CubCrafters unveils new turbine powered turboprop Carbon Cub ULT

[Neal]

Carbon Cub ULT | CubCrafters

Adventure Unleashed

cubcrafters.com

Social media discussion claims 7-10 gph, price point optioned out around 750K (yeah, this will push 1m, add floats and...)

Who will insure it and what will that cost?

Power comes from the new TurboTech TP-R90, a FADEC-controlled regenerative turboprop out of France

 

[Neal]

Maybe someday, hoping, wishing, I can get a Carbon Cub that I can fly with both windows open, and door, and not blow out flimsy rear panes held in with double-sided tape? Maybe?

 

[Neal]

 

[Neal]

 

[ve6yeq]

It is great to see multiple engine options (Rotax and now turbine) that do not require 100LL. Both still have a generation or two of optimization before they will significantly improve upon the current IO-360 based designs but I hope that they get there before 100LL becomes unavailable or just unaffordable.

 

[Tsquared]

Funny how it’s described as a light, minimalist Cub when it’s equipped with Starlink and a forward looking thermal camera.

That said I’m going to buy some lotto tickets…

 

[ve6yeq]

I also saw the Starlink button and dual batteries. Given the 100 mph limit on Starlink, are they assuming that prospective owners will be signing up for the Starlink Aviation plans?

 

[Neal]

My prediction is this will be a proof of concept. I don't see this selling, probably no more than 5-10 if that after the dealer demos are done. The 916is is going to remain their bread and butter especially for those west of the continental divide and/or concerned about the future of 100LL. I personally prefer Lycoming over Rotax, I've seen far too many Rotax engine failures, to each their own. Hopefully CubCrafters will eventually get rid of all of those other displays and integrate into the G3X/G4X as right now, like the initial UL, the panel is not optimal for what buyers want, IMHO.

On the topic of 100LL, I'm sure we'll see the gov't at that time further extend it. The amount of aircraft/engines depending on it will make it hard to ever go away, but that's for another thread.

The engine being from France concerns me. For those of us that have Beringers and have had to deal with getting things from France know the pain. I'm hoping to finally get my correct backing plates for my brakes next month!

 

[Tsquared]

I also saw the Starlink button and dual batteries. Given the 100 mph limit on Starlink, are they assuming that prospective owners will be signing up for the Starlink Aviation plans?

If you can afford a three quarters of a million dollar, back country toy and the insurance for said toy, I doubt a starlink plan is going to be much of a concern.

Maybe I’ll buy a couple of lotto tickets

 

[Neal]

I think they may have found a way to make the loudest cub ever built - louder!

 

[Neal]

So the question is, what is the target market for a turbine powered cub?

My motorhome manufacturer (Newmar) with a new CEO has completely missed their target audience catering to the NASCAR team owners instead of families and retirees pursuing their dream of touring the country. Sales have been abysmal. CubCrafters seems quite proud of the stunts performed with their cubs, to me, that completely misses the point of these planes. They are for people to take and explore the backcountry, camp, be with friends, etc. The joy of flight which nothing represents better than the J-3, Super Cubs, etc. Simple, low and slow, and enjoyable.

Now we've taken cubs to extremely complex glass cockpits, yeah, that's the thing of today, okay fine. Fuel injection, electronic ignition, constant speed propellers, and producing cubs now averaging 1/2 mil with insane insurance as people can't seem to figure out how to fly within their limitations.

When I was at build week for my FX-3 someone had a VFR round dial panel. I said to Zach (may he RIP) now that's the way it should be. He responded yeah but that's going to have a resale problem. Yeah, you're right, I suppose.

People have heard me say "I wish I would have just gotten a J-3" to just enjoy flight. Not pay $6K/year for insurance and be fearful of flying a stupid expensive cub with stupid expensive tires that don't like paved surfaces. Composite props that don't like, well, anything that it comes in contact with.

Now we have a turbine powered turboprop CUB. Someone explain to me the target market for this type of plane? You have an engine from France, which would be very concerning to me if I was a buyer. Other than the "I have something someone else doesn't have" what is the use case for a 750K-1M cub with a turbine on the front other than Draco (may it RIP)? What does it gain you over the other far less expensive, cough, 500K cubs? At least Draco had a 737 landing light. Now that was cool!

Instead I'd like to see innovation related to backcountry flying. Things I'm really liking in what I see coming from Legend Aircraft and now with Craig Catto helping them out with their composite components, etc. Designing wings to provide better STOL performance, removable wingtips to explore different airfoil options, built in slats or a better aerodynamic design for our type of flying. Better flap designs, larger tails for better slow speed performance. Maybe windows that don't fly out when enjoying cub flight with windows and door open, at all speeds.

I'd like to see the focus on making a better bush plane with better STOL performance and continuing to improve on the foundation of the cub. Simple to fly, max enjoyment.

 

[Cactus Charlie]

Other than the "I have something someone else doesn't have" what is the use case for a 750K-1M cub with a turbine on the front other than Draco (may it RIP)? What does it gain you over the other far less expensive, cough, 500K cubs? At least Draco had a 737 landing light. Now that was cool!

Since you are going of on a bit of a tangent I'll just say that Draco was not a Cub. It was an extensively modified Wilga. Scrappy has some traceability to a CubCrafters EX.

 

[Neal]

Since you are going of on a bit of a tangent I'll just say that Draco was not a Cub. It was an extensively modified Wilga. Scrappy has some traceability to a CubCrafters EX.

Valid. It's just the only turbine powered "backcountry" plane I'm aware in a similar weight class and category, realizing there are other turbine aircraft on floats, etc. I did enjoy watching Draco at OSH circa 2018. Scrappy is not turbine.

 

[Neal]

I often wonder who does the engineering at or for CubCrafters. I'd bet $1 it's Mike Patey.

 

[Cubonaut875]

I’ll second that part about France

 

[Waldom]

Cubcrafters seems to do pretty well at finding customers to market to. The NX Cub is one example. Although I wouldn't want my friends to see me in one, adding a nose wheel to the airplane was a genius move. I suspect NX cubs outsell conventional gear models.

I would guess the ULT will find a market overseas in locations where avgas is not widely available. For those concerned about future avgas availability in the U.S., the UL model is the more economical answer. There are some stateside customers that don't want to bother hauling their own auto fuel to the airport, so they may be buyers for the ULT if they can afford it.

To the point of purchase cost, Cubcrafters charges what the market will bear. Since they don't cut metal without a paid order and they have a considerable production backlog, the market will apparently bear quite a lot. That is not to say that these airplanes aren't expensive to produce or that the costs of developing and certifying new models is isn't astronomical.

As far as build quality, there is no question of the structural integrity of Cubcrafters design engineering. Some of their choices in systems are unacceptable to me personally. I don't care for using clear plastic tubing for fuel lines, for example. If there is an issue with windows blowing out while flying with the doors open, that is sad. Piper didn't have that issue when they built the forerunner of the design nearly ninety years ago.

Regarding insurance costs, we have ourselves partly to blame. Too many pilots underestimate the skills required for their mission. They surmise that since they own a bush capable airplane, they are therefore a bush pilot and sally forth without bothering to acquire the necessary proficiency. If you survive, you can certainly learn by this method but it is rather expensive............for all of us. There is also the issue that the environment these airplanes are designed to operate in carries higher risk over most general aviation operations. It is up to us to recognize and minimize that risk.

 

[Cactus Charlie]

Regarding insurance costs, we have ourselves partly to blame. Too many pilots underestimate the skills required for their mission. They surmise that since they own a bush capable airplane, they are therefore a bush pilot and sally forth without bothering to acquire the necessary proficiency. If you survive, you can certainly learn by this method but it is rather expensive............for all of us.

A review of the NTSB accident reports suggest to me that most accidents that are driving insurance costs happen on very nice runways not out in the sticks. (I was going to say wide, paved, runways but one was recently destroyed on a nice grass runway.)