and (realize I don't know the individual involved, and not to speak badly of those who have passed on) sounds like a "hey, watch THIS" sort of deal. Certainly not airplane related. The other four were on landing, a couple on unimproved strips leading to a surprise obstacle, and a couple classic groundloops...which is sort of what you would expect in a conventional geared airplane. Of note, in two of the landing accidents, the airplane wound up on its back...and no injuries, so I would define that as robust enough. I agree that the LSA requirements are near-on impossible, so accomplishing that in an airplane with such a good service record ain't trivial. About the only compromise that reading through the boards that seems troublesome is the battery...and again, lead and water are heavy!

Chuck. Nice to meet another picky PITA...me too. I agree that regardless of how light the folks at CC went on the CCSS, brand new steel is stronger than 20-30 year old steel. I was impressed with the fit and finish (well, actually floored by the fit and finish) when I looked at the airplane. I came to this forum with the question for two reasons...this group has more experience with the airplane than the guy who knows a guy who knew...and you betcha, I wanted answers driven by folks who are proud of their airplane.

Oh, and I kinda expected Levold to chime in...

Thanks for your time and well thought out and informative answers. Clearly people are spending this much on this little airplane for good reason. Oh, and I agree, based on everything I have heard and read, Jim Richmond is a man of high integrity.

Jim

[JohnM]

Chuck. Nice to meet another picky PITA...me too. I agree that regardless of how light the folks at CC went on the CCSS, brand new steel is stronger than 20-30 year old steel. I was impressed with the fit and finish (well, actually floored by the fit and finish) when I looked at the airplane. I came to this forum with the question for two reasons...this group has more experience with the airplane than the guy who knows a guy who knew...and you betcha, I wanted answers driven by folks who are proud of their airplane.

Jim,

The SportCub and CarbonCubs are built like real airplanes, strong like real airplanes and fly like real airplanes but just happen to be light sport. A CarbonCub owner gives up very, very little to fly and own his fun airplane.

The CarbonCub can go out the door as the CarbonCub EX (the kit) where the builder can certify his finished airplane at 1865 lbs with only 2 minor changes to the CCSS airframe. The EX uses different gear legs and the horizontal stab from the TopCub. In other words, this alleged light duty airframe is built withstand a much higher load than the 1320lb LSA gross weight.

The guy you were talking to is either trying to sell you something else or was just plain envious. Thanks for knowing crap when you hear it and giving us the opportunity to talk about our airplane.

Regards,

JM

[Jim Harper]

JM: Thanks for your reply, and yup, I was pretty much aware of the SS/EX similarities. I agree that the guy didn't know of what he spoke, but I appreciate that you guys are willing to speak up in defense of your airplanes.

This is a good forum and I appreciate y'all helping me through this pretty big decision!

Jim

[randylervold]

Oh, and I kinda expected Levold to chime in...

No way! You asked for candid honest feedback from owners and I'm very glad to see them weigh in and respond to your questions. Any comment I make will be perceived as biased.

Frankly, this forum has turned out to be exactly what I hoped it would be: a place where owners, and prospective owners, can compare notes in an open manner but with the factory monitoring things so as to make sure the facts are correct. Thank you to all the participants for making this happen, please keep it up!

[Jim Harper]

Sorry I misspelled your name, by the bye...I agree. This is a very useful forum and I've found that the owners are willing to speak out. I've made a point to not do the individual message route so as to make it a more public discussion. Good forum and what appears to be a helluva product.

Jim

[John Hodges]

We land ours where it's rough enough to make it difficult to walk around when we get out. Check out CaliforniaCubs.com. We've had one part break -- a stiffener in the tail. CC has a service bulletin out on that.

[glickle]

Hi Guys , Just catching up in the forum after a 2 month (I think) absence due to that four letter word "work". This thread certainly caught my eye and yes this is a prejudicial answer but straight up. I too heard the comment Jim has repeated about the CC not being tough and I can say, I used to hear it a lot more years ago and now less and less as these birds get exposure and have been around for a while. (We started in 2007 at our airport with 1 and I think we have at least 6 on the field now) Jim, I was one of the first adopters of this plane with my 6ft 7 210lb frame and I not only fit, but am very comfortable in this plane. So comfortable I have flown cross country to Washington 3 times, Wisconsin twice, Maine 5 times etc etc all from Florida. I bought a 2007 Sport Cub 100hp when they first came out. Yes I had some issues like back windows separating due to adhesive , or overheating and some bad cylinder issues related to the O-200s but CC stood behind everything and I was not deterred. They also fixed the design hiccups along the way as they learned more from planes in the field. Then Richmond tossed me the keys to a Carbon Cub when it first came out. I tried it on and I ( along with everyone in this forum) have never been the same since. I am now on my second Carbon Cub. First one was a 2009 now a 2013 (traded to get the extended baggage) and all in, I have almost 2000 hrs in these planes. Try as I might, I have not broken one yet. We mostly land off airport similar to Chucks descriptions and often hit logs heavy brush, smaller rocks ( not like Bens) here in Florida along with bull or armadila holes etc on ranches and dirt roads. I also swap every 6 months from bush wheels to Bauman Amphibs enjoying the Bahamas, Keys and Lakes all up and down the East Coast of the US. Water landings and Take offs including up to 1.5 ft chop or waves, beaching and anchored out for days and again no breaking the plane. One of our pals flys with us in a fully 1996 reconditioned 1971 Super Cub. It too is a great airplane but as Chuck so eloquently pointed out, he has actually been in the shop many times for old broken parts and we land in the same areas. Sooo not scientific but just an observation. The Super Cub is on Edos and I have to throttle back to 2100 rpm just to stay with him at 5.5 gph whiles hes humming along at 11 gph at 2600. And take off distances comparing the CC vs Super Cub on floats is well should i say ridiculous? Of course all the while hes making comments on the radio that Cubcrafters would be proud of. ( Randy maybe a new marketing campaign to record those comments, and I bet we have all experienced them) So its time to jump on in Jim , the waters fine, in my humble opinion. Come join the fun you wont regret it, Best Gary